Scottish Parliament, 5 November 2009

405 contributions from 78 members. The official report.

Official Report 5 November 2009

Supporting Families

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S3M-5112, in the name of Elizabeth Smith, on supporting families.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

On 24 September, in Labour's debate on child protection measures, the Scottish Conservatives submitted an amendment that made abundantly plain our firm belief that the family is the most important building block in society. That amendment received unanimous support, so the importance of the family unit to helping our young people through a loving, caring and supportive environment clearly struck an important chord with every party in the Parliament. From the Scottish National Party, we heard that children do best in a strong and supportive family environment; from Labour, we heard about the need for a coherent strategy to enhance the quality of life for our families; and from the Liberals we heard that it is no doubt the best option to support children living with their own families.

So there is cross-party agreement, but just as was the case in the drugs debate, the next stage will be the real test. That is when we will find out whether we can lift the debate to another level, away from warm words and into meaningful action, however difficult and challenging it might have to be. As with the drugs debate, the problem that we are considering is hugely complex and pervasive and there will be many pitfalls along the way. My party would never pretend that we have all the answers—it would be grossly naive and arrogant for anyone to assume that they do. However, we have the courage of our convictions that we cannot stand by and do nothing. This morning, we issue a challenge to every member of the Parliament to stand together to address a matter that threatens to further destabilise the broken society that exists for far too many people and which costs the United Kingdom more than £20 billion a year, while the resulting burdens on family relatives, social work services and our justice system go much deeper than just the money.

The extent of the breakdown was never more obvious to me than on the day in 2002 when I was present when lain Duncan Smith made his first visit to Easterhouse. Like him, I heard for myself the harrowing accounts of the broken relationships, poverty, substance abuse and psychological turmoil that affected some of the families whose lives were described by Bob Holman and Sandy Weddell from the Easterhouse community. I saw the emotion on lain Duncan Smith's face and I heard the conversation in the car thereafter. In his words, it was a political journey that had hurt. We saw a community that was so remote and so far removed from any hope that it was tempting—so very tempting—simply to cross the road and walk away. lain Duncan Smith committed himself that day—no one can doubt that that commitment is real—to the fact that the issue goes well beyond party-political boundaries and that it will never be addressed by a simplistic solution or in the absence of consensus on the way forward.

I will set out some of the things that we have to do, beginning with the most important issue, which is parenting. Although it is right to acknowledge that the majority of parents in the country provide caring and effective support for their children, we must also acknowledge that there is a growing minority of parents who genuinely find it difficult to pass on parenting skills to their children because they are the children of parents who did not possess those skills. That is not their fault, but neither is it acceptable simply to say that they are a sad reflection of modern society. Those parents, particularly those whose problems stem from alcohol or substance misuse, need our help and they most often need that help from within their immediate communities.

That is why it is important that we make more effort to support those who work in the voluntary sector—the unsung heroes who are often best placed to change lives for the better. Our voluntary sector is outstanding, but at present many groups are under threat, partly because of funding issues, but also because they feel that their future is uncertain. I appreciate just how tight budgets are and the pressures that that brings, but we cannot accept some of the hindrances that are placed on the philanthropists and charitable foundations that are potential donors. An example is the crippling effect of the change from advanced corporation tax to tax on revenue income, which has reduced the available funds for some of Scotland's biggest foundations by £0.5 million a year. Another example is the gift aid system, which is plagued by expensive and time-consuming bureaucracy that diverts resources away from good causes.

The Conservatives are determined to solve those issues with new policies that will remove the barriers, improve the uptake of gift aid from its very low take-up rate of 34 per cent and enshrine the principle that charitable giving should be made out of untaxed income. We will also reform the national lottery, so that it returns to its roots as a supporter of good ideas from within communities, rather than being a vehicle for directing voluntary income into Government priorities and one that is often disproportionately skewed towards the public sector. We have plans to put in place a voluntary action lottery fund, which will replace the Big Lottery Fund and be completely independent of Government.

Beside that, we will put on the table policies that will end the perverse financial incentive against couples who choose to marry and end the part of the benefits system that penalises married couples. As other countries have done, we must structure our tax and benefits systems to end any financial disincentives and an overdependence on the state. A large part of that is about creating better employment opportunities and a single back-to-work programme for everyone who is on out-of-work benefits to replace the complex and inefficient current system. The Scottish Conservatives have got major commitments out of the Scottish Government—on lowering the burden of business rates, a town centre regeneration fund and the freezing of the council tax—but we also want a business dividend fund to encourage local authorities to be better placed to support new business start-ups. We want far more flexibility on child care and the provision of nursery school facilities.

We must also provide help in the home and at school. The Scottish Conservatives have made a £20 million commitment to begin the introduction of a universal health visitor service for under-fives, so that parents get regular professional help with looking after their children's health and welfare from the earliest possible stage. Nothing could be more important than trying to break down some of the health barriers that exist in the lives of too many young children. Those barriers often mean that the children encounter other social and educational difficulties. In many schools, pupils learn about the social and financial responsibilities that come with being a parent, and we are keen for that good practice to be developed in all schools throughout the country.

I return to the main reasons for the debate, which are that 137,000 children have no parent in work; that 200,000 children in Scotland live in poverty; and that 60,000 children live with parents who are addicted to drugs and maybe as many as 100,000 live with parents who are addicted to alcohol. It is not rocket science to recognise the extent of the problems. We are setting out on a difficult and probably tortuous journey, but not to make that journey would be to deny our responsibilities as elected members and to deny many of our young people the right to be part of a loving, caring and supportive family. We have no choice, so I will move the motion in my name.

I move,

That the Parliament considers that the family is the natural building block of our society; notes the significant pressures facing families in Scotland today arising from relationship breakdown, poverty, unemployment and substance abuse; regrets that one in four Scottish children is growing up in a single-parent household and that 137,000 Scottish children have no parent in work, and believes that action is required to improve parenting support, to expand the role of health visitors, to fully harness the voluntary sector in this work and to recognise marriage in the tax and benefits system.

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I am, of course, happy to contribute to a debate on how we might best support Scotland's families, particularly at a time when many of them face hardship and difficulties through no fault of their own. In that context, I regret the faintly moralising tone of the Conservative motion and I question the demand for preferential treatment for certain categories of families in the tax and benefits system. We should not forget that the process of phasing out the married couples income tax allowance started under the last Tory Government, so we will take no lectures from members on that side of the chamber.

All families need support, but some are more vulnerable to poor outcomes. It is vital that our policies recognise that and promote actions that support our people. Last year, we published "Achieving Our Potential: A Framework to tackle poverty and income inequality in Scotland", which sets out our ambitious approach to tackling poverty and income inequality. Together with the social policies in the early years framework and "Equally Well: Report of the Ministerial Task Force on Health Inequalities", it represents a comprehensive and co-ordinated attack on the poverty and inequality that disfigures Scottish society.

We are determined to break the cycles of disadvantage that have blighted the lives of too many families for too long. With our partners, we are pursuing a range of actions to make a real difference on those deep-seated and difficult problems. Although the current devolution settlement limits what can be achieved for our people, the Government has a new level of ambition for Scotland and is determined to deliver real lasting change. Together with our partners, we are committed to a programme of work to improve outcomes for all Scotland's children. That is being achieved through the implementation of key change programmes such as getting it right for every child and the early years framework, which place children and young people's needs at the centre of what we do.

We want to help parents to improve outcomes for themselves and their children by providing support at the earliest possible stage to stop problems escalating. We have some great support for families in the early years—midwives, health visitors and community nursing teams who support parents during pregnancy and early parenthood are known, valued and trusted. We want to build on that by bringing a greater focus on parenting skills and capacity, and by developing care pathways to ensure that parents who have different types and levels of need are given the right support.

The role of building relationships between parents is crucial, which is why we fund voluntary organisations such as Scottish Marriage Care and Relationships Scotland, as well as family mediation services based in local authorities throughout Scotland. Such services work to reduce conflict and heal relationships where possible, while valuing marriage and the family relationship. However, where parental relationships have broken down irretrievably, those organisations also support parents to create a stable environment for their children.

Some families face particular challenges, recession or no recession. Tackling parental substance misuse is a priority for the Government. We want to ensure that more people recover from drug and alcohol problems so that they can live longer, healthier lives, realise their potential and make a positive contribution within their families and the wider community. Our early intervention approach will mean that young people do not start down that road in the first place.

The Scottish Government recognises the important role that is played by grandparents and other kinship carers in providing secure and stable homes for children. Extended families who take on that responsibility provide a valuable service and should be supported in carrying out that role. The Scottish Government is determined to do what it can to help improve their situation. One of the problems that we face in providing financial support for kinship carers is that the United Kingdom benefits system does not interact well with the allowances that local authorities pay to kinship carers. That is particularly true for kinship carers of looked-after children, who are not entitled to child benefit, and where the allowance that is intended for the child can affect other benefits that the carer would otherwise be entitled to.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I accept what the minister says and the fact that there is an issue around the benefits system. I understand that Jim Murphy and others are looking at that question. What is the Scottish Government doing to address the disparity between local authorities in Scotland in the funding that is being made available to kinship carers at the moment?

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I am pleased to hear that the Secretary of State for Scotland is taking up the issue. As the member knows, we engage regularly with local authorities through the concordat mechanisms so that we can ensure that those commitments are fulfilled.

From August this year, all pupils whose parents receive maximum child tax credit and maximum working tax credit are now eligible for free school lunches, thus extending entitlement to an additional 44,000 pupils. In addition, legislation has been passed to enable local authorities to provide all primary 1 to primary 3 pupils in Scotland with free school lunches from August 2010, meaning that, from then, around 40 per cent of pupils in Scotland will be entitled to free, healthy, nutritious school lunches.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

No, the minister should be winding up.

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I am sure that hard-pressed families—in my experience, most parents with young families are hard pressed—will be particularly grateful for such support.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I must ask you to close please, minister.

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I firmly believe that early and effective intervention and helping parents to help themselves and their families must be at the heart of building a more successful Scotland, and that is what we are trying to deliver.

I move amendment S3M-5112.1, to leave out from "regrets" to end and insert

"believes that the Scottish Government should focus on addressing the impact of the recession and take steps to ease the burden on families; recognises that long-term relationships provide stability in many families and acknowledges the status of marriage in society, and believes that the needs and best interests of the child should always be at the centre of policies to support and promote stable families and reflect the reality of family life in Scotland."

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Thank you. From now on, all speeches should be of around four minutes. I call Des McNulty to speak to and move amendment S3M-5112.1.1, which seeks to amend amendment S3M-5112.1, in the name of Adam Ingram.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

I am glad that it was you who had to say that, Presiding Officer.

The question that we need to ask ourselves during this debate is how we can best support families with children. I am talking about all types of family, not the kind of family we ideally want to see. Although relationship breakdown can be a cause as well as a consequence of stress on families, it is not our role to prescribe how people should live, or to moralise about single-parent families. As a society we have to deal with the consequences of poverty, unemployment and substance abuse, especially as they affect children and whether those things occur in one or two-parent families. For that reason, I have reservations about the tone as well as some of the substance of the Conservative motion.

The job of Government, as the SNP amendment rightly states, is to provide support where it is needed and, in particular, to act in the best interests of children. We need to consider whether the services that we provide for all families with children are adequate and appropriate, as well as providing targeted support to the most vulnerable families. Research shows that targeted interventions, such as those that were pioneered by the Dundee families project, have benefited parents and children in the most difficult of circumstances. There has been some roll-out of such provision, but the organisations involved in supporting our most needy families are clear that more places are needed.

However, for many families the kind of wraparound support that is provided in the Dundee project would not be appropriate. For them, some form of parenting support or support package to deal with identified needs might be sufficient. Needs vary and the inflexibility of provision is often the barrier to uptake. The most pressing requirement for many families is child care support, which was identified as a priority by the incoming Labour Government in 1997; arguably the most significant policy interventions of the early years of Labour's period in government were the substantial expansion of child care support and its tailoring to the needs of parents and their children.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will the member give way?

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

No, I will not take an intervention.

That took slightly different forms north and south of the border, but the changes that were introduced between 1997 and 1999, which have been continued by all the devolved Administrations subsequently, have made a huge difference.

It is remarkable that the Conservatives, whose support for families was miserly and half-hearted throughout the dark days of the Thatcher and Major Governments, should suddenly make the family a policy priority. David Cameron wants to swing his axe on public spending and George Osborne is positively slavering in anticipation of the opportunity to slice budgets across every part of the public sector, yet we are asked to believe that the Conservatives, in the unlikely form of lain Duncan Smith, have been converted on the road to Damascus. Apparently Easterhouse was an important way station on the route. My concern is that his Conservative colleagues want to take us down a via dolorosa, with vulnerable families likely to be particularly disadvantaged not just by cuts in services, but by Tory proposals to reform tax credits and other benefits on which those families rely.

It is true that there are too many Scottish families with no parent in work and that up to a quarter of all children are growing up in single-parent households. For those families, nothing could be more destabilising than the removal of financial support by changing the benefits system to their disadvantage. During the previous Conservative Government, the more right-wing ministers argued that high unemployment was a good thing because it broke the culture of dependency. These days, the language has changed and latterly we hear more about so-called compassionate conservativism, but behind the spin, the Conservative party has not changed the fundamentals of its political philosophy. It is still wedded to a blame culture that sees social problems as the fault of the people who are the victims. Its core instinct is to minimise contributions through taxation, while the rest of us believe that society has to shoulder its responsibilities.

The amendment in my name highlights the need to ensure that we provide the support that families need to survive the economic pressures that we face as a consequence of the economic downturn. There is a broad consensus for that in the other parties, the Conservatives aside. The pressures are unevenly distributed and many families with children are on the edge, financially. At the very least, we should not be tipping them over the edge.

I move amendment S3M-5112.1.1, to insert at end:

"and urges the Scottish Government to prioritise support for parents and extended families, ensuring that evaluation of these services is geared towards improving the quality and range of support that can be offered."

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I call Margaret Smith to speak to and move amendment S3M-5112.1.2, which seeks to amend amendment S3M-5112.1, in the name of Adam Ingram. If she could do that in about the same time that it has taken me to call her, I would be very grateful.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

I welcome the debate on supporting families. As a Liberal, I might argue that I see the individual as the essential building block of society. Nevertheless, I have no hesitation in agreeing that strong individuals are shaped in strong, happy families where they experience love and respect. For me, stable family life represents undoubtedly the best start in life for our children.

Sometimes, however, families need help. That is why we pay tribute, in our amendment, to the work that is done by the voluntary sector in supporting families. That sector is under pressure from the effects of the concordat, tendering, single outcome agreements, increased demand for services, the tight financial settlement for local government and the reduction in revenue in the teeth of a recession. The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations is absolutely right when it says that it is caught in a "perfect storm". It is crucial that the Scottish Government considers how it can support the voluntary sector in every way possible.

The Parliament, too, can do a great deal to support families. For some, such as the 40,000 to 60,000 children who are affected by parental drug misuse, that will mean a great deal of state intervention in their lives. For many, it will mean the possibility of the state assuming the corporate parental role; for others, that is only right and we should not be afraid to do that in good time. It is clear to us that the protection of our children is one of the paramount challenges that the country faces. It is a challenge that we must and will face together, learning the lessons from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education, properly assessing risk for every child and then properly supporting that child.

Most families need access to a comprehensive range of services, from flexible child care options to local schools and the national health service that underpins our lives and our families' wellbeing. Most families want a Government and a Parliament that enable each child to grasp opportunities with both hands and enable each family to achieve its potential. Only last week, the Parliament came together to support independent students and students with children in taking up the opportunities of higher education. That was only right.

Right now, there are a number of threats to Scotland's families. We have heard about drug and alcohol misuse, but chief among those threats are the difficulties that are brought about by recession. That is why we agree with the Government that our primary focus must be Scotland's economic future. The spectres of unemployment, homelessness and poverty hang over too many Scottish homes, bringing with them relationship difficulties, stress and uncertainty. We need to foster the range of strategies that will keep people in work, and we must train people for work and reskill those who have lost their jobs.

Too many of our children grow up in poverty. The lack of affordable, available and flexible child care is the single biggest barrier to improving parents' employability, especially that of lone parents. There must, therefore, be greater levels of support for vulnerable and disadvantaged parents as they enter and pursue employment, education and training. We welcome the Government's willingness to accept the calls of the Opposition parties last week to increase by £2 million the child care funds that are available as part of the increased student support package.

Sometimes, however, it is not about funding. Time and time again, when I deal with constituents who are looking for council houses, I see that little or no notice appears to be taken of family support networks and the ability of relatives who live nearby to assist parents in holding down jobs. The allocation of council houses never seems to take those human, family factors into account.

It is vital for Scotland's future and families that we get the approach to early years education right. Increasing the provision of early years services is good not just for families, but for the economy. Pound for pound, it is a better use of resources to put funds into pre-school education than it is to put them into tertiary education. All members will know, from their constituencies, the fantastic work that is being done in breakfast clubs, after-school clubs and homework clubs throughout the country, which is having positive impacts on children and families.

We want working families to be able to hold on to more of their earnings and to be able to make the best choices about how they use their money. Our top priority is fairer taxes for those who are on lower and middle incomes. We would aid the poorest and most disadvantaged families by ensuring fairer taxes that would lift the burden on ordinary people. We would lift the tax threshold to £10,000, which would provide an incentive to work and save. It is surely wrong that people on the minimum wage should be dragged into tax. Successive Governments have built up a benefits system that makes it virtually impossible for many families to work their way out of poverty and improve their way of life. The cash that is given to help families, such as tax credits and council tax benefit, is taken away when they start to earn above a certain amount. We think that that is fundamentally wrong.

We know that we have a challenge ahead of us in supporting families in Scotland, but we are absolutely committed to rising to that challenge.

I move amendment S3M-5112.1.2, to insert at end:

", and notes the valuable role of the voluntary sector in the delivery of services to children, parents and families, particularly those in vulnerable or disadvantaged circumstances."

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Tellingly, in her opening speech, Liz Smith observed that the real test is whether we can turn the warm words that so often accompany cross-party agreement into meaningful action. I will concentrate entirely on applying that test to the future of health visiting.

Yesterday, I visited a relatively new medical centre in Glasgow Springburn. I sat below a flashy brass plaque that informed me that the opening ceremony had been performed by the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing. Yet, as I sat there in the shiny new briefing suite, I heard how, despite its being one of the 85 Scottish general practitioner practices that feature in the top 100 GP practices that serve the most disadvantaged communities anywhere in the United Kingdom, it is supported by just one health visitor. That is almost too staggering to accept. Eighty-five of the 100 GP practices that serve the most disadvantaged communities are in Scotland, and in Springburn—a practice that serves some 7,000 patients in one of the most disadvantaged communities of all—there is just one health visitor. It gets worse. In the Possil practice, which is regarded as the GP practice that serves the most disadvantaged community anywhere in the UK, there has been—almost unbelievably—no health visitor at all for four weeks.

When the Parliament first met after the 2007 election, we debated the need to tackle inequality. The Scottish Conservatives expressed reservations at that time and have done so ever since about the piecemeal approach that is being taken on health visiting throughout Scotland. There are as many policies on how to deliver the service as there are health boards. In Glasgow, despite a petition calling for the health board's plans to be halted and changed, which attracted more than 20,000 signatures, the whole profession of health visiting—the very fabric of any service at all—is in chaos and is disintegrating before our eyes.

The Government can no longer adopt a hands-off approach. The Scottish Conservatives called for an independent scrutiny panel to be appointed to review the major changes in this area of the health service that seek to jeopardise both our universal health visiting service and to experiment with the lives of the most disadvantaged. There may not be a shiny building of bricks and mortar to stand and pose outside—health visiting is not visible in the way that an accident and emergency department is; it is a service that is built entirely on the hard work of dedicated people—but the changes have had a profound effect, which is proving wholly detrimental. Our request for an ISP was rejected, but such a review is needed more than ever. We repeat our call for an ISP now and as a matter of urgency.

One GP wrote to me to say:

"We have had a near meltdown in SE Glasgow CHCP. In my own practice we now have 4 days cover instead of 6 after 8 months of virtually no cover. I can give countless tales of woe. The problem is we are just too tired to complain any more".

A GP in Nicola Sturgeon's constituency of Glasgow Govan told me:

"I think children are more vulnerable in Glasgow now because of the deficient HV numbers and the inevitable move away from being GP attached. ... The situation is entirely the result of the realignment of the service".

Alarmingly, the GP continued:

"I have a fear that paradoxically there may be an improvement in the child protection statistics because children will essentially be invisible under this restructuring".

There is now a widespread shortage of health visitors. Just as we forecast, lack of consultation has fuelled resistance to the proposals and has led, in turn, to many older and experienced health visitors feeling hopelessly undervalued and leaving the service. The move away from health visitors being GP attached has led to the loss of vital whole-practice intelligence. New recruits are being brought in on lower pay bands and with less experience—if they are being recruited at all. To add further to the collapse, the health visitor team leaders who were recruited just a year ago, mostly from among the most experienced health visitor corps and on the basis of their posts being 50 per cent clinical and 50 per cent managerial, have returned all their casework files within the past month following the announcement that their posts are now to be 100 per cent managerial.

The team approach that is being implemented has led to a breakdown in the excellent working relationships that were established over many years—relationships that were built on trust between GPs, health visitors and patients. We must call a halt to that. There is no point in taking credit for new legislation or grand advertising schemes that are aimed at tackling obesity, alcohol and drug addiction or smoking cessation if we are dismantling the most effective prevention scheme of all—the direct intervention with every family on behalf of every child at birth.

The Scottish Conservatives said that the Government's approach would not work and we were right. Warm words will no longer do. There is a crisis right now, and it is damning the future of some of Scotland's most disadvantaged communities. It is the Government's duty to deal with it and I hope that all members will unite in demanding that it do so.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

In the short time that I have, I will focus on the scale of the problem, particularly regarding drug and alcohol misuse.

The background is fairly clear, but I will remind colleagues of our record in Scotland. We have, annually, more than 50,000 referrals to the children's reporter. A United Nations Children's Fund report has stated that children in the UK fare less well and feel worse about the quality of their lives than children in almost any other industrialised country, which is surely a serious and shocking situation. This year, research by Professor O'Connor that was based on schoolchildren in Stirling and Glasgow showed that 14 per cent of children aged 15 are self-harming and that a further 14 per cent have thoughts of self-harm. Surely that reflects a damaged situation. We have much work to do to repair it.

In the 30-odd years between 1973, when the report on Maria Colwell hit the ground, and the recent reports on Victoria Climbié and, in Scotland, Kennedy McFarlane, we have had more than 70 reports on problems associated with child care. Some are related to the deaths of children, and others to problems in child care and residential accommodation. The scale of the problem that we face is massive, as is indicated by the reports that have appeared. Despite all those reports, we have been unable to amend the situation to make it satisfactory. The recent report on Brandon Muir shows that we still have problems.

Most of the reports are based on the deaths of children. Over the past few weeks, Iain Gray has been trying to make the valid point that, for every child that dies and every report that we produce, there are many other children who stagger through their childhood being increasingly damaged, and who reach a point of damage from which there is no return. We, as a society, are paying for the consequences of that in the increasing number of people who are admitted to our prisons, which has grown by more than 40 per cent in the past 25 years.

Projects such as the Dunedin project, which followed children from their birth in 1973 into their adult lives, show that children who will have significant problems in adulthood can be identified at age three. Obviously, there is overidentification—many children who are identified at that age as people who may have problems will turn out to be excellent citizens, who are fully developed and who achieve their aspirations. Such overidentification should not, however, prevent us from focusing on those children.

Jackson Carlaw was right to say that what we have done to the health visitor system over the past few years in trying to introduce the review of nursing in the community has put a planning blight on the development of health visiting. Without early identification, we have a major problem. Drugs and alcohol are part of that problem. It is thought that more than 100,000 children are living in families with drug or alcohol-misusing parents. We need more antenatal projects, to provide families with support at that early stage. The Edinburgh PrePare project is one, but its funding is short term.

We need multidisciplinary teams involving midwives, nursery officers, community mental health nurses and health visitors in order to achieve early identification, to assess the extended family's capacity for parenting and to put in place the necessary supports. If we fail to do that, as Harry Burns said in his excellent report last year, by the age of three many children will be damaged and beyond repair. For that reason, we need to have a new strategy and inquiry into child care in Scotland. It should look not at systems and structures—which were tackled in Jack McConnell's report—but at what we are doing on the ground. If we do that, we may be able to support some very vulnerable children and families.

Ian McKee (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The family is indeed the natural building block of our society and there is no doubt that it has, over the past 40 years or so, faced unprecedented pressures. How has that come about? There is no single cause: a host of factors have combined to produce the situation that exists today. Let me outline some of them.

Over the years, we have lost much of our sense of community. In the immediate post-war era, a nation that had been conditioned by years of working towards a single goal continued to work as a cohesive unit. There was not only mutual and intergenerational support within the family unit; there was also community support, even though social conditions were often appalling.

What happened to change things? The benevolent urge to provide better-quality housing led to the building of huge and impersonal housing estates, often on the fringes of cities or towns. Natural communities were broken up, natural safe play areas were destroyed and community facilities were either non-existent or in short supply. Above all, the people who were moved into the houses were often the poorest of the poor. A centrally heated home is not much use if one cannot afford to pay the electricity bill. Combined with that was an increase in relative poverty. If people are all in the same boat, they can be fairly happy sharing whatever is around, but when every night the television is advertising expensive lifestyles and toys that are valued in hundreds of pounds, the sense of alienation that is experienced by the people who cannot afford such lifestyles is exacerbated. Also, with the parents and grandparents now living far away, the help that they were able to give in previous years is no longer so accessible.

Those factors, combined with the development of an "every man for himself" society, have helped to lead to the breakdown of vulnerable family units, to substance abuse, to alcoholism and to all the social ills that plague us today.

Some unkind souls blame much of that on the self-centredness of the Thatcher era, but out of respect for the party that has initiated today's debate, I will not go into that territory. I simply point out that 18 years of Conservative Governments did nothing to solve the problem. Between 1979, when Mrs Thatcher came to power, and 1997, when John Major's Government fell, the number of divorces in Scotland rose by a massive 38.5 per cent. Between 1997 and 2008, the divorce rate actually fell by 6.5 per cent. Figures for single-parent families are not so easily accessible, but the household survey shows us that between 1981 and 2001, all but four years of which were under a Conservative Administration, the number of households containing one adult and one child went up by a staggering 280 per cent, whereas from 2002 to 2007 the rise was only 6.2 per cent. Something in our society went seriously wrong during those years under the Conservatives—the party of the family, which is moralising today.

So, what are we to do? There are no easy answers. They include the dispersal of the monolithic housing estates, the creation of a social mix that results in benefits from schooling, and the provision of shops and leisure facilities. That is already happening. We need much more active intervention, with help during pregnancy and intensive support for mothers and children in the very early years. There should be more males in primary teaching, organising clubs and sporting activities so that the thousands of male children without male figures in their homes have some sort of role models to copy. We must also open up schools and playing fields out of hours, so that young people have somewhere to go in the evenings and at weekends.

We need to increase job opportunities, but we need also to supply benefits where they are needed. A welfare system in which anyone who works always reaps a financial benefit would be a start. Although we recognise the benefits of marriage, we must also recognise that there are thousands of happy families outside the bounds of that institution, and that there is sometimes much misery within it. I support the Government's amendment.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

This is a fascinating debate in which to take part. I do not mean to be facetious, but we would all accept that sometimes we take part in debates on issues that we have never experienced. However, all of us have been or are part of a family. Those families vary in how they are constituted—I suggest gently to the Conservatives that they need to avoid being judgmental about that—but they are our families and they shape our lives.

I want to give credit where it is due: I am glad that the Conservatives have realised what damage unemployment does to a family. As Des McNulty and others have mentioned, during the 1980s and 1990s unemployment was used as an economic tool, with no thought for the individuals who lost their jobs. Unemployment is damaging. That is why the present Labour Government is doing so much to help people to stay in or to retrain for work during the economic recession. Although the motion suggests that Tories in the Scottish Parliament have learned a lesson, I am not sure that Mr Cameron would have done anything to sustain employment, although I am thankful that he was not in a position to do so.

In the short time that I have, I want to mention three aspects of family life: carers, family support services and children in poverty. I will start with carers. As members of families, all of us take on caring roles for one another, but that caring sometimes becomes more onerous, especially when it is for a sick parent, child or sibling.

On Tuesday this week, I attended the annual general meeting of Carers of West Lothian, in my constituency. The organisation consists of wonderful people—staff and volunteers—who work to support those who take on challenging caring roles. I want to mention young carers, in particular. Through Carers of West Lothian, a project is on-going to work with schools to identify young carers and give them support. Some of them were able to take part in the young carers festival in West Linton in August, which was organised by the Scottish Government. Again, I give credit where it is due by congratulating the minister for progressing that project.

I am concerned, however, that we assume that young carers are okay if we just give them a few days out. I am uncomfortable about young people taking on the burdens of caring. We should properly fund projects throughout Scotland to identify young carers and provide them with support and respite, and we should not be dependent on money from sources such as the Big Lottery Fund—there should be core funding through local authorities.

I turn to family support services. I thank Aberlour Child Care Trust for its briefing today. Its national parenting development programme is a fine example of how we can support people in carrying out what is probably the toughest job that many of us are asked to do, which is to be parents. We need to put the child at the centre, whether it is through programmes such as sure start Scotland, which provides help in the early years, through programmes that are run by Barnado's Scotland for teenagers, or through Capability Scotland, which helps families with disabled children.

On other occasions in Parliament, I have supported the role of marriage in society, but I cannot accept that we would be promoting it by reinstating it in the tax system. We should offer financial support to children, which is what the UK Government is doing. Unfortunately, marriages do break down. We have previously in Parliament debated the role of family contact centres and family mediation services, and the minister referred to them in his opening statement. I hope that he will give us further reassurance in his closing statement and that, out of the debate, we will get action rather than just warm words.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

In the short time that has been allotted to the debate, we have raised a number of pressing problems in many aspects of society. It is unfortunate that we have so little time in which to debate them.

Elizabeth Smith was right to point to the vast range of instruments that we need to address. However, I want to follow up a point that was made by my colleague, Margaret Smith. Although we in the Liberal Democrats acknowledge that the family is a unit in which support, love and care can be given to children, we have as a society to be careful that we do not continue to deal with people simply as cohorts. At the heart of the family are individuals, so our solutions must be aimed at those individuals—whether that individual is the parent who has suffered unemployment or the parent who has problems with substance abuse. Whether poverty plagues one individual in a family or the whole family, we must move away from trying to deal with people as cohorts. The Liberal Democrats firmly believe that if we concentrate the solution on the individual, we are more likely to find a solution for the family unit as a whole.

Much as been made of the role of the tax system in aiding people who are in poverty and disadvantage. That is correct, and it is why the Liberal Democrats, as a party at Westminster, are keen to simplify the issue by raising the threshold to the point at which those who are on the minimum wage are not—as Margaret Smith said—caught in a tax trap. I very much wish that Elizabeth Smith's tax proposals would be beneficial to families. However, as I understand it, they would benefit only those families in which one member works, but would not benefit the families who are in most need.

The issue of kinship carers was addressed earlier. While I am pleased to hear from Labour members that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is addressing the unfortunate mismatch between the benefits system and local authority allowances, I am also rather disappointed that that came as news to the minister. Perhaps the minister and the Westminster Government could work together on that.

The issue of kinship carers is linked to that of volunteers. From 2010-11, the fairer Scotland fund will be rolled into local government. I am concerned that there appears to be no read-across between the assistance that is to be given to kinship carers and volunteer organisations, and the concordats. That is regrettable, and makes it difficult for those who operate in the voluntary sector and those who provide kinship care to have certainty about where they will go in the current troubled times.

Jackson Carlaw raised a key point about health visitors. In addressing such issues, the Liberal Democrats are clear that we should consider fundamentally those who are most at risk and most vulnerable. I share the view that was expressed by Richard Simpson: it is regrettable that we can identify as early as age three those who will have severe difficulties as a result of their families.

I think all members recognise that we all have choices to make as we enter more straitened financial times. If we are going to give the right support to families and deal with deprivation, we have to address the small number of individuals who most need our support—that is where we should concentrate our resources. That is the basis of the Liberal Democrat amendment, and it is why I support that amendment.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

This is an interesting and important debate. The central issue for all our children is their entitlement to live in safety and security in a loving home, and to be nurtured. It is not just in poor families that children are denied those things. I would be concerned by any implication that poverty means that children are denied a healthy and happy upbringing. In my constituency, there are families who, despite their financial circumstances, could teach us all a lesson about how to parent. As a parent, I often have grave anxieties about my capacity to find a safe place to rear my children. I am concerned at the implication that the issue is one for "them out there" and not for all of us as a society. In that context, a financial incentive to marry is entirely irrelevant. The issue that is of concern is the extent to which we value children and families.

Elizabeth Smith talked about Iain Duncan Smith's Damascene conversion in Easterhouse. He may have wished to reflect on the issue a little earlier, in the 1980s, when people were telling him what was happening in communities throughout Scotland and beyond.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

rose—

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

It is not enough to create the impression that poverty is a plague in which no political decisions have been made. People live in difficulty because of political decisions—we should reflect on that.

The motion

"regrets that one in four children"

lives in a family in which there is a lone parent. First, there are parents who are widowed who actively choose to spend the rest of their lives bringing up and focusing on their children. The implication that that is the wrong choice is cause for concern. Equally, for some people it is a courageous decision to leave a marriage to protect their children, especially given the financial implications for women of making that choice. There is a dichotomy at the heart of the issue. When we talk about domestic abuse, how often do we hear the question, "Why doesn't she leave?" However, when she leaves, it is implied that she is creating problems for her children.

One of the problems for lone parents is not the fact of lone parenthood in itself but the way in which we support them financially and give them economic opportunity. When I was a teacher, there were a number of occasions on which youngsters were disturbed by the periodic reappearance of their father, who caused mayhem in their homes. One young boy could not, when his father was at home, sleep for fear of what would happen to his mother and could not, as a result, learn the next day. The Tories ought to move away from the glib suggestion that lone parenthood in itself is the problem.

If we wish to support families, we need to address how inequality and disadvantage are experienced, and how we can create economic opportunities, safe communities and safe families to allow people to thrive. Yesterday we got information on a skills strategy, which did not reflect that. The enterprise strategy contains no responsibility for place or people and does not address the inequality that disproportionately leaves women as carers in low-paid jobs, with no recognition of their needs.

We need an education system that talks about more than buildings and class sizes, and which recognises that some of our children cannot even access education because of what is happening in their wider life.

We need to understand the particular pressures on different kinds of families, such as the families of disabled children. I regret that the Scottish Government did not step up to the mark in addressing the transformational change that is required to support those families and which would allow those children and their siblings to achieve their potential.

On kinship care, there is an issue with the benefits system, but the Scottish Government has a responsibility to address the huge diversity between what is offered to kinship carers in different parts of the country. It has to recognise that the issue is as much about children's rights as anything else.

The SNP Government needs to recognise the vulnerability of funding to the voluntary sector, which will have a consequence for families. There ought to be no sacred cows—nothing should be off-limits. There should, rather, be proper reflection on what is happening, in order that our families can be protected.

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

It is clear from this morning's debate that there is, within and beyond the chamber, a great deal of commitment to supporting families throughout Scotland in order to give children the best start in life and to help families escape from the disadvantage that is bred by educational, health and income inequalities. We have also recognised that addressing such major challenges over the long term depends on a strong spirit of partnership—if not the wartime spirit that was evoked by Ian McKee.

Our national and local policies must recognise the multiple and complex needs that are the reality for some families, and the types of holistic and integrated services that can improve their circumstances. Although I respect Richard Simpson's perspective, the situation is not all doom and gloom; I believe that we are making progress.

Although it is too early to point to long-term improved outcomes, the getting it right for every child pathfinders can point to significant early indications of better outcomes for children. Families are reporting that it feels as though one team is supporting them and their children. Practitioners feel able to make more holistic assessments of the child because they have better information, greater trust has been built with colleagues and they can build better capacity for early intervention. There is evidence of progress across all indicators of wellbeing in children. That is clear evidence that getting it right for every child is making a positive difference for Scotland's children. We are committed to rolling out its implementation across the country.

The formal evaluation report on the pathfinders in the Highland Council area has just been received by the Scottish Government and we are arranging for the report to be published. I am keen to provide an opportunity for colleagues in Parliament to debate the findings, so I will pursue that through the usual channels.

The action that this Government is already taking that has assisted families during this difficult time includes extension of eligibility for free school meals and investment in parenting and relationship support organisations. I say to Mary Mulligan that a letter is today winging its way to those organisations, which I hope will reduce some of the uncertainty about their future funding.

We have also invested £435 million through the fairer Scotland fund to assist community planning partners in regenerating disadvantaged areas, tackling poverty and increasing sustainable employment.

We all know that families with children are much more at risk of being in poverty, and that that is particularly true of lone parents. Although we recognise that, for many, work is a route out of poverty and that many lone parents would like to work, we are concerned that more lone parents may, simply to avoid the threat of benefit sanctions, be forced into low-paid, low-skilled jobs that they cannot hope will lift them permanently out of poverty.

We want to continue the joined-up approach that we are taking with local government and the statutory and voluntary sectors to help families during this difficult time.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will the minister give way?

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I am sorry, but I am just finishing up.

That approach will be all the more important as we seek to protect Scottish families from the cuts that will be imposed by Westminster, as promised by all the parties that are seeking power at the next general election.

John Lamont (Conservative, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

This debate on supporting families has allowed us to explore the issues and challenges that impact on almost all of us who live in Scotland today. It is important that we discuss and give time to these issues, and address how we will continue to support the family unit.

For the vast majority of us, the family is where we learn fundamental skills for life. Physically, emotionally and socially, it is the context from which the rest of life flows. However, family stability in Scotland, and throughout Britain, has been in continuous decline for many years. Increasingly, adults and children face the challenges of families that are fractured, fatherless and dysfunctional.

Today, families in Scotland face a range of pressures: unemployment, debt, substance abuse, crime and relationship breakdowns, to name just a few. One in four children in Scotland is growing up without a father and some 200,000 Scottish children are growing up in poverty. Between 40,000 and 60,000 children in Scotland are affected by their parents' drug use and, according to a new report out this week, 137,000 Scots children now have no parent in work.

As my colleague Liz Smith stated at the start of the debate, we believe that the family is the most important building block in society. We can no longer stand by and do nothing while that important institution is allowed to be undermined. Governments should not dictate to people how they should lead their lives or tell them what to do, but they should encourage what is good for society, address what is negative and support what is positive.

Today's debate has been about considering what needs to be done to support the stable family formation. Where do we go from today? What is the state of the family unit, particularly in Scotland but also throughout the United Kingdom? Scotland is not alone in having to tackle this problem, but we seem to be alone in western Europe in believing somehow that marriage is just another family formation and that it is not relevant or important. Everybody else out there thinks that it is important enough to recognise and celebrate, so we are unique in our approach.

Also unique to this country is the incredibly high level of family break-ups—it is way beyond the level anywhere else in western Europe. We have more families breaking up, more lone parents and more teenage pregnancies. If we are doing something right, I would love to know what it is, because nobody else wants to copy what we are doing. I do not believe that anyone here wants to promote that record. It is clear that something is going very wrong.

The Labour members and others in this chamber might not want to think that it is their problem. However, we are not alone in highlighting these concerns. Tom Harris, the Labour MP for Glasgow South, recently stated on his blog:

"I can no longer pretend that the army of teenage mothers living off the state is anything other than a national catastrophe ... Such young women see parenthood as one way of achieving a level of independence and self-worth. And they're right, because that's more or less what they get: a flat and therefore some privacy, an income for the first time in their lives."

We all know that the problem has been getting steadily worse during the past decade, yet Governments here in the Scottish Parliament—and the Westminster Labour Government in particular—have failed to stand up and take the action that is required to address it. In fact, Labour has the proud record of making the poorest poorer, of creating greater inequalities and of raising youth unemployment.

So, what would we do about it and what should the Government, both here and at Westminster, do about it? My colleague Liz Smith has spoken about the importance of improving the parenting skills of parents who need help, and of the need to support the voluntary sector in its work in that area. Believe it or not, some things are better done by the third sector than by the state. She also spoke about the need to improve people's chances of getting back to work by re-energising the jobs market and the economy.

We heard from Jackson Carlaw about the importance of universal health visitors.

Perhaps one of the most important ways we can help the family unit is by recognising marriage and civil partnerships in the tax system. When people make a public commitment to support each other for better or worse, it is right for the tax system to recognise it. The family structure and process matters. A lifetime commitment can make a significant difference to the behaviours, attitudes and lives of our children, but our tax system does not recognise that or the importance of interdependence between family members and the way in which it, in turn, benefits wider society. The couple penalty in tax credits discourages low-income couples from making the move from simply living together to making the commitment of marriage, thus implicating the welfare state in the rise of family breakdown. Indeed, comparative European research indicates that welfare benefits can drive up the number of lone-parent families and encourage solo living. Some countries treat people only as individuals for income tax purposes but most advanced western countries—such as Germany, France and the United States—recognise the benefit that marriage brings and reward it in their income tax system. This country should be no different.

We continue to let down each new generation by not ensuring that those values are carried forward. Our job as politicians is to ensure that we allow our society to respect and encourage the family unit. If we do that, our society will be better off as a result.

Alcohol (Minimum Pricing)

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-5118, in the name of Murdo Fraser, on the minimum pricing of alcohol.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

A policy of minimum pricing for alcohol is wrong because it will penalise responsible drinkers, may well be illegal under European Union rules and will cost jobs in our vital spirits industry. It is also wrong because, by focusing on that single measure, the Scottish National Party Government loses the opportunity to build a true cross-party consensus on measures that we need to take to tackle the scourge of alcohol in Scottish society.

As our motion states, alcohol misuse costs an estimated £2.25 billion per year. Too many people drink more than the recommended maximum level per week. That is not a problem for everyone, but it involves a sizeable minority of men and women. For that reason, it is right that we have a debate on alcohol policy and what needs to be done.

The Scottish Conservatives believe that we should concentrate on the areas on which we all agree that action should be taken. I am sure that we all agree that we need better enforcement of the current laws, particularly in restricting sales to people who are under age. I am sure that we all agree that we should have much better education on the adverse health effects of alcohol. I am also sure that most if not all of us agree that we need to clamp down on irresponsible promotions by retailers, which is why the Conservatives support a ban on retailers selling alcohol below cost price. We also support targeted alcohol taxation: a rise in excise duty on alcopops, as well as on super-strength beers and ciders.

The measures that we propose, which many others support, are properly targeted, evidence based, effective and legally competent. They stand in sharp contrast to the SNP Government's proposals on minimum pricing, which pass none of those tests.

Minimum pricing is wrong because, unlike our policy, it will penalise responsible drinkers. Based on a minimum price of 50p per unit, the policy would lead to an increase in the price of Stowells of Chelsea wine while the price of Buckfast would not go up by a penny. I do not know which of the two is the weekend drink of choice for the neds in constituencies like that of the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing, but I wager that they do not neck down a nice Stowells of Chelsea merlot at the start of a night out.

Secondly, minimum pricing is wrong because it may be illegal. Just last week, there was a ruling from the European Commission on minimum pricing for tobacco products, which has clear consequences for a similar policy on alcohol.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I am sure that Murdo Fraser does not want to mislead the Parliament, so I ask him to confirm that it was not a ruling but an opinion and that it was based on the specific wording of a directive that does not apply to alcohol.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Nicola Sturgeon is playing the same game that Alex Salmond played last week at First Minister's question time, when he quoted selectively from the opinion that was given. It was made perfectly clear in the answer that the European Commission gave to Catherine Stihler MEP that a minimum price may have an adverse effect and thus constitute an obstacle to the free movement of trade in the internal market. There is a clear risk in that to the SNP's policy. It is instructive that, in its briefing for the debate, even Alcohol Focus Scotland—a body that enthusiastically supports the SNP's minimum pricing policy—says:

"it is impossible to say that minimum pricing of alcohol would definitely withstand a challenge in the European Court of Justice".

We have called previously for the Scottish Government to publish its legal advice on whether minimum pricing of alcohol would breach EU rules. If the Government is to be taken seriously on the issue, it must publish that advice without delay and not just share it with Jackie Baillie, which is what the First Minister promised at First Minister's question time last week.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I do not have it.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There we go—yet another broken promise.

The third reason why minimum pricing is wrong is that it will do immense damage to the vital spirits industry in Scotland. The Scotch Whisky Association estimates that whisky exports alone could fall by in the region of £600 million per year as Governments across the globe sought to copy the Scottish Government's lead and increased duties on whisky. The Scottish ministers consistently argue that, because Scotch whisky is a premium product, minimum pricing will not affect it, but that is not the view of the Scotch Whisky Association, Whyte and Mackay, Pernod Ricard UK—when it is not being bullied by the First Minister—or the other whisky producers, and I know whom the public are more likely to believe.

If we needed to know what the Government's attitude towards the Scotch whisky industry was, all we had to do was read yesterday's press release from the health secretary, in which she said:

"I would call on everyone who cares about Scotland's health to listen to the real evidence about the benefits of minimum pricing, rather than being swayed by lobbyists whose only concern is their own profits."

There we have it: the Government and the health secretary think that all the vital Scotch whisky industry—which supports thousands of jobs throughout Scotland and earns hundreds of millions for the Scottish economy from exports—is concerned about is its own profits. What a disgraceful attack on an iconic Scottish industry that is.

Opposition to minimum pricing is widely shared throughout Scotland and among politicians from all parties. Gordon Brown and the Labour Government at Westminster rejected the policy, arguing that it is important to take properly targeted and effective action. I am delighted to welcome as the new Labour health spokesperson Jackie Baillie MSP, the same Jackie Baillie who states on her website—a print-out of which I have with me—that she is

"Working Hard for the people of Dumbarton".

Her website also states:

"Jackie believes more can be done to enforce the legislation already in place instead of bringing in new measures, such as minimum pricing, when there is insufficient evidence that this will work."

When I read those words, I expected that the Labour Party would be out in force in full support of our arguments, which are entirely in tune with the views of Gordon Brown, Jackie Baillie and even, as we learned this morning, Jack McConnell. Alas, Labour continues to equivocate and sit on the fence.

I had hoped that Jackie Baillie's appointment would bring some much-needed backbone to the Labour front bench, but I have been sorely disappointed. To be frank, we have seen more backbone in a filleted jellyfish than from the Labour Party in Scotland. It is in danger of being had up under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 for calling itself an Opposition party, so feeble has been its response on the issue. I say to Jackie Baillie that she needs to get her party sorted out and tell Ian Gray who is boss. Her views should prevail, not his. She would never have got that treatment from Wendy Alexander.

I have set out positive proposals for how the Conservatives would tackle alcohol misuse in Scottish society. They are serious, targeted, effective and legally competent proposals, which should command the support of all members. I urge all members to join us in supporting them and to reject a policy of minimum pricing, which is neither properly targeted, effective, evidence based nor legally competent and will do huge damage to our spirits industry and cost jobs throughout Scotland.

I move,

That the Parliament recognises that alcohol misuse cost Scottish society an estimated £2.25 billion in 2006-07, with almost one in three men and one in five women exceeding the recommended maximum level of consumption per week; believes that Scotland needs to examine its complex relationship with alcohol; further believes that to address this problem action needs to be taken that is properly targeted, effective, evidence based, and legally competent, and, accordingly, rejects the Scottish Government policy of minimum pricing on the basis that it will penalise responsible drinkers and damage Scotland's vital drinks industry.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I call Nicola Sturgeon to speak to and move amendment S3M-5118.2. You have six minutes.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I thank the Tories for bringing the debate to the chamber, even if Murdo Fraser's opening speech was rather long on assertion and short on any hard evidence. I will deal with some of the assertion in my closing speech. In this speech, I want to set out the positive case for minimum pricing.

The previous debate on alcohol was back in March, shortly after we published our alcohol framework. At that time, there was broad consensus in the chamber about the scale of our alcohol problem and the fact that alcohol misuse is not a minority issue and does not affect just young people, hazardous drinkers or some parts of the country; it impacts on all of us and on our economy to a very real extent. I was pleased to hear Murdo Fraser confirm and accept that alcohol misuse costs us in Scotland £2.25 billion every year, because Bill Aitken hotly disputed that fact earlier this year. We are therefore making progress in persuading the Tories, and I hope that we continue to do so.

It was recognised in our previous debate that effective enforcement of current laws is vital, as are education, brief interventions and record investment. There was also a desire for a consensual approach, and a very strong commitment by Government to consider new ideas that other parties wanted to pursue. Let me make it clear that that commitment still stands.

Since that debate, our proposals for minimum pricing have continued to attract attention and support, not just here in Scotland but internationally. The modelling work that the University of Sheffield carried out for us, which is the most detailed and wide-ranging investigation of its kind, showed that minimum pricing, combined with an off-trade discount ban, could prevent thousands of deaths, illnesses and crimes and save Scotland almost £1 billion over 10 years. It showed a fall in hospital admissions of 1,600 in the first year and more than 6,000 a year by year 10, which is a reduction of almost 10 per cent. It showed a fall in crime of more than 3,000 offences every year, nearly 30,000 fewer work days lost through absenteeism and 1,250 fewer people unemployed because of alcohol misuse every year.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Can the cabinet secretary explain why the drop in alcohol consumption between 2003 and 2008 has not resulted in all the benefits that she talks about?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

The member should recall and reflect on the fact that the consumption figures to which he referred are based on self-reporting, so there is a degree of underreporting. However, Robert Brown will perhaps be reassured to know that the University of Sheffield study was based on the most up-to-date information that was available. We have asked the university to re-run the study on the basis of new information so that we have the best evidence to inform our minimum pricing policy.

However, the evidence is compelling. The study shows that alcohol-related deaths would fall by almost 20 per cent. Total alcohol consumption would fall by 5 per cent, with a concentration on hazardous and harmful drinkers, whose consumption would fall by 9 per cent. Above all—the Tories should listen to this point—the study confirmed that minimum pricing would be a targeted policy, not a blanket policy. The greatest impact would be on strong, cheap alcohol, which is favoured by harmful and hazardous drinkers, and not on moderate drinkers, nor on mainstream and premium products.

Those are the facts, and it is because of those facts that our proposals are backed by a powerful coalition of opinion in Scotland: doctors, nurses, police, the chief medical officer for Scotland and, indeed, the Scottish Licensed Trade Association. The proposals have strong support outside of Scotland as well. The World Health Organization highlights minimum pricing as one of the most effective interventions in tackling alcohol misuse. The policy is supported not just by our chief medical officer but by chief medical officers in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

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

The cabinet secretary mentioned medical officers in England. Does not the presence of the border with England fatally undermine the minimum pricing proposal, because anyone who lives near the border will just pop across to Carlisle and fill up their van?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

That is one of those assertions that has absolutely no evidence to back it up. If we want to have an informed debate, let us deal in facts and evidence, not simple assertion. Even the Tories now accept the link between price, consumption and harm, even if they have not yet come up with a coherent policy to tackle it. We welcome all those contributions to the debate.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

This will be my last intervention.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Would the cabinet secretary like to explain why the SNP, through its approach of minimum pricing, prefers to increase the profits of the drinks industry rather than take a taxation-based approach that would enhance the Exchequer's revenues and give her more money to spend on the national health service?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

If David McLetchie is arguing for the Scottish Parliament to have tax powers, I warmly welcome that conversion. However, he must address this point: taxation on alcohol has gone up in recent years, but that has not always been passed on to consumers, so it has not had the effect of reducing consumption.

In the last few seconds that are available to me, I want to address the point about legality. I will put to one side the irony of the Tories suggesting that we should somehow meekly submit to a one-sided view of EU law instead of arguing for our national interest. We have always said that challenges will have to be overcome in introducing minimum pricing. To be compatible with EU law, minimum pricing needs to be proportionate, non-discriminatory and to achieve a clear health benefit. It is emphatically not the case that the EU prohibits a policy of minimum pricing, and members should not assert that it does.

The minimum price policy can save lives and reduce illness and crime. I want the Parliament to have an open and informed debate on the issue. I am open-minded; in return, I ask all members to be open-minded as well.

I move amendment S3M-5118.2, to leave out from "action" to end and insert:

"effective enforcement of existing laws is needed, as is further action that is properly targeted, effective, evidence-based and legally competent, and, accordingly, is willing to examine, consider and debate all evidence and representations presented to it in seeking support for minimum pricing and the other measures in the Bill that will be introduced later in 2009."

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I call Jackie Baillie to speak to and move amendment S3M-5118.1. [ Applause. ] Order.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I am sure that I will not be greeted with the same applause when I am finished.

Let me take this opportunity to pay tribute to my predecessor Cathy Jamieson for all her work in the health portfolio and in particular for her considered approach to the subject of minimum pricing. I intend to continue that approach Since my appointment as shadow cabinet secretary nine days ago, I have been inundated with briefings from those who passionately favour minimum pricing and briefings from those who are passionately against it. I thank all those organisations for their efforts. Labour's amendment does not close down any option at this stage.

I must say that I am delighted that Murdo Fraser takes so much interest in my website, but I say clearly to him that I want to listen to the views of those with expertise on the matter and, over and above that, I have already arranged to meet the cabinet secretary to discuss the Scottish Government's position.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member take an intervention?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

No, not at this stage. Maybe the member should listen.

This is a serious issue that deserves thoughtful consideration, and I intend to do it justice. The Parliament has always prided itself on taking an evidence-based approach to its policy making, and that should continue to guide us in this debate.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am grateful to Jackie Baillie for setting out for members why she has an open mind on the subject. When did her closed mind, which is clear from the statement on her website, become an open mind?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I have a responsibility as the new shadow cabinet secretary for health to consider all matters in the round. We should not play politics with an issue as serious as this.

Let me set out, because I think that it is important to do so, where I believe there is agreement across the chamber. There is no question about the scale of the problem. Rates of death from alcohol cirrhosis in Scotland are now twice the EU average, and almost twice those of England. The age at which alcohol problems emerge has got younger. Rates of alcohol-related hospital admissions have gone up and rates of alcohol-related crime are rising. The statistics are frankly appalling.

Labour members do not disagree that we need to tackle Scotland's unhealthy relationship with alcohol. That is a significant public health challenge, which the previous Labour and Liberal Democrat Scottish Executive recognised, and much of the groundwork for action was laid with the passing of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005. Many of its provisions came into force only in September of this year. We need robust enforcement of existing legislation, alongside any consideration of new measures.

There is a clear link between price, the level of alcohol consumption and harm. I was interested to find out the experience of other countries. For example, in Finland, prices were lowered, then subsequently raised. Consumption rose when alcohol was cheap, but dropped when the price was increased, in a very short space of time.

However, I regret that the entire debate appears to be polarised on the issue of minimum pricing. That ignores the swathe of measures that are already in our armoury and other approaches that have been suggested. Let us be clear that minimum pricing is no silver bullet. Scotland's relationship with alcohol is complex and deep-seated. We have more than one problem group: we have the young adult binge drinkers, with public nuisance and antisocial consequences; we have those with a habit of drinking in excess of safe limits, who are storing up future health problems such as cancer and diabetes; and we have those at the extreme, who are critically alcohol dependent. No single action will provide the solution for all those groups.

The University of Sheffield research is persuasive, but I recognise that some criticisms have been made about the modelling. Equally, members will have received a copy of the Centre for Economics and Business Research study that analyses the potential impact of minimum pricing on jobs and the economy. There is claim and counter-claim and acres of text of legal opinion.

Concerns have been expressed about whether the recent European Court of Justice ruling on minimum pricing for tobacco has a read-over to alcohol. Can article 28 of the Treaty establishing the European Community be set aside if article 30 is engaged? Will the Government's proposals meet the test of proportionality that is set out in article 30? Those questions need to be answered. If the SNP is serious about its proposals, it should simply share the substance of its legal advice with all Opposition party leaders. There is at least one precedent for doing so in the actions of the previous Scottish Executive. [Interruption.] Failure to share the legal advice will leave wide open the question whether we can actually implement minimum pricing.

From a sedentary position, the cabinet secretary asked, "What is that precedent?" My understanding is that a precedent is provided by the Shirley McKie case. If she reconsidered the matter, we would be keen to engage with the Government.

Labour has suggested a variety of measures and we are keen to engage in the debate. I know that the cabinet secretary wants to achieve a consensus, but my idea of consensus is not simply waiting until others come round to one's own point of view. No party has a monopoly on the desire to rid Scotland of the problems that are caused by alcohol abuse, so it is incumbent on us all to ensure that we introduce the most effective set of measures to deliver the step change in culture and consumption that we all seek.

I move amendment S3M-5118.1, to leave out from "rejects" to end and insert:

"looks forward to considering the evidence of all the different approaches that can help to tackle the misuse of alcohol, and urges the Scottish Government to share the substance of all of the legal advice obtained."

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

There is a common will in the Parliament to tackle the various harms that are caused by alcohol, which is a legal and perhaps even benign product when used in moderation but the precursor of big individual and social harms when taken to excess. As well as causing high levels of chronic liver disease, excess alcohol consumption is a major causal factor in crimes of violence, a regular factor in domestic abuse and a major destroyer of young lives, whether by way of parental abuse or teenage excess. Each one of those situations represents a life destroyed, therefore I will not argue that the challenge is overstated, as I believe that it is entirely right that the Parliament debates the issue at a high level of intensity. However, we are not only entitled but obliged to intensely debate what to do about the problem and whether the current policy proposals are right.

The central Liberal Democrat proposition is that tackling Scotland's alcohol scourge is about changing culture and feeding into responsible individual and personal decisions in consequence. Unlike in many other countries and cultures, getting drunk, staggering about out of one's mind and binge drinking are not just tolerated and accepted in Scotland but to some extent approved of. That is really not an acceptable position in modern, 21st century Scotland.

Today's debate centres on one proposal for tackling the problem that is based on the acknowledged link between price and consumption. In my view, minimum pricing has been overhyped by the Government in its search for a totemic policy to rival the ban on smoking in public places that was introduced in the previous parliamentary session. However, even taking the most optimistic view, minimum pricing is not such a policy. Even the two University of Sheffield studies said that the effects would be small—equivalent to one or two pints a week.

A disadvantage of the focus on minimum pricing is that, in practice, it has diverted attention away from how we change culture. In today's short debate, I do not have time to go into those other issues, but they will continue to come through in wider debates in future, not least—as Jackie Baillie rightly mentioned—as the enforcement measures under the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 come on stream. Nevertheless, my view on minimum pricing is straightforward: I believe that the policy is well-intentioned but marginal at best, badly targeted, irrelevant to the aim of changing culture and probably illegal.

Understandably, a powerful medical and public health lobby has swung in behind the idea of minimum pricing. I am not sure why they have hung their colours to that particular mast, given that wider issues follow from the link between price and consumption. However, although such lobbying has undoubtedly influenced the debate, my sense is that the 22 October ruling by the advocate-general of the European Court of Justice on minimum prices for tobacco might well mark the point at which the Scottish Government lost the argument on minimum prices for alcohol. The Government's attempt to suggest that the ruling—which, admittedly, falls short of a court decision—is irrelevant to alcohol seems to be not just poorly based but almost certainly definitively wrong.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

rose—

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

If Nicola Sturgeon will now put in the public domain the basic information about the matter, I am happy to give way to her.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I will return to the legal issues in my summing-up speech, but I have a simple question for Robert Brown. I understand—although I do not agree with—his position on minimum pricing, but can he clarify the Liberal Democrats' position on banning off-sales discounts and promotions? The Liberal Democrats previously supported such a ban. Do they still support it?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Yes, we support that direction of travel. Below-cost selling is a central issue that we need to tackle, but such a ban would be slightly different from the minimum pricing that the Government has proposed.

As we heard earlier, there are issues with the reply that the First Minister gave last week. In such matters, it is important that we stick to the facts.

Whatever the broader arguments, the Government's policy on minimum pricing is dead in the water on legal grounds unless it can come up with proposals that are a whole lot more persuasive than what we have seen so far. Even if a case can be made, the minimum pricing policy will be tied up for a pretty long time while it is challenged in court. It is time for ministers to put the legal advice into the public domain. They must tell us precisely why the advocate-general's judgment will not apply.

Today's debate is important, but it will not be definitive, because Labour members cannot make up their minds on the issue. I hope that the debate will focus ministers more on the challenge of how to change the culture and less on devices such as minimum prices that sound spuriously attractive but are in fact just fiddling about on the edges.

I am happy to move amendment S3M-5118.3, to insert at end:

"and fails to recognise the role of individual responsibility or meet the key test of bringing about fundamental, rather than marginal, cultural change".

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

We move to the open debate. I can give members five minutes each.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

Clearly, Scotland has a long-standing and deep-seated problem in its relationship with alcohol. Some argue that the problem has reached such an extent that alcohol has started to form part of the Scottish identity. The question that parliamentarians must ask is whether we are prepared to allow many of the problems that are associated with the misuse of alcohol to be seen as part of Scotland's modern identity.

The facts lay bare the extent of our nation's difficulty with alcohol. Some 42,000-odd hospital admissions per year result from alcohol-related problems. Over the past 30 years, the incidence of liver cirrhosis has increased by 450 per cent. One in 20 of all deaths recorded by the national health service are directly attributable to alcohol. Those figures illustrate the extent of the health problem that we now face as a result of our overconsumption of alcohol. The financial costs to our society have also been recognised: some £2.25 billion, through health and justice spending and through lost productivity, can be associated with alcohol. According to the World Health Organization, alcohol is now the third-highest risk factor in ill health—after high blood pressure and unhealthy diet—in developed countries.

As a society, we must be prepared to implement the necessary measures to deal with the issue. Consumption of alcohol is driven by two clear aspects: availability and price. Clearly, the liberalisation of licensing laws over many decades has resulted in alcohol being much more available now than it has ever been. Alongside that, the price of alcohol has dropped dramatically in the past 15 years, at a time when average incomes in the United Kingdom are estimated to have increased by some 50 per cent. That combination of increased availability and lower price is clearly fuelling the ever-rising number of people who overconsume alcohol.

What are the best options for dealing with the issue? I agree that health interventions have an important part to play. I fully agree that education has a key role to play, although I also recognise that quite a body of international research highlights that education is one of the least effective measures for dealing with those who have long-standing alcohol consumption problems. I agree that enforcement has an important part to play, although some of the comments that have been made about it are misleading. Minimum pricing is not simply about trying to deal with underage drinking in which enforcement has a clearer role to play; it is about trying to deal with the wider problem of alcohol consumption in our society.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Will Michael Matheson comment on the cross-border problem that Jamie Stone touched on earlier? We know that a quarter or a third of people in southern Ireland travel to Northern Ireland to shop, with consequent effects on trade either side of the border.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I hope to come to that very point later in my comments.

The issue is complex and it will require a complex strategy to deal with it. However, we cannot avoid the fact that price is a key driver in the consumption of alcohol. There is no big-bang approach to the problem and no silver bullet, as Jackie Baillie stated. Instead, we have to look at the evidence base.

Robert Brown raised the possibility of people crossing the border to purchase alcohol. It is interesting that research from Canada, where eight out of 10 provinces have introduced minimum pricing, shows clearly that those people who live in provinces with no minimum pricing policy do not cross the border with the intention of purchasing alcohol.

We now need an opportunity in this Parliament to consider the evidence base for alcohol minimum pricing. I regret today's attempt by the Tories to force a decision on what are the best measures to deal with the problem into an hour and a half's debate. That is why we should have an opportunity to consider all the evidence and all the issues when the bill is considered in committee and the chamber.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

There is no doubt about the need to take effective action to tackle the scourge of alcohol in families and communities throughout Scotland. I do not intend to go into the damaging effects that excessive alcohol consumption can have—they have been spelled out by other speakers and in many articles prior to today's debate. I hope that we can rise above our differences on the subject and come together to take effective action.

Although the cabinet secretary and her colleagues have made a well-intentioned proposal—and I commend them on the vigour that they have introduced to the alcohol debate—as we know, the road to hell is often paved with good intentions. My concern about the debate today is that the SNP has not addressed many of the concerns and criticisms that have been levelled. I am here to be persuaded that minimum pricing would have a positive effect and achieve the desired result, but so far I have heard nothing to persuade me.

We heard today about the legal issues and I do not intend to go into them, but they undoubtedly need to be addressed. We heard of the worry about the damage to the Scottish whisky industry, not just in Scotland but potentially internationally. That needs to be addressed, although it is but one small part of the wider argument about tackling Scotland's significant alcohol-related health problems. Murdo Fraser rightly mentioned some of the damaging products that are available in our communities but would not be hit by a minimum pricing policy. That point needs to be answered.

I encourage the cabinet secretary and her colleagues to reflect on some specific issues. Michael Matheson mentioned cross-border trade and Canada, but there is a difference between what is happening in the Republic of Ireland and Canada. By my estimation, one could near as damn it fly from Glasgow to Toronto as quickly as one could fly from Toronto to Vancouver. Opportunities for short cross-border journeys are not exactly available in Canada. Recently, along with other members from this Parliament, I spoke to politicians from the north of Ireland and the Irish Republic. The TDs who represent border areas in the Republic said that something like over 60 per cent of all alcohol sales in Ireland are now made in the north of Ireland. Although the cabinet secretary and her colleagues might suggest that other shopping is done when people go to the north, it is nevertheless true alcohol is a major influence on that pattern.

The cabinet secretary, I and others who are well paid, have internet access and credit cards, have the opportunity to go online to do our shopping and have deliveries made from Carlisle to Glasgow. Such facilities are not necessarily available to the poorer in our communities so the policy has a prejudice in favour of the better-off. It would create the opportunity for booze runs to Carlisle, not only for those such as me with the means to do that, load up the car and have a day out. It would also create opportunities for those with white vans who sell tobacco illegally in our communities to load up and return to sell the alcohol along with the tobacco. Many such people are also associated with the drugs trade, so we should worry that what we do has the potential to reinforce criminality. We should also worry about the impact on Scottish retailers.

My final point is that the proposed policy will not put a penny towards paying for extra health or addiction services or putting extra police on our streets. Although I favour using pricing to limit the consumption of alcohol, in a country such as the United Kingdom it should be done on a consistent basis whereby there are no anomalies, it is done through taxation and the revenue is invested in the facilities and services that we need.

Even at this late stage, I appeal for consensus. This debate shows the best and the worst of the Scottish Parliament. It shows the best in that we can address fundamentally important issues; it shows the worst in that we take up entrenched positions and will not reach out to achieve consensus on a matter that vitally needs it.

Nigel Don (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I echo others' comments about the shortness of time available to us for this debate. I do not blame the Tories for raising the subject in a short debate—it is an important matter that we need to discuss—but I am not alone in believing that we do not have enough time to do it justice today. It is a subject to which we will have to return.

I agree with other speakers that minimum pricing is not a magic bullet. I will address some of the points introduced by Murdo Fraser and then draw in some facts from elsewhere. I endorse entirely the view that we need better enforcement of legislation, and I take the point that much of the relevant legislation is recent and will take a while to bed in. I also endorse the point that we need education, but I echo the comment made by my colleague that education is not enough. Esteemed professors tell us that education is not enough—it just does not change a culture.

I note that the Conservatives suggest that we should ban sales below cost price. That approach might have the same effect as minimum pricing, although it would not have the same characteristics. The Conservatives assure me that their proposal is legally competent. At some stage, although not through an intervention, I would like clarification as to why that approach is legally competent when minimum pricing is not.

The Tories make the point that minimum pricing would penalise moderate drinkers. That must be absolutely clear: anybody who buys a drink at a set minimum price will pay more for the drink. That is frankly inevitable, but it does not necessarily mean that it is not worth doing if we are clear that most of the people who are going to be penalised will change their behaviour for the better.

I will not talk about illegality beyond saying that of course we do not know what the European court will rule. We do not know until we get there. That is precisely like every other legal decision and it should not surprise us.

The Conservatives made the point, which was put to us originally by a certain part of the industry, that there will be immense damage to the export trade if we have a minimum price in this country. However, a minimum price is not a restraint on trade; it raises the bar for every importer and gives them more scope for offsetting their transport costs in order to import into this country. It does not act as a restraint at all on international trade. I would be enormously grateful if somebody could explain to me the mechanism by which it causes huge damage to export trade.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I suggest that Mr Don should read the evidence that has been presented by the Scotch Whisky Association. It is extremely concerned that, if the Government in Scotland imposed an extra duty on spirits on health grounds, that would be a green light to every other Government in the world to do exactly the same. We know that countries such as South Korea have tried to impose punitive taxation on whisky imports in the past to protect the domestic market. The Scotch Whisky Association is concerned that that could happen elsewhere.

Nigel Don (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I am grateful to the member for that explanation. Perhaps he could further explain at some stage how it is that a sovereign state needs an excuse to impose taxation, as it can do so anyway without the health requirement. [ Interruption. ] I stand by my question. Sovereign states can impose taxes, which is undoubtedly what the Tories will do if they take over running the United Kingdom next year.

That takes me to my final point. I would like to read what Scottish Health Action on Alcohol Problems has said about minimum pricing—I can give members a reference for these comments. SHAAP has said:

"It is claimed that minimum pricing for alcohol will do little to tackle alcohol abuse, however, the evidence points to the contrary. A recently published study exploring the drinking habits of patients referred to alcohol problems services in Edinburgh in 2008/09 found that the lower the price a patient paid per unit of alcohol, the more units they consumed."

That is unremarkable. It continued:

"Most of the alcohol the patients consumed was bought from off-licences where the cheapest alcohol can be accessed."

We know that.

SHAAP also said:

"The study concluded that because the average unit price paid by this group of chronically ill patients was considerably lower than the average for the rest of the Scottish population, then it was likely that the elimination of the cheapest alcohol sales would result in reduced overall consumption by this population of drinkers, with a fairly immediate reduction in serious alcohol-related illnesses in our community."

That is the real point about minimum pricing. Its effect will be on those who drink far too much and can ill afford to do so. We cannot stop those who can afford to drink themselves to death, but minimum pricing will have a considerable effect on those for whom money is significant.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

This debate is not as polarised as some might claim. I think that we all recognise that excessive alcohol consumption is a significant issue in Scotland and that it must be addressed by a mixture of practical policy and the effective enforcement of the existing laws.

Scotland's relationship with alcohol is damaging. The figure of £2.25 billion that has been referred to is an estimate. Perhaps the cabinet secretary was a little bit naughty. I have merely queried the figure—I said that it had not been robustly tested. Indeed, Robert Brown shared that view at the time.

Let me be more constructive: no one is suggesting that we should do nothing; it is clear that we must do something.

Yesterday, The Sun printed a series of pictures that showed a number of people—they were largely young people—lying around drunk and incapable in our city streets. That highlights the problem of enforcement. The law is quite clear. It is an offence to enter licensed premises while drunk, to be on licensed premises while drunk or to refuse to leave licensed premises when asked to do so, and it is an offence for the licensee to serve someone who is drunk. People do not get drunk within the flick of a finger. The people in question had been in licensed premises and had broken the law. The law had not been enforced.

Lest it be thought that I am being purely negative, I should say that things are getting better. Because of the 1,000 additional police officers whom the Conservatives forced on the Scottish Government, we are now seeing increased police patrolling. That activity has had positive results, although that is not yet, of course, showing in the figures.

That said, the figures are pretty damning. It is clear that there is a problem, but only a handful of licences have been forfeited to Scotland's 38 licensing boards, and very few people have been convicted of drink-related offences, particularly the offence of supplying drink to an underage person through an agent—in many cases, parents are involved.

A cursory glance at the Scottish Government's minimum pricing proposals suggests that they would reduce alcohol misuse, but deeper analysis reveals the flaws in such a policy. Advocates of minimum pricing may argue that the additional costs are a necessary evil to reduce alcohol abuse, but they operate on the assumption that heavier drinkers—those who are causing the problems—are more responsive than moderate drinkers to price changes. However, there is no direct correlation between alcohol misuse and consumption. On the contrary, it could be argued that responsible, moderate drinkers would be more likely to mind their wallet and abstain from buying alcohol at increased prices than those who regularly abuse alcohol. In addition, an unintended consequence could be that those who cannot afford to purchase alcohol will obtain it by theft or by other dishonest means—we have seen that with drugs.

It is important to recognise that a minimum pricing policy would largely penalise responsible drinkers by blindly raising alcohol prices for everyone in Scottish society. Such a scatter-gun approach cannot be right. The policy is a crude tool to punish those who are not a problem while doing nothing to combat those who are a problem.

Nigel Don (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

I am sorry. I do not have enough time.

We must do something. The sensible approach is to use taxation, as we have suggested. Let us target the problem drinks: alcopops, heavy lagers, ciders and the other drinks of choice of those who cause so much trouble in our communities. We can do that through the taxation system.

Let us also recognise the potential damage that minimum pricing could cause to the Scotch whisky industry, which is vital to our economy. The industry is worth £3 billion a year in exports, and overseas sales of whisky account for 20 per cent of all Scottish export manufacturing earnings. The Scotch whisky industry also supports more than 40,000 jobs, including 700 jobs in Jackie Baillie's constituency—that is probably what prompted her comments. We must recognise that that industry could be damaged.

I found Jackie Baillie's response in the debate tremendously disappointing. She normally knows what she is talking about. The image of her sitting on a fence is perhaps uncomfortable for us all, but that is what she has been doing. She and Gordon Brown got it right first time. Let us think about what we are doing.

As I have said, perhaps there is more to unite us than to divide us. Let us speak about the matter and find out whether we can bring something forward. However, we should not, please, adopt a damaging scatter-gun approach.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I welcome this debate, but it is disappointing that our focus is on minimum pricing. I want to consider the wider debate.

I will be clear. I remain to be convinced about minimum pricing, not because I do not think that there is a problem to be tackled but because I think that it is a blunt instrument. It would punish the whole community for the excesses of the minority, which will remain unaffected. People who are addicted will feed that addiction, regardless of the cost. I do not believe that every person who is addicted to alcohol will turn to crime, but I believe that minimum pricing would impact on families and diets. We all know that alcohol consumption has a greater effect on the health of people with a poor diet than on the health of others.

Minimum pricing would mean increases in the outgoings of people on a fixed income, such as those who receive a state pension, who would have to cut their consumption accordingly. It does not take into account our cultural issues with alcohol. Why do Scotland and other northern countries have an attitude towards alcohol that is different from that of our Mediterranean cousins? If minimum pricing worked, surely Norway would have no issues with alcohol to deal with. I raise such issues because they need to be answered if the policy is to succeed.

As I said, I wish to explore the wider issues in the debate. I am concerned that many other matters need to be tackled before we adopt such an all-encompassing policy. I am clear, however, that we need to tackle our drinking culture and ensure that people are diverted from their potentially harmful behaviour before it becomes a health issue.

In our culture, we drink both to celebrate and to commiserate. Many of our social interactions are based around a pub culture. That culture makes it difficult for people with drink problems to socialise, and it makes it very difficult for people who are addicted to tackle their drinking without feeling excluded from society.

Many aspects of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 have recently been implemented, but we have not yet had the opportunity to measure how those measures are impacting on our drink problem and the wider drinking culture.

Bill Aitken spoke about enforcement of the laws that are currently in place. They are not being enforced. He seems to think that enforcement has started, but I disagree. Where I live, I see people staggering out of pubs all the time. Nobody has tried to stop them drinking while on licensed premises.

We need to invest more in education, equipping young people with the information that they need to make themselves aware of the health problems that stem from excessive alcohol consumption and allowing them to make informed choices.

Nigel Don said that education does not work and will not change our culture. How, then, does he explain our change of attitude to drink-driving? When I was young drink-driving was the norm; now, it is totally unacceptable.

We need to provide adequate support for people who find themselves dependent on alcohol. I often hear about people with drink problems who seek help but find that none is available. Where help is available, there are long waiting lists. As with any addiction, help needs to be available when the person is ready to accept it. A delay can lead to deterioration in their condition or, indeed, to a change of heart as the addiction prevails.

It is disingenuous of a Government to propose to tackle alcohol abuse by ticking the minimum-pricing box while sitting back and letting establishments such as Beechwood house in Inverness fold. Beechwood house provides support and counselling for those with alcohol problems, and it is often oversubscribed. It also provides a place of safety where the police can take people who have been picked up for being drunk and incapable. That means that there is less pressure on accident and emergency services, and that the people concerned do not find themselves in police cells. As we have seen in the past, locking up people who are very drunk in police cells has led to deaths. Beechwood provides a safe place for them to go, and it allows their excessive drinking to be addressed.

The loss of Beechwood house would have a huge impact on the lives of people in the Inverness area who have drink problems and whose drinking has reached dangerous levels. If the Government is serious about tackling harmful drinking and saving lives, it needs to get real about facilities such as Beechwood, not just by ensuring that they are funded but by providing increased capacity.

If minimum pricing was the only avenue left to tackle alcohol abuse, I am sure that I and everybody else would support it. My concern is that steps that could make a real difference are being ignored because of their complexity. Minimum pricing is a headline-grabbing concept, but I remain to be convinced that it will change our culture, let alone save lives.

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Every member in the chamber agrees that alcohol misuse is one of the biggest problems facing Scottish society, and I welcome the recognition in Murdo Fraser's motion of the need to take action. I am puzzled, however, by the Conservatives' decision to reject offhand one aspect of the Government's alcohol strategy: minimum pricing. Even before the bill has been published and had the chance to receive parliamentary scrutiny, the Tories have brushed it aside.

The claim that the policy is not evidence based is absurd. The international evidence about increased affordability, particularly among heavy drinkers, is compelling. I would prefer to listen to the experts who have to pick up the pieces of Scotland's relationship with alcohol. Organisations such as the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing, the World Health Organization, the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland, Alcohol Focus Scotland and SHAAP—to name but a few—have all stated that minimum pricing can make a difference.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Will Shirley-Anne Somerville take an intervention on that particular point?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I am about to move on to another point.

We heard from Bill Aitken that the policy will not tackle the problem with Buckfast and alcopops. He might be correct to say that it will not reach certain drinks that are particularly associated with teenagers, but the policy does tackle a high proportion of the drinks that problem drinkers choose to consume in large quantity, such as cheap cider, vodka and lager. There are other approaches to tackling the specific Buckfast culture—the proposed measure is just one part of a broad range of policies. We should remember that alcopops account for only 1.6 per cent of total alcohol sales in Scotland—the problem with alcopops is not a reason in itself for us to ignore an entire policy.

Minimum pricing is common sense, not just to me but to Scotland's chief medical officer, Dr Harry Burns, who called tackling the price of alcohol "a no-brainer". Indeed, the policy of minimum pricing is supported by all four CMOs in the UK.

Even some Tories have seen the light, from Boris Johnson—it is not often that I quote him in a speech—to Councillor Jim Millar, chairman of the Angus licensing board, who recently said:

"I was amazed at how much alcohol ten pounds bought. This is the type of drink that seems to be favoured by underage drinkers which is a contributory factor in the anti social behaviour that is making the lives of so many people a misery."

He went on to say:

"The main cause of complaints to us as councillors continues to be young people indulging in anti social behaviour which is invariably fuelled by alcohol that can be bought for next to nothing.

This is a situation that has to be brought under control".

I could not agree more with Councillor Millar on that.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am confused as to why the member thinks that that message is in support of minimum pricing; it could equally well be in support of increased taxation on alcopops and problem drinks, which is exactly what the Conservative proposal is.

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

It certainly could, if taxation was seen to work, but in most cases the increase is not passed on to the consumer. I would be intrigued to know how a targeted approach to certain alcopops fits with a policy that must, under EU law, relate to all alcohol—rather than having members picking and choosing what they might want for their press release on a given day.

During the summer I visited a number of projects in Edinburgh, including the Junction in Leith, which provides excellent support for young people. The staff there told me about 12 and 13-year-olds who already have a serious drink problem, and many more who have a disturbing attitude towards drinking and who get involved in violence because of their attitude to the drink. Minimum pricing will not stop overnight those young people—or folk of any age or social class—drinking, and it must of course be part of a package of measures, but something needs to be done, and it needs to be radical. It must be based on evidence, but it must be radical nonetheless.

The time for strong words and no action is over. The Scottish Government is trying to take a lead on the issue, and every member has a responsibility to find their own solution if they cannot agree that minimum pricing is the way forward. We have not heard that the solutions from the Tory party will have the same impact as the proposed minimum pricing legislation.

We are already paying the price—hardened drinkers, responsible drinkers and teetotallers alike—and that includes the price to the health service and the crime in our communities. The Parliament has an opportunity to live up to the reputation that it has established of taking a leading role in tackling Scotland's public health record. It is an opportunity that we should not miss.

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

There is broad agreement across the Parliament about the impact that alcohol has in Scotland. As many members have said in the debate, and as many lobbying organisations have pointed out, cirrhosis rates in Scotland have rocketed compared with those in England and Wales. In many European countries, those rates have begun to drop.

It is clear that we have a Scottish problem, and that is reinforced by the fact that enough alcohol is consumed in Scotland for every adult to be over the safe limit in terms of units of alcohol consumed. In addition, the number of deaths that are attributed to alcohol in Scotland is much higher than the number for the UK. In my constituency the number is 238 per cent higher than the UK rate.

Whatever the precise figure, that has an impact on the economy. There can be no doubt about the health impact, taking into account the number of people who require to be seen and treated by the health service. As a knock-on effect of alcohol-related illness, people are sometimes not able to attend work or even continue in work. That has an impact on the economy at a time when we want our economy to be strong and vibrant.

In addition, as Bill Aitken has outlined, there are also clear impacts in the justice arena. There is no doubt that many serious crimes, including murders, are committed as a result of alcohol-related incidents. Those of us who represent urban constituencies are only too aware of the impact that alcohol plays in crime and antisocial behaviour. In addition to that, the report on fire deaths that was published earlier this week showed that alcohol has a role to play in some of the fire deaths in Scotland.

It is against that backdrop that the minimum-pricing proposal has been brought forward. Some have pushed the argument for minimum pricing strongly, and there is no doubt that there is a case for considering it. However, some issues around minimum pricing must be addressed before it can be taken forward.

I remain genuinely confused about the various views that have been set out with regard to the legality of the policy. We need a better understanding of the legal opinion that the Scottish Government has.

Another problem with the policy that must be addressed is the fact that it would boost the coffers of retailers. There is no doubt that that is one reason why the Scottish Licensed Trade Association supports the proposal. There is some way to go before we can be convinced about minimum pricing.

We have to ensure that the existing laws are more effectively enforced. As others have said, the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 has just been introduced, and we need to monitor how effective it is with regard to combating alcohol addiction. We need to consider measures such as the test-purchasing scheme, and we must combat the use of agents in the purchasing of alcohol for under-18s. Other measures must be addressed, such as the use of alcohol treatment and testing orders to deal with problem drinkers. In addition, it is worth thinking about a mandatory challenge 21 scheme and tougher sanctions on those who break the licensing laws.

Overall, we need to change our culture. There is no one policy that will solve the problem. We need to reduce our consumption of alcohol. We need an in-depth and constructive debate on the issue so that, as a Parliament, we can put forward a comprehensive set of solutions that will tackle a major problem for Scottish society.

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh South)

Although I agree with what the Government is trying to achieve, I cannot support the proposed legislation in its current form; Scotland's destructive relationship with alcohol is complex and cannot be solved simply by increasing its price. Effective policies must seek to foster cultural change.

The proposals still face several challenges in relation to what they seek to achieve and their legality. I am concerned that a minimum price at the suggested level of 40p per unit would not have a substantive material effect on problem drinkers. That is borne out by the Sheffield study that has been mentioned by several members. It is suggested that a minimum price of 40p per unit would reduce consumption among harmful drinkers—who are defined as those women who consume more than 35 units a week and those men who consume more than 50 units a week—by only 3.7 units a week. If those people did not reduce their consumption, the proposal would leave them £139.20 out of pocket every year, which is only £2.68 a week. I suggest that that sum is hardly likely to change what is for many a long-standing and culturally ingrained habit.

Nigel Don is right to say that we cannot second guess what the European Court of Justice will decide when it deliberates on the issue, if it has to do so, but the Scottish Government has brushed off as irrelevant the court's recent ruling on minimum prices for tobacco and failed to address the relevant issue of whether minimum pricing of alcohol would distort the market in the way that it was deemed that the setting of tobacco prices would.

What is the alternative? The Liberal Democrats believe that an effective programme of action to tackle alcohol misuse must involve vigorous enforcement of the existing law, especially with regard to underage and proxy purchases and selling to drunks. That must be supported by a focus on supporting cultural change from the bottom up, which involves providing better education, responsible alcohol marketing campaigns to inform the public of the risks and early intervention schemes to divert young people away from developing bad habits with alcohol.

I am not suggesting that there is no role for legislation—I agree with Jackie Baillie that minimum pricing is not the only way to tackle the issue and suggest that we try to tackle it in other ways first. I am strongly supportive of a one-strike-and-you're-out policy for retailers who sell alcohol to minors. We need to crack down hard on those people. I reiterate that the Liberal Democrats also support a ban on the sale of alcohol below the cost of duty, plus VAT, which would put a price floor in place to end the reckless practice of loss leading, and efforts to tackle irresponsible promotions.

I am sorry that Bill Aitken is not here, because I agree with him—on this rare occasion—that most of the existing law in the area is not being enforced. The police and our licensing boards should enforce it. Our licensing boards should embark on a strong and proactive campaign to target landlords and other owners of licensed premises who sell to underage drinkers. The point about kids going into shops to check out prices has been made. I think that that has been quite successful, where it has been tried.

It is vital that any reform of the law is targeted and evidence based, and that it involves meaningful consultation with all the relevant interested parties and stakeholders. I agree with the member who said that they have never received so many pro and anti messages on any other subject since they became an MSP; I have about 40 e-mails on the matter and I can say that opinion is divided. We need to take account of all of those opinions and must not jump to rash conclusions.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

Will the member give way?

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The member is just about to finish.

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh South)

Our clear objective will be to bring about a tipping point at which it becomes no longer socially acceptable regularly to drink to excess.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Mike Pringle's comment, that we should keep the situation open, is exactly our position. I welcome that late conversion in the debate.

We all agree that there is a problem. I do not have time to rehearse all the issues, but we know that alcohol-related deaths have increased—we are now at twice the European average—that the age of onset of problems is younger, that people are dying of alcohol-related problems younger and that alcohol is one of the most significant factors that contribute to premature death, alongside suicide, accidental death and, indeed, death from cirrhosis of the liver.

We must address three problem groups: the young adult binge drinkers; the increasing number of adults who are drinking above safe levels, which leads to ill health, including cancer and diabetes; and those who have an alcohol-dependency problem.

Not only do we all agree that there is a problem, we all agree that price would appear to be relevant and important. As Michael Matheson said, availability and price are the two major factors that affect alcohol consumption.

The peculiar situation in Scotland is that the level of problem drinking has increased very sharply and significantly in the past 20 years. Around 80 years ago, we had a culture in which we elected teetotal MPs—one of whom defeated Winston Churchill—on the basis that they were teetotal. During a period of 70 or 80 years, there has been a slow but significant change in culture, and the culture is the central problem that we must address.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

Will the member take an intervention?

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am sorry, but I do not have time.

Other countries have experienced significant problems with alcohol. France had a massive problem, and yet the number of deaths from cirrhosis in that country has now reduced significantly without the introduction of minimum pricing. France has begun to change its culture by tackling two things: advertising and drink driving. Those have been the main drivers of change in France—they began at a level which Scotland is now reaching, and they are now approaching the EU average, so France is moving in the opposite direction to Scotland without introducing minimum pricing.

The other important factor in the debate, as many members have stressed, is that a new licensing act—the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005—has only just been introduced and we do not yet know what its effects are likely to be. We hope that the licensing boards will have the guts, the teeth and the determination to tackle one of the central problems, which is supermarkets stacking 'em high and selling 'em cheap and displaying alcohol all around the store, which makes a major contribution to the cultural fact that drink is a massive part of our diet and makes the situation more difficult.

I do not have the time to rehearse the various arguments for and against minimum pricing, but it is clear that the health lobby, the police and the on-trade are in favour of it. There is evidence from Canada that it may have some effect, but there is also evidence from Finland that a price reduction has an adverse effect, particularly on deprived communities and those in the 40 to 50 age group.

There is the University of Sheffield study, although it has been criticised. One major criticism I have is that the study's definition of moderate drinkers falls well below the level of safe drinking, so the study does not model the right groups effectively. Scottish Health Action on Alcohol Problems says that changing the price would affect the very heavy drinkers, but I remain to be convinced of that. We definitely need to address the arguments about price and achieve a consensus on the matter.

There is also the central question, which really must be addressed and cannot be brushed off, about whether the legal opinion on the new tobacco legislation has no bearing on this issue. I see that the cabinet secretary is looking at me again—she has shaken her head every time the issue has come up. We need to develop a clear understanding on the matter, which must be shared by all parties if possible. Without such a consensus, the policy will not be passed.

Hugh Henry made the argument about the cross-border trade between Northern Ireland and southern Ireland, which is important and must be considered. The important issue of internet sales—which are increasing—has not been addressed, and the issue of illegal trafficking must be considered. The issue of Buckfast has not been tackled at all.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

You should finish now, Dr Simpson.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

We need to consider all the issues in the round, as a complete package. I admit that I come from a health community that is more in favour of minimum pricing than against it, but nevertheless I believe, along with Jackie Baillie, that the arguments are not yet conclusive. We need to sit down together and work out how to tackle the problem in an effective way.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

This has been a high-quality debate, and I agree with Jackie Baillie that we are discussing a serious issue that deserves serious consideration. Richard Simpson is right: it is positive that we have a welcome consensus on the scale of the problem and—I think—on the fact that price has a big part to play in the solution.

I do not believe that it reflects badly on Parliament that we do not yet agree on minimum pricing, but I believe that it will if we approach the debate on the basis of assertion rather than evidence. All of us, including the Government, have a duty to ensure that we do not do that, and I will now deal with some of the assertions that have been made today.

The first assertion is that minimum pricing would be a blanket policy rather than a targeted policy. Bill Aitken called it a "scatter-gun approach"; Rhoda Grant used similar terminology. I invite members to look closely at the University of Sheffield study, which I believe demonstrates exactly the opposite. It shows that a policy of minimum pricing would, in financial terms, cost harmful and hazardous drinkers significantly more than moderate drinkers. It also demonstrates that while overall consumption would fall by around 5 per cent, consumption among harmful and hazardous drinkers would fall by closer to 9 per cent. The study therefore demonstrates the targeted nature of the policy.

The second key assertion that has been made today is that a policy of minimum pricing would damage the whisky industry. I will put on record, as I have done before, the fact that I value the contribution of the whisky industry to Scottish culture and the Scottish economy. A policy of minimum pricing does not target whisky, as whisky is a premium product. Almost every recognised brand of whisky on the supermarket shelves already retails above an illustrative minimum price of 40p per unit.

Minimum pricing affects large bottles of cheap cider and vodka, which are often the drinks of choice for those who drink at harmful levels.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I will take only one intervention, from Robert Brown, as I do not have much time.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Many whisky products in the supermarkets are sold at prices that are below the minimum price. Minimum pricing would affect those products and have a substantial effect throughout Scotland, particularly on distilleries.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

The majority of Scotch whisky is sold above the level at which a minimum price might be set. The products that fall below that price are the products that are very strong and cheap. That is exactly the type of product that minimum pricing is expected to tackle.

Before I move on from the whisky industry, I will deal with another assertion that has been made. The Scotch Whisky Association says that other countries will discriminate against Scotch whisky because of minimum pricing. No member has referred this morning to the fact that the SWA also says that more than 100 countries around the world already discriminate against Scotch whisky. It is not true to say that discrimination will be caused by minimum pricing; discrimination already exists. The Government will back the industry against discrimination vigorously at all times, but we cannot allow the illegal actions of other countries to stop us from taking the right action for our country.

We have heard plenty of assertions, but no evidence, that minimum pricing will put jobs in the whisky industry at risk. We have plenty of evidence, however, that cheap drinks cost jobs in the pub industry and the smaller off-sales trade. Members should recall the announcement last week by Haddows, in which jobs were put on the line.

I must say to Richard Simpson that I have never brushed aside the important issue of legality, but it is disingenuous to use an opinion that is based on the specific wording of a tobacco directive to draw definitive conclusions about alcohol. For those who have not read the tobacco directive, I should say that it gives tobacco manufacturers the discretion to set maximum retail prices for tobacco. The opinion says that setting a minimum price would fetter that discretion, because manufacturers could not set a maximum price below the minimum price; it is specific to the directive.

Jackie Baillie is correct to say that the opinion comments on articles 28 and 30 of the EC treaty, but we know from the answer that Catherine Stïhler received that the EC is quite clear that minimum pricing is not prohibited. The policy has to pass hurdles, but that can be said about any matter in which EU law impacts on domestic law.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Will the member take an intervention?

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The cabinet secretary does not have time.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I will finish on the point about legal advice. I want to work with other parties on the issue, but we are working within the same constraints as the previous Administration. I have acres of quotations from previous ministers, including Jim Wallace, on why legal advice cannot be shared. Jackie Baillie says that there are precedents such as the Shirley McKie case, but I have not been able to substantiate that. On Sunday, Iain Gray said unequivocally that legal advice was shared on the smoking ban, which is simply not true. If there are precedents, I am willing to discuss with Jackie Baillie and members from other parties the ways in which we can provide reassurance on these important issues.

This is a serious issue, and I hope that all members will approach it seriously. I hope that we can keep party politics out of it, because the health of our country is too important for us to allow the debate to become party political.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The cabinet secretary said that she has acres of quotations. We are looking not for acres of legal advice but just for some legal advice. I quote what the First Minister said last week in response to Jackie Baillie:

"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."—[Official Report, 29 October 2009; c 20682.]

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Honour the promise.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Indeed.

The Sheffield study is an academic study; it cannot be called evidence. As Richard Simpson said, the modelling for the report is questionable, and it certainly does not prove the case for minimum pricing.

Despite being short, the debate has been interesting, informative and useful. We have heard wide-ranging views from all sides. I particularly endorse Hugh Henry's speech, which was excellent. It was thoughtful, considered and exceptionally well balanced. It was first class.

Nigel Don needs to read the general agreement on tariffs and trade; every country has to abide by the GATT articles as well as by EU rules.

I thank Rhoda Grant for highlighting the fact that, in the Highlands and elsewhere, the issue is not just what the Government does to address the problem. Many people who have an alcohol problem want to address it themselves but, as she said, when they seek help it is not available. That is a major point and I thank her for making it.

James Kelly made an honest and sensitive speech, as did Mike Pringle and others.

We can agree that there is a problem with alcohol—as we state in our motion—and we can surely also agree that we need the right proposals to tackle it. As Robert Brown said, the purpose of the most recent legislation on alcohol, the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005, was to address excessive or illegal alcohol consumption and to protect and improve public health, but there have been unintended consequences: in Shetland, Orkney and Moray, one third of alcohol licensees have not renewed; in the Highland Council area, there have been 345 fewer applications. Who has not renewed? Village halls, small shops, guest houses, tearooms, National Trust for Scotland and Historic Scotland properties, famous jewellery companies, visitor centres, distilleries and breweries. We can hardly agree that those are likely places of excessive or illegal alcohol consumption.

As our motion states, Scotland has a complex relationship with alcohol and minimum pricing would penalise responsible drinkers. Surely the correct principle is that any policy on alcohol misuse should address those who have the problem, not the majority who do not. A good start would be to ask a question that Robert Brown and others asked: why do young people in southern Europe go out to socialise whereas so many young people in Scotland go out to get drunk. Also, why do we not have enough brief interventions, which have proved to be successful when someone is picked up drunk and incapable from the street?

I also compliment Bill Wilson, who had an excellent members' business debate on the social norms around the issue. International findings as well as research by the University of Paisley demonstrate that most people overestimate the alcohol intake of their peers and that that misperception of social norms leads to increased consumption. The Government has not addressed that issue, which was raised in Bill Wilson's first- class debate.

As Murdo Fraser said, the Conservative team at Westminster has proposed significant tax increases on problem drinks, a ban on selling alcohol at below cost price and a tougher licensing regime. That approach tackles the problems of drinking and antisocial behaviour while leaving responsible drinking unaffected. We can compare that with the Government's proposed blanket minimum price of 40p per unit, which equates to about one glass of wine or a pint of lager a month. Under the Sheffield calculations, an 18 to 24-year-old binge drinker would have to pay an extra 46p a week. That is hardly likely to deter them from alcohol consumption.

As our new ally Gordon Brown stated, it is important

"to take action that is properly targeted and effective ... We do not want the responsible, sensible majority of moderate drinkers to ... pay more or suffer as a result of the excesses of a small minority"

That was his rejection of blanket minimum pricing. I also compliment the wisdom and experience of our former First Minister, Jack McConnell, who said:

"the strategy of making alcohol more expensive for the decent majority of people rather than concentrating on enforcement and stopping the lawbreaking and abuse of alcohol is a flawed strategy."

I appreciate that I am getting close to the end of my time, but I have a couple of final points. When we consider someone who is alcohol dependent, we are facing an inelastic demand.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

You must close, please.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I am young enough to remember when the SNP's call for separation was based on revenues from whisky. No one expected the SNP to deliver such a crucial and critical blow to our iconic industry.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

That concludes this morning's Conservative party business.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — General Questions

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Executive what representations it will make with regard to the BBC Trust's review of BBC Alba. (S3O-8339)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The Scottish Government will make it clear to the BBC Trust that we regard BBC Alba as a vital addition to Scottish broadcasting. From the very date of its launch, the Scottish Government has supported the availability of BBC Alba on Freeview—a matter that I have raised repeatedly with the BBC at every appropriate level.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The minister will be aware that the Scottish Conservatives have consistently argued that BBC Alba should be available on Freeview. Many of my constituents in the Highlands and Islands believe that the issue is one of fairness. Does the minister agree? Will he continue to make the strongest possible case for the availability of BBC Alba on Freeview, given the importance of the channel in sustaining and encouraging our Gaelic culture and heritage?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Absolutely. Developing and maintaining a critical mass of viewers for BBC Alba requires it to be available on Freeview. There is some concern about some of the BBC Trust's arguments on the issue, which appear to have emerged out of nowhere. We will vigorously support the channel's availability on Freeview. Indeed, I have said on occasions, particularly to the Scottish member of the BBC Trust, that I cannot understand why the decision is taking a year. It should have been made much more quickly.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

The minister mentioned the attitude of the BBC Trust. It has suggested that radio stations could be blocked out when BBC Alba is screened. Will the minister take up the case and ensure that the BBC Trust also considers the television channels that broadcast late at night and are not on at the same time as BBC Alba? Will he ask why the BBC Trust is targeting the radio stations, which are alternatives for our listeners and viewers?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

To be scrupulously fair to the BBC, which is something that I try to be, it has listed a number of options as possibilities, of which the removal of a number of radio services is only one. Many of us were surprised to discover that that was one of the options. There are better options. We will argue for the options that ensure that services continue to be provided but that an additional service is provided—BBC Alba.

Irene Oldfather (Labour, Cunninghame South)

To ask the Scottish Executive what importance it places on Scotland's cultural heritage. (S3O-8298)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

A tremendous importance.

Irene Oldfather (Labour, Cunninghame South)

The minister will recall that, in a previous life, he signed several of my motions that called for the Carrick/City of Adelaide not to be deconstructed. Does he agree that every possible effort should be made to save the ship? Given that he now has ministerial responsibility, will he consider what action the Scottish Executive can take to find a solution and ensure that the Carrick/City of Adelaide continues to have a place in the social, cultural and maritime heritage not just of Scotland but of countries around the globe?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I was indeed a vigorous objector to the demolition of the Carrick/City of Adelaide. That was almost 10 years ago. During the time since then, another Government that was present in Scotland did nothing to assist the matter. The city of Adelaide itself now seems unable to raise the finance to take the ship, and a proposal to send it to Salford to form part of a new development has been deemed impossible. I regret to say that there does not seem to be a range of other solutions that might fall within the funding available from the public purse or the Scottish Maritime Museum. The fact is that, occasionally, things of value cannot continue to exist, simply because we cannot bring together all the required resources. The amount of resources needed has risen substantially over the past decade; if something had happened earlier it might have been possible to do something. We will continue to consider every possible opportunity and do whatever is possible but I have to say that, given how long the matter has hung on for and given how the previous Administration did nothing to act on it, I am not hopeful.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

To ask the Scottish Executive what recent discussions it has had with Transport Scotland, Network Rail and train operating companies about the development of rail services in Ayrshire. (S3O-8343)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Transport Scotland, on behalf of the Scottish ministers, regularly meets Network Rail and ScotRail in the normal course of business to discuss a range of matters including the development of rail services.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

As the minister knows, the Ayr to Glasgow line is one of the busiest rail routes in Scotland. Despite that, it is not possible to purchase a flexipass on the route, even though such an option would greatly benefit the large number of my constituents from Ayr, Prestwick and Troon who commute regularly by rail. Will the minister encourage the relevant rail authorities to put in place the necessary measures, including improved revenue protection procedures, to ensure that flexipasses can be introduced on the Ayr to Glasgow rail route?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The member makes an important point. He will be aware of the order for class 380 trains, which will form an important part of the development of services to the west of Glasgow. The introduction of those trains, which will be the most modern in Scotland, will increase capacity, increase speed and substantially increase comfort.

I am entirely comfortable with engaging with First ScotRail on the subject of the flexipass. Revenue protection is important to the operation of our railway, and the ScotRail franchise is the only one on the Great Britain network that mandates that every train must have a second person whose responsibilities largely revolve around that matter.

Charlie Gordon (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

Will the minister consider developing direct rail services between Ayrshire and destinations beyond Glasgow, such as Edinburgh and Aberdeen?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I welcome Mr Gordon to his position as my opposite number on the Labour benches. As he knows, we are both rail enthusiasts so, naturally, I will within the constraints of the funding available to me take every opportunity to develop services wherever significant demand exists in Scotland.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether all local authorities pay the minimum national allowance to kinship carers. (S3O-8282)

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The concordat commitment in relation to kinship care is to provide

"allowances for kinship carers of 'looked after children' to treat them on an equivalent basis to foster carers"

by the end of this spending review period in 2010-11. Most local authorities are already making payments to kinship carers of looked-after children. The level of the allowance is set locally and may depend on individual circumstances such as the impact on the carer's benefits entitlement. All local authorities have stated that they will provide allowances to kinship carers of looked-after children by the next financial year.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I find it hugely disappointing that not all local authorities are making the payment or making it at the required level. Will the minister consider ring fencing the money to ensure that it goes to those people? Will he also ensure that all kinship carers get the support of local support groups, which, at the moment, are open only to those who care for looked-after children?

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

No; the member really needs to get her head round the fact that we have established a different relationship with local authorities that is based not on central diktat but on a partnership approach. I am encouraged by the importance that has been placed, across the country, on kinship care and the benefits of successful kinship care placement. After all, it makes financial sense for local authorities to put good local schemes in place.

I am encouraged by progress to date, but I am aware that some areas are better than others, so I am bringing together a number of key local authority representatives to learn from those authorities that are delivering effective support for kinship carers and to ensure that we support better services across the country.

Jim Tolson (Liberal Democrat, Dunfermline West)

Although a constituent of mine has to look after their grandchild as their daughter is a paranoid schizophrenic, they receive no financial assistance whatever because the child has not gone through the social work system and achieved looked-after status. How can the minister assist in that situation?

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

If the member cares to write to me with the details of the case, I will be able to give it more careful consideration.

In line with our drive towards early intervention, I believe that it is in everyone's interest for a package of support to be put around a child in those circumstances and I would be looking the health service, local authorities and others to do just that.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

Does the minister accept that the way in which the scheme has been introduced has given rise to unfair anomalies? While we continue to debate the issue, some families throughout Scotland continue to care for children in difficult circumstances and without the full support, including the holistic care package and the allowance, that they need and deserve.

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I certainly accept that there have been some difficulties in ensuring the effective roll-out of the scheme across the whole country. One particular barrier has been the relationship between the tax and benefits system. Some local authorities do not believe that they should be income maintenance agencies, suggesting that the tax and benefits system should support children coming into families. As the member knows, the Scottish ministers and their United Kingdom counterparts continue to correspond on that subject.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what discussions it has had with the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council on the distribution of the remaining amount of additional revenue funding for colleges in 2010-11. (S3O-8352)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The Scottish Government and the Scottish funding council are continuing to consider how resources that are yet to be allocated might most effectively be used to support learners in 2010-11. Those resources are additional to the significant planned increase for 2010-11 in our funding of the college sector, which will enjoy a cash increase of no less than 6.9 per cent—or 5.3 per cent in real terms—at a time when the Westminster Government has cut the Scottish Government's budget by £500 million in real terms.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

There is real disquiet among the board members of rural colleges on this matter. Does the cabinet secretary agree that the criteria used in the first round might have been insufficiently robust, given that no college north of Dundee received any funding, despite the pockets of significant rural youth unemployment in the north-east? Will she give a commitment to fine tune the criteria to ensure that the allocation of additional funding redresses that imbalance and offers support to young Scots in rural areas?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

It is obvious that we have to ensure that support goes where it is needed. In that respect, we need to look at the claimant counts for September 2009. In Aberdeenshire the increase was 1.4 per cent, in Angus it was 1.6 per cent and in Perth and Kinross it was 1.5 per cent. However, in East Ayrshire the increase was 4.8 per cent, in North Ayrshire it was 4.6 per cent and in North Lanarkshire it was 5 per cent. As the member suggests, it is important that we target resources where they are needed.

Under the terms of the flexible new deal, work-focused training will have to be delivered for young people in the north of Scotland, but as that will not come on stream until August 2010, we need to think about the resources that are needed now. The member is also right that we need to think about where resources will be needed in the academic and financial year 2010-11.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The cabinet secretary will recall that, last month, the Parliament unanimously passed a Conservative amendment in my name that supported funding for rural colleges. I appreciate that such decisions are for the Scottish funding council, but the fact is that the cabinet secretary has powers of ministerial direction on this matter. Will she bear in mind the terms of my amendment when she considers future funding allocations?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I have already, in discussions with the funding council, brought to its attention the concerns that were raised in the Parliament. The council is aware of the motion that Parliament passed. I reiterate that when we have areas that have five times the increase in claimant count for 18 to 24-year-olds it is important that we address those areas first. We should bear it in mind that the claimant count information for the most recent quarter for which information is available shows that Scotland's figure is 2.7 per cent below that of England. That shows that we must be getting something right somewhere.

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Executive how it is supporting concessionary travel schemes. (S3O-8299)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The Scottish Government provides free bus travel to everyone over the age of 60 and to eligible disabled people who live in Scotland. We have previously announced that we intend to include Her Majesty's service personnel and veterans under the age of 60 who have been seriously injured in service. The Scottish Government also provides discounted bus and rail travel to young people living in Scotland who are aged 16 to 18.

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

A recent newspaper report suggests that Fife Council is likely to scrap the flat-rate concessionary 50p rail tickets. I am sure that the minister will acknowledge that Fife has been at the forefront of pushing out the boundaries on concessionary travel—it was the first local authority to provide free bus travel for all pensioners. Given the wider health and wellbeing aspects of the policy, will the minister contact Fife Council as a matter of urgency and consider what support can be sourced from the Scottish Government so that the policy can continue?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

We have regular discussions with councils throughout Scotland. The member will be aware that, under this Government, the proportion of the budget that is allocated to councils has risen since the final Labour budget at the end of the previous session of Parliament. It is for local authorities to decide how to spend the money that is available to them, but of course we will continue to have meaningful discussions on supporting people's transport needs in Fife and elsewhere in Scotland.

Ian McKee (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Are there plans to adopt the model of concessionary travel in England, where it applies only to local bus services?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

One key attribute of the Scottish system is that transport is available throughout the day and right across Scotland. I congratulate my predecessors on introducing such a scheme. We share the commitment to the scheme and we have extended it. We certainly do not intend to copy what happens south of the border.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

To ask the Scottish Executive what steps it is taking to ensure the protection of Scotland's charities in the event that the Lloyds TSB Foundation and the Lloyds Banking Group fail to agree a settlement in their funding dispute. (S3O-8275)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I have held discussions with both organisations and have urged them to remain in discussion to find a solution. I will continue to encourage both parties to come to an agreement that will enable the valuable support that has been provided to charities in Scotland over many years to continue in future.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I am pleased to read in today's newspapers that discussions between the two bodies are to take place, but I am sure that the minister will appreciate that the loss of funding from the Lloyds TSB Foundation would have a hugely negative impact on community-based groups in my constituency and national organisations such as Cruse Bereavement Centres Scotland, which depend heavily on the Lloyds foundation for financial support. Will the minister use his office to stress the need for the charitable foundation to continue its work and the need for both parties to get round the table and come up with a solution?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Like Cathie Craigie, I was pleased to hear that the Lloyds Banking Group and the Lloyds TSB Foundation will have discussions tomorrow to address the issues. That is a helpful way forward, because the issues can be resolved only by dialogue between the parties. I have certainly encouraged that process and I will continue to do so. Cathie Craigie makes an important point about the significance of the funding stream for the viability of many charitable organisations throughout the country and the good work that they undertake, which of course we want to continue.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

That concludes general questions.

I am sure that, before we move to the next item of business, members will wish to join me in welcoming to the gallery the Chilean ambassador to the United Kingdom, His Excellency Rafael Moreno. [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-1976)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

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

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

It has been another week of upheaval for our banks. A year ago, the First Minister promised to "strain every sinew" to keep jobs and banks in Scotland. He

"called an emergency meeting of the Financial Services Advisory Board".

He said that FiSAB was

"particularly important at a time such as this."—[Official Report, 18 September 2008; c 10984, 10988.]

He was to chair FiSAB's meetings. When did FiSAB last meet?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

FiSAB has met throughout the year. If I am correct, the next meeting will take place in two weeks' time. In addition, FiSAB has established a jobs task force. The financial sector in Scotland has mobilised to ensure that we have positive announcements as well as the disappointing job losses that have inevitably occurred. Among the positive announcements are the headquartering in Edinburgh of Tesco retail bank, whose headquarters I was delighted to open, and the 500 job gains in insurance through esure's investment. The Scottish Government supported both those investments. I am sure that Iain Gray would be the first to welcome that positive action for jobs in Scotland.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

FiSAB last met four months ago, on 1 June, but the First Minister was not at the meeting. He has not met that key body since February. At that meeting and in the report that was published in June, it was said that FiSAB would start to meet regularly. Why has it not met since 1 June?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

FiSAB meets throughout the year and the jobs task force that it established is in constant communication. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth and I meet people from the financial sector constantly. Only this week, John Swinney and I have had extensive discussions with the Royal Bank of Scotland, Lloyds TSB and the permanent secretary to the Treasury to try to secure and save jobs in Scotland.

One of our many key concerns is about the disposal of the Royal Bank of Scotland's insurance businesses such as Direct Line and particularly about the 1,600 jobs that could be at stake in the city of Glasgow. Will the Labour Party join the Government in ensuring that those 1,600 vital insurance jobs in Glasgow are secured as an independent insurance business in that city?

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

I have had such discussions with the banks and with the workforce this week. However, the First Minister said:

"FiSAB is the key body to look at, promote and enhance the skills of the financial sector in Scotland."—[Official Report, 15 January 2009; c 14066.]

FiSAB should have met on 29 September, but an e-mail from the Scottish Government's financial services team said:

"Hi All We have been contacted today by the First Minister's office advising us that, the First Minister may not be able to attend the agreed FiSAB date of 29 September ... The new proposed date is Tuesday 27 October."

That would have meant a month's delay, but a couple of weeks later, an e-mail said:

"Sincere apologies in advance—but I'm afraid I am going to have to cancel the next scheduled meeting of FiSAB on Tuesday 27 October at the request of the First Minister."

That e-mail rearranged the FiSAB meeting for 9 December, which will be 11 months since the First Minister turned up at a meeting. Will he manage to go along to the next meeting?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The First Minister and the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth have had a range of meetings with key people in the financial sector. FiSAB meetings and communications continue throughout the year. That is why we have been able to take the action that I identified to secure jobs in the financial sector in Scotland. Do we have the Labour Party's support to retain the 1,600 vital insurance jobs in the city of Glasgow?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Questions should be to the First Minister, not by the First Minister.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

I think that the First Minister's problem is that he does not have an answer to my question.

Of course Scottish Labour supports any attempts to keep those 1,600 jobs in Scotland. Those are exactly the discussions that I have had this week with the banks and the unions that represent those workers.

It is true that the First Minister meets FiSAB throughout the year—he met it in February and he will meet it again in December. The point is that the First Minister promised to strain every sinew for the Diageo workers, but he blew off the chief executive to draw a raffle on television. He promised to strain every sinew for the bank workers, but he blew off the Financial Services Advisory Board in June, in September and again in October. On 1 June, he was at home in the north-east; on 29 September, he managed to get to a homecoming party at Edinburgh castle; on 27 October, he was at a reception at Stirling castle. He is straining Scotland's patience, but he is not straining his sinews. He has been posted missing again and again. Is the First Minister not the problem—capital T, capital P—yet again?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I was straining every sinew when I helped to open the Tesco bank headquarters in Scotland. I was straining every sinew when I announced, with Peter Woods, the 500 new esure jobs in Glasgow. I was straining every sinew when I was on the Diageo march in Kilmarnock—which Iain Gray did not manage to attend. He sent the reassuring message that he would have attended if he had been the First Minister.

It is important that we not only defend Scottish jobs in Kilmarnock but engage with the financial sector, not just to mitigate the potential damage of forced sell-offs, but to engage in the positive announcements by Tesco bank and esure in Glasgow. I am delighted that Iain Gray eventually committed the Labour Party to helping to secure jobs in Glasgow. What a pity that it took two goes to get from him an assurance of commitment to jobs in the great city of Glasgow.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S3F-1977)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

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

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The Audit Scotland report on public finances that was published today is extremely worrying in identifying up to £3.8 billion in budget cuts. That must be a wake-up call for the Scottish Government. The report is Labour's legacy, but it is the Scottish National Party Government's problem. It blows out of the water the First Minister's pretence that he can prevent budget cuts in Scotland. Gordon Brown had to be dragged kicking and screaming to admit that cuts were necessary. In the light of Audit Scotland's report, does the First Minister now accept that cuts are unavoidable?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

We have already faced up to the first real-terms cut in Scottish public spending in a generation—that is what the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth has done in setting the Scottish budget. I hope that the parties across the chamber will start to address the reality that, under the Labour Party—or, indeed, under the Conservatives—the outlook for public spending in Scotland is extremely bleak. Luckily for the people of Scotland, choices will be available in next year's general election. The perspective from Labour and the Tories is identical: a sharp, real-terms decline in Scottish public spending. For those who have different priorities, who want to put jobs and services before nuclear missiles in Scotland, there is a clear alternative at the ballot box.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The figures are not my rhetorical invention; they are in an independent report and cover the next four to five years of the Parliament's activities and the Government's responsibilities. If the First Minister is not prepared to accept an entirely independent report on our public finances, how can anyone look to his Government to provide leadership through these desperately difficult times? Let us get back home to Scotland and the problems that confront us now. Will the First Minister now consider taking Scottish Water out of public control? Will he reconsider his plans to give free prescriptions and free school meals to people who can already afford to pay for them? If he will not do any of those things, what will he do or, on the issue of budget cuts, is Alex Salmond lost for words for the first time in his life?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The figures that are quoted in the Audit Scotland report are the same as the forecasts by the Centre for Public Policy for Regions that I brought to the chamber's attention at First Minister's question time on 10 September. Incidentally, when I did so Andy Kerr told me to

"focus on the facts and not on the fictional forecasts."—[Official Report, 10 September 2009; c 19503.]

Annabel Goldie should concede that the Government has been first to identify the £500 million cut from Westminster in Scottish public spending this year and the danger of looming cuts under Labour or the Conservatives in the medium-term outlook for public spending. John Swinney's management of the Scottish budget has allowed us to identify efficiency savings that put us in a much better place than we would otherwise be in.

If Annabel Goldie is asking me whether there are real choices to be made about what is really important for the future of public spending in Scotland, I absolutely agree with her. That is why I do not want £100,000 million to be wasted on nuclear missiles in the Clyde when it could be invested in jobs and services in Scotland. In the headlong rush, as the mask slips on Tory privatisation plans, perhaps Annabel Goldie should remember that Scottish Water is providing a better service, at lower cost, to businesses and people in Scotland than any of the English privatised water companies, on average. If privatisation is the Tories' renewed agenda, let them tell the businesses and people of Scotland that there will be higher costs, higher charges and a lower level of service than they are getting at present.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-1978)

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)

This week the United Kingdom Government announced that a further enormous wallop of taxpayers' money should be given to Lloyds Banking Group and the Royal Bank of Scotland, which is cutting 600 branch jobs across Scotland. Those banks are now focused not on our economy but on internal fire sales, rights issues and the Government's rules, yet we are in a recession and need banks and their money to move the economy forward and to create jobs. That is what banks are for, is it not? Last year, the First Minister said that the Lloyds takeover of HBOS was

"the deal of the century".

Has he changed his mind?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Unfortunately for Tavish Scott—actually, unfortunately for me—I watched an interview with him on BBC Scotland on Sunday, in which I heard him imply, on the basis of my comment that the Lloyds takeover of HBOS was

"the deal of the century",

that I was somehow in favour of the deal. I therefore traced the exact quotation, which I will read to the chamber so that there is no room for misunderstanding:

"Emphasising the Lloyds deal is 'likely but not inevitable', Salmond says: 'It would be, in my view, in Scotland's interests for there to be competition in this matter. If Lloyds TSB get through the next few months, then the potential they have as a bank of that scale, with that share of the marketplace, is from their commercial interest extraordinary. This is the deal of the century.

'From their point of view it's perfectly legitimate of them to pursue their commercial interests. From a Scottish point of view, it would be useful if we were able to compare other possibilities.'"

The quotation is from the Sunday Herald of 2 November last year.

I am shocked—actually, I am not shocked, but ever so slightly disappointed—that we have uncovered yet another Liberal Democrat distortion. Now that the whole chamber knows, will Tavish Scott withdraw the implication that somehow I was in favour of the takeover of HBOS?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

We will all be delighted to look back at how the First Minister expressed himself last year. He did say that it was

"the deal of the century".

If he wants to get worked up about the matter, it is up to him. More important than the First Minister's attempts to get out of what he said last year is the shape that he wants for Scottish banking.

The chancellor could not say whether he wants more bonuses are back and greed is good banking, or separate retail and business banks that get the economy moving. The governor of the Bank of England was clear when he made the case in Scotland for breaking up banks. Does the First Minister agree that we should split the casino banks that can fail, from the solid, reliable business banks that cannot be allowed to fail? Would that not give taxpayers something to show for all the money that has been spent? Would that not be good for business and good for Scotland's reputation in the world?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Tavish Scott should have been quick enough on his feet to adjust his third question after I discovered the misquotation in his second question. He and I have previously agreed at First Minister's question time that the best outcome for Scotland would have been for HBOS to remain as an independent organisation.

To answer Tavish Scott's question, there are potential benefits for Scotland in having more competition in the retail banking sector. If there is the opportunity to establish a new bank with Scottish headquarters or a Scottish-owned bank, that would be good for customers, good for competition and a good thing for Scotland.

However, I have concerns about the Royal Bank of Scotland insurance sell-off that has been mooted with the divestment of Direct Line and Churchill. Direct Line and Churchill have not been an obstacle to competition in the general insurance and car insurance sector; they have been the competition. They are part of the reason why that is an extremely competitive market. I hope that Tavish Scott will join me—I know that he will do it more willingly than Iain Gray did—in trying to ensure that those vital assets are not taken over by another general insurance company, which would reduce competition and would be a substantial threat to 1,600 Scottish jobs in the city of Glasgow. Yes, let us have more competition in banking, but let us ensure that those vital assets remain an important asset for competition in the sector, and let us ensure that Glasgow retains those 1,600 vital jobs.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

To ask the First Minister how many referrals the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration has received regarding children held at the Dungavel immigration removal centre in the last 12 months. (S3F-1991)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The Scottish Children's Reporter Administration has advised that it has received no referrals in the past year in respect of children held at Dungavel immigration removal centre. The Scottish Government remains fundamentally opposed to the detention of children in Dungavel.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Will the First Minister clarify whether any discussions have taken place with the Home Office specifically to ensure that any child who will be or has been referred under the Protection of Children (Scotland) Act 2003—broadly speaking, children at risk—will not be deported until investigations by the children's reporter have been concluded? Such children were deported under the previous Liberal-Labour coalition. Will he also convey the widespread revulsion of most Scots to the imprisonment of children in detention camps in Scotland—a practice that has no place in a modern, progressive, compassionate society?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Although there have been no referrals to the SCRA in the past year, 103 children have been detained at Dungavel. That statistic is in the public domain. We have repeatedly made clear to the United Kingdom Government our opposition to the policy of the detention of children in Dungavel. On Tuesday this week, my officials were in contact with the UK Government specifically about that, and they will continue the dialogue.

We are also in regular contact with the Home Office about how we can best improve the position of the children of asylum seekers and unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in Scotland. We have made it absolutely clear on every occasion that this Government is fully opposed to the detention of children in Dungavel. We will continue to fight that battle.

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh South)

The Liberal Democrats share the view of the Government and many people throughout Scotland that it is deeply offensive that children are locked up because their parents are failed asylum seekers. Will the First Minister tell me how many families have benefited from the pilot project in Glasgow? A similar scheme in Kent dealt with only a tiny fraction of the families that it intended to help. Is the First Minister satisfied that the Glasgow project is not facing the same problems? How can we have any hope that the UK and Scottish Governments will put an end to Scotland's shame at Dungavel when similar efforts have fallen so far short of their modest targets?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

It is early days for the family return project, which was established in May and which I know has general support and approval throughout the Parliament. It can provide a range of support to five families at any time. Its aim is to reduce the number of children who are held at Dungavel and to encourage and assist voluntary return in a proper and humane manner. I fully accept that the family return project, well-intentioned and important though it undoubtedly is, is only a small part of the answer to the overall question. Mike Pringle is correct to point to the number of children who are being detained at Dungavel and the inevitably small number of people who can be assisted in the project.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's position is on the view of the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents that the draft budget will lead to cuts to front-line services and "an inability to respond appropriately to major civil or criminal contingencies". (S3F-1979)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Anybody in the public services is entitled to express concern, given this year's £500 million cut in Scottish public finance and the grim outlook of the Labour Party forecasts from Westminster, which we discussed earlier this question time.

However, I remind Richard Baker that our draft budget states that in 2010-11 we will pay a police grant of £586.7 million, a 3.1 per cent increase on the current year. That is at a time when we face the Labour-induced cuts in planned expenditure that were imposed on Scotland by the UK Government. I know that Richard Baker will have looked at Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary for Scotland's annual report, which was published only this morning, which states:

"the police service in Scotland has made significant inroads this year in identifying strategic priorities, actively aligning performance measures, building capacity and capability and developing leaders to meet current and future challenges."

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

Moving on from the £600 million increase in the Scottish Government's budget, is it not the case that the ASPS and Grampian Police have raised concerns about the impact of the draft budget and that Strathclyde Police still face a shortfall next year of some £12 million? Given the potential that that creates for compulsory redundancies among support staff, does the First Minister agree that forces must be able to recruit and retain new police officers and that they should be on the beat, not doing jobs that were previously carried out by civilian staff?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Luckily, we have 1,044 more officers in Scotland to do the jobs. As I said, we have a 3.1 per cent increase in the police grant in Scotland at a time when, in real terms, the Scottish budget is declining, thanks to Westminster cuts. I say as gently as I possibly can that Richard Baker's credibility on this issue is rather strained, because, as a member of the Labour Party, which is imposing real-terms public spending cuts in Scotland now—and by all forecasts will do so in the future—he should be thoroughly ashamed to complain about a 3.1 per cent increase under those circumstances.

If we had listened to Richard Baker's forecasts, the 1,044 police officers would not exist. Iain Gray told us just a year ago that it would take 13 years for this Government to achieve that target—13 is a Baker's dozen. We achieved the target 12 years early in June of this year. Will Richard Baker bring himself to welcome the fact that, thanks to this Government, there are more than 1,000 additional officers keeping communities in Scotland safe from harm?

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

One might well reflect that there are 1,044 additional officers as a result of the Conservative party's intervention two years ago.

Does the First Minister agree that, bearing in mind the grim economic circumstances that we will all have to face in two years' time, it is essential that front-line policing is a major priority? Will he guarantee that that will be the case when next year's budget is considered?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

We are facing the reality of the constriction of the Scottish budget this year. That is why Mr Swinney has been able to put forward a budget that combines protecting front-line services such as police and the health service with ensuring the efficiency savings that will be necessary to manage the constraint on public spending.

I acknowledge that the Conservative party is prepared to admit, accept and even claim the credit for the fact that there are 1,044 more police officers in Scotland. I hope that, in that spirit of good will, Bill Aitken, who is concerned about expenditure on law and order in Scotland, will prevail on his leaders and his Westminster colleagues not to go down the line of public spending cuts that the Labour Party has forecast and the Conservative party has endorsed but, instead, to spend the money on things that matter, such as policing our streets as opposed to putting Trident missiles on the River Clyde.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

To ask the First Minister whether, in light of the severe flooding experienced across the north-east at the weekend, the Scottish Government considers that provisions for flood management are adequate. (S3F-1980)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I thank Alex Johnstone for raising that issue. Communities throughout Scotland have been affected by flooding over the past few days, particularly in the north-east. It has a devastating impact on people's lives. All our thoughts are with them. I also put on record my thanks to all the emergency services for their hard work and swift action, which I witnessed for myself in Huntly in my constituency on Monday.

I will update Parliament on the situation. A significant number of rivers were affected by the heavy rains of 1 and 2 November. As of 9 am on Monday, for example, there were no fewer than 21 flood watches, six flood warnings and one severe flood warning in Scotland. However, there are currently no flood warnings. The last one, on the Stirling rivers, was removed at 10 o'clock last night.

Work has been under way since the weekend to ensure that people can return to their homes. All major roads are now operational, although there is still some rail disruption between Aberdeen and Inverness and between Dundee and Aberdeen. We continue to be updated on the situation.

Flooding is becoming an increasing problem and is affecting more and more communities. The Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009, much of which comes into force on 26 November, speeds up the decision-making process for flood protection schemes, as well as creating a new duty on the relevant authorities to reduce flood risk. The Scottish Government has also made record levels of funding available to local authorities for flood prevention measures.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I associate myself with the tribute that the First Minister paid to the emergency services and others who were instrumental in ensuring that the disaster was not worse than it could have been. Will he join me in extending sympathy to the people whose homes and businesses were affected in Huntly, Arbroath and, particularly, Stonehaven—my home town, where I saw at first hand the effects of the flooding at its peak? Will he undertake to ensure that, whatever recommendations are made, resources are available to enable remedial action to be taken to ensure that there is no short-term repeat of the flooding disaster that affected those towns? Will he also undertake to ensure that, where necessary, local authorities are able to take action to ensure that the incident is not the first of a number? Will he further—

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Be brief, Mr Johnstone, please.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Is the First Minister aware that the extreme weather conditions of Sunday evening caused further slippage in the Bervie braes to the south of Stonehaven? Given his experience and knowledge of the situation at Cullen, is he willing to prioritise expenditure in that area, should it be deemed necessary?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

There is also the situation in Pennan. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth is considering an application from Aberdeenshire Council with regard to the Bervie braes in Stonehaven.

The average expenditure on flood prevention in the Parliament's first eight years was £7 million across the local authorities in Scotland; in the past two years, it has averaged £42 million a year—an increase of six times. However, we face an unprecedented situation: the rainfall in a 24-hour period on 1 and 2 November was the equivalent of the normal rainfall for the entire month of November. My understanding is that, in Stonehaven, areas were flooded that had not been flooded in a generation or in living memory; my certain knowledge is that that was the case in Huntly.

The Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009 will assist substantially. Of course, the Belwin formula still applies for assisting local authorities that encounter and deal with severe natural disasters of any kind, but the member and, indeed, the entire Parliament will need to accept that the 2009 act is important, the improved flood warnings are vital, and that the unity of the various services in mobilising resources, as the Tomkins report advises, will help us enormously. As a country and, indeed, as a world, we are facing an unprecedented challenge and we must all mobilise to try and meet it.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I will take a supplementary question from Mike Rumbles.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

The First Minister is well aware of the devastation caused at the weekend by flooding in his constituency at Huntly and in my constituency at Stonehaven. As he just mentioned, the Belwin fund is available to assist local authorities, but Aberdeenshire Council has already said that it will not apply to that fund because it would have to spend over £1 million to access it. Will the First Minister assist the council—our council—in dealing with the floods by lowering the Belwin threshold, as he was recommended to do by the 2007 flood summit?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I am sure that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth will look at that suggestion as part of the range of measures that we are taking to help deal with this unprecedented situation. I appreciate the way in which the member asked the question, because it must be dealt with in that manner. However, he will have heard what I said about the amount that is being spent on flood prevention schemes compared with what was spent in the past. He will know—and I am sure will support—the legislative and other action that our agencies and authorities have taken. In the same light, I know that the finance secretary, even in these times of enormous financial stringency, will look at Mr Rumbles's suggestion to see what can be done.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — Health and Wellbeing

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Executive what progress there has been with implementation of the energy assistance package. (S3O-8300)

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

In its first six months, the energy assistance package has helped more than 16,000 households in Scotland to reduce the proportion of their incomes that they spend on fuel. Yesterday, I announced that we would extend the package to many more homes in Scotland as soon as the regulations can be amended. We will widen the definition of an energy inefficient house to include those with a standard assessment procedure rating that would put them in band E on an energy performance certificate. I also announced that we will provide local authorities and registered social landlords with up to £2.5 million of additional funding for stage 3 work in the social sector.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I am delighted that my lodging a question led to that rushed announcement by the minister yesterday to try to rescue a policy that is clearly failing. By the end of September, only 429 energy assistance package systems had been installed throughout Scotland, which includes legacy projects from the central heating programme. That is a substantial tail-off in the rate of installations, given that as many as 16,000 systems per year were installed under the former central heating programme. Is the minister aware that only 19 systems were installed in the whole of my vast region of the Highlands and Islands? Part of the reason for that is the lack of availability of mains gas. In those circumstances, people are offered inefficient and costly-to-run electric storage heaters or oil systems. If they go for oil, the scheme rules mean that they have to find significant sums to proceed.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Do you have a question, Mr Peacock?

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

What will the minister do to ensure that my constituents do not continue to be disadvantaged by his policies?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

As the member probably knows, the current package was based on the recommendations of the fuel poverty forum. The forum made representations to me about the need to make changes to the eligibility criteria. As I said, I have agreed to do that. I have asked the fuel poverty forum to consider the wider eligibility criteria for the groups that are entitled to benefit from the programme. The forum will report back to me in due course on whether a widening of the eligibility criteria is required. I am sure that the member will be delighted that, given the backlog of people who are in band E, the reforms that I announced yesterday should result in a tenfold increase at stage 4.

George (Labour, Lothians)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it agrees with the City of Edinburgh Council's decision to put its homeless services out to tender. (S3O-8279)

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Local authorities are responsible for providing or procuring local services to tackle and prevent homelessness. The decision whether to put homeless services out to tender is therefore for the City of Edinburgh Council. It is the council's responsibility to ensure that local services are aligned with the Scottish Government's objectives on addressing homelessness and that resources are used in the most effective way to deliver its strategic outcomes.

George (Labour, Lothians)

Is the minister aware that, under the Scottish National Party-Liberal Democrat council in Edinburgh, there are no longer any council-run addiction services for homeless people and that the number of support hours for people with multiple needs has been cut? Those are people with recurring homelessness, combined with alcohol or drugs addiction, a history of abuse and, in some cases, learning disability. Also, just before Christmas, the council will close its night shelter. Surely the minister must agree that, when vulnerable people will end up in hospital wards, police stations or prison cells, the matter becomes the Scottish Government's responsibility. What representations will he make to the City of Edinburgh Council to ask it to rethink its decision?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I remind the member that the City of Edinburgh Council has an A listing from the regulator for its homelessness services. On the impact of the tendering procedure, we have been absolutely assured by the council that there will be no reduction in capacity of any of the services and that the council will ensure that the outcomes that the services are designed to deliver will be achieved.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

I remind members that this item of business is questions to ministers, not stories to ministers.

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Does the minister agree that the decision to tender homelessness services in Edinburgh might have been influenced by the amount of money that is raised in rent and which goes to paying off historical housing debt within the city, which stands at more than 40p in every pound? Does the minister agree that if Lord Foulkes and the Labour Party want to see an end to homelessness in Edinburgh, they should lobby the United Kingdom chancellor to end the historical housing debt in Edinburgh and the rest of Scotland?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I agree with every word that Shirley-Anne Somerville has just said.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

To ask the Scottish Executive what actions it has taken in the last six months to remove the perceived postcode lottery and improve the availability of infertility services and standards for patients across Scotland. (S3O-8277)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

In the past six months, we have announced that we are funding Infertility Network Scotland to work with national health service boards during the next three years to ensure fairer access to treatment and offer patients a direct influence on the future direction of infertility care. I recently wrote to the chairs of NHS boards asking for their assistance with that work. We are also in the final stages of setting up a national group to look at many long-standing issues surrounding infertility services across Scotland.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

Does the minister accept that although this is a historical problem not of her making, she is in the powerful position of being able to make change happen? Does she accept that the working group and review that she is talking about has not put a single penny at the sharp end where our constituents are crying out for access to NHS services? Does she accept that there is definitely a major case of rationing and point-blank refusal to fund patients by the Scottish Government? What will the minister do to address the problem of patients being compelled to go private because the NHS refuses them treatment? Will she, at the very least, pay the cost of the drugs that they require, which can amount to several hundred pounds if hormone stimulation is required? Finally, when couples have to move—

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

As I said, this is questions to ministers. There is an s at the end of "questions", but we need a singular question from you, Ms Eadie. Can you come to the end of your question, please?

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

Okay, Presiding Officer. Thank you.