Scottish Parliament, 11 February 2010

350 contributions from 75 members. The official report.

Official Report 11 February 2010

Business Motion

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Good morning. The first item of business is consideration of business motion S3M-5717, in the name of Bruce Crawford, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a timetable for stage 3 of the Home Owner and Debtor Protection (Scotland) Bill.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees that, during Stage 3 of the Home Owner and Debtor Protection (Scotland) Bill, debate on groups of amendments shall, subject to Rule 9.8.4A, be brought to a conclusion by the time limit indicated, that time limit being calculated from when the Stage begins and excluding any periods when other business is under consideration or when a meeting of the Parliament is suspended (other than a suspension following the first division in the Stage being called) or otherwise not in progress:

Groups 1 and 2: 15 minutes.—[Bruce Crawford.]

Motion agreed to.

Home Owner and Debtor Protection (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

The next item of business is stage 3 of the Home Owner and Debtor Protection (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2, which is SP Bill 32A; the marshalled list of amendments, which is SP Bill 32-ML; and the groupings, which I, as Presiding Officer, have agreed. The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes before the first division this morning. The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate. All other divisions will be 30 seconds.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Group 1 is entitled "Disposal by court on security holder's application". Amendment 2, in the name of Mary Mulligan, is grouped with amendment 3.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

At stage 2, I lodged two amendments that sought to introduce reasonableness tests at sections 2 and 3 of the bill. The aim was to require the court to take into account whatever is reasonable in all the circumstances of a case before making its determination. As members of the Local Government and Communities Committee will remember, one of my stage 2 amendments was agreed to and the other was rejected. Unfortunately, as a result, the court will now be asked to consider slightly different issues, potentially with different powers and discretions, depending on whether a repossession application is made under the Heritable Securities (Scotland) Act 1894, to which my reasonableness amendment at stage 2 applies, or the Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970, to which it does not.

I am sure that we all agree that consistency between those two acts is vital so that the same protections, responsibilities and powers apply to the court, borrowers and lenders regardless of the act under which an action is taken. It was not the intention of any committee member to end up with significant differences between the tests in the two acts. I therefore seek to rectify the situation through amendments 2 and 3, which will ensure the necessary consistency in the courts' consideration of creditors' applications for repossession. It is vital that the requirement and discretion for the court to do what it thinks is reasonable in the circumstances should apply to actions for repossession under the 1894 and 1970 acts.

Amendments 2 and 3 build on my stage 2 amendments, which were based on proposals by the Scottish Association of Law Centres, with which the Government and I have had further discussions. Amendments 2 and 3 will make it explicit that the court has discretionary power to make any order that it sees fit, including a continuation order, provided that it is satisfied that the lender has complied with the pre-action requirements, and it is reasonable in the circumstances of the case to do so. For example, the amendments will remove any doubt about whether the court has the power to delay repossession in cases in which the defender does not dispute that the lender has complied with the pre-action requirements, but simply seeks more time to find alternative accommodation. I acknowledge that the Government wishes to achieve that, too.

Amendments 2 and 3 provide a good balance in that they will further protect the interests of the debtor without compromising the rights of the lender. I acknowledge that the Government expressed concerns at stage 2 about the potential impact of my amendments on court costs and the programming of other court business if sheriffs felt obliged to adjourn every undefended case to seek further information. Although I understand that the Government does not consider that that is likely to happen in practice, my amendments go some way towards addressing those concerns while ensuring that sheriffs are required to consider what is reasonable in the circumstances and that they retain the discretion to adjourn hearings in order to secure further information if they judge that to be necessary.

Ministers will no doubt respond to the amendments during the debate, but I understand that they share my view on the need to ensure consistency between the 1894 and 1970 acts, and that they support my objective, which is to achieve the best possible protection for those who are at risk of repossession, while balancing the overall impact on court time and other court business. I believe that my amendments will achieve that balance and I therefore hope that members will support them.

I move amendment 2.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

We have worked closely with Mary Mulligan on her amendments 2 and 3 since stage 2. I hope that the Parliament will unite behind them. As she said, the amendments build on her stage 2 amendment that required sheriffs to consider the reasonableness of applications. The effect of these stage 3 amendments will be to ensure consistency between the 1894 and 1970 acts and the bill, and to ensure that the legislation is workable in practice.

I fully accept the need for amendments 2 and 3 and consider that they will reduce the risk that a court would feel obliged unnecessarily to continue every undefended case to another hearing—which was our primary concern at stage 2—while allowing sheriffs to adjourn cases to seek further information if they believe that that is necessary.

We still have concerns about the potential impact on other court business, so we will monitor that carefully during the implementation period. However, I welcome amendments 2 and 3, which will ensure consistency between the two relevant acts and the bill when it becomes an act. The proposed wording is an improvement on what was envisaged either by the Government or by Mary Mulligan at stage 2. I am therefore happy to support amendments 2 and 3, in the usual consensual manner.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

I am happy that we have such consensus so early in the morning. I welcome the minister's comments.

Amendment 2 agreed to.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Group 2 is on family homes included in trust deeds. Amendment 1, in the name of the minister, is the only amendment in the group.

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

Amendment 1 is a technical one that will make a minor clarification for the operation of the amended section 40 of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 in relation to trust deeds. Section 11 of the bill will amend section 40 of the 1985 act so that its protections, which currently apply to sequestrations, are extended to apply to trust deeds. Section 11 ensures that a trustee under a trust deed must, when wishing to sell the family home, seek the relevant consent or authority of the sheriff, just as a trustee in sequestration must do so. The section will also ensure that the sheriff must take into account the same factors with trust deeds as he must in sequestrations.

The term "family home" is defined in section 40(4) of the 1985 act as meaning property in which there was an interest at a defined "relevant date". Amendment 1 adapts the "relevant date" definition to include reference to trust deeds. Without the amendment, the definition of "relevant date" in the 1985 act would make no reference to trust deeds. The amendment avoids any uncertainty by clarifying in the 1985 act that, for the purposes of trust deeds under section 40, a debtor's family home is a home in which he had an interest the day before his trust deed was granted.

I move amendment 1.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

That ends consideration of amendments.

Home Owner and Debtor Protection (Scotland) Bill

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-5650, in the name of Alex Neil, on the Home Owner and Debtor Protection (Scotland) Bill. Before I invite the minister to open the debate, I call on Nicola Sturgeon, as a cabinet secretary, to signify Crown consent to the bill.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

For the purposes of rule 9.11 of the standing orders of the Scottish Parliament, I advise the Parliament that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Home Owner and Debtor Protection (Scotland) Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interests, in so far as they are affected by the bill, at the disposal of the Parliament, for the purposes of the bill.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Thank you. I call Alex Neil to speak to and move the motion in his name.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I am glad to open the stage 3 debate on the Home Owner and Debtor Protection (Scotland) Bill.

I pay tribute to the work of the Local Government and Communities Committee under the convenership of Duncan McNeil. The committee considered the bill in a diligent, thorough and constructive manner at stages 1 and 2. It is to the committee's great credit that we were able to move from the bill's introduction in October to completion of stage 2 before the end of January. I pay tribute in particular to the work of the clerks to the committee, who were extremely helpful and co-operative.

It is almost a year to the day since the repossessions group, which was ably chaired by Adrian Stalker, first met. I record again my appreciation of the group's role in recommending the ways in which legislative protection for home owners needed to be strengthened. The debt action forum is also to be commended for its role in shaping part 2 of the bill. The policy development and passage of this small but complex bill has been relatively swift, but the bill has certainly been subject to appropriate testing and scrutiny.

Although the key principles of the bill were widely shared and have not been altered, we listened carefully to committee members' views and were happy to make a number of amendments to the bill on points of detail, notably in section 1, on voluntary surrender, in section 6, on recall arrangements, in section 7, on lay representation, in section 9, on certificates for sequestration, and in section 10, on trust deeds. Our acceptance this morning of amendments 2 and 3, in the name of Mary Mulligan, is further evidence of our willingness to listen and adjust when it is right to do so.

We could not address some issues that members raised. For example, although we supported the spirit of Bob Doris's amendments, which sought to protect people from liability for their lender's legal expenses when the lender had not complied with pre-action requirements, it is regrettable that the matter is—at the moment—reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament. For that reason alone we could not support Bob Doris's amendments. However, as I promised to do at stage 2—this Government keeps its promises—I have written to Lord Myners to ask the UK Government to address the issue, and copies of my letter are available from the Scottish Parliament information centre. [Interruption.] The debate had become a bit too consensual, Presiding Officer.

I am also grateful to Bob Doris for raising an important point about voluntary surrender. We responded to concerns that a formal affidavit was too onerous, but Bob Doris also sought the creation of a set of guidelines, to enable borrowers to be clear about what they are doing. As I said to the committee, it will be for the lender to decide how that will work in practice; that is not an issue for the bill. However, I reassure Bob Doris and other members that it is one of a number of issues that we will seek to address when we implement the bill, through consultation of all interested parties. I also assure the Parliament that we will keep the new legislation and funding for the advice sector, courts and others under review, and we will come back to the Parliament, if that is required, to ensure that the provisions work as the Parliament intended or to correct deficiencies.

Pauline McNeill did us a service when she drew the Parliament's attention to a serious issue. Fergus Ewing explained that although we could not have supported the amendment in her name, we are happy to engage with her and other members to get to the root of the issue and to consider what steps can be taken to improve the transparency and scrutiny of insolvency practitioners' fees.

Not just members but key stakeholders were influential throughout the passage of the bill. I commend stakeholders for their on-going support, consultation and input. In particular, I thank Citizens Advice Scotland, Money Advice Scotland, the Council of Mortgage Lenders—it says "moneylenders" in my notes—Shelter Scotland and the Scottish Association of Law Centres for their willingness to engage constructively, and for the work that they do to avoid repossessions and to help people who are struggling with debt. The insolvency profession and the Law Society of Scotland also engaged fully. Stakeholders did not always get their own way, but the process of consultation was extremely valuable in securing a better balance between protection for lenders and debtors and ensuring that we produced workable legislation.

I remind members of the circumstances that prompted us to introduce the bill. One of the most significant consequences of the economic recession, especially during the past year or so, is that too many Scots are caught in a debt trap, which puts family homes—and families—at risk. Our response, which is embodied in the bill, has been to act quickly to legislate, well ahead of our colleagues south of the border, to introduce more protection for home owners, not just in these difficult times but for the longer term, and to offer support to people who currently cannot access debt solutions.

As members know, the pressing need for legislation has been a focus during previous debates, but it is worth restating why the bill is so important. Home repossessions in the UK increased fivefold from 8,000 in 2004 to 40,000 in 2008, and the Council of Mortgage Lenders has forecast a further rise to 53,000 this year. In November, the CML predicted that the number of families in the UK who have mortgage arrears that amount to more than 2.5 per cent of the balance would top 205,000 in 2010. The risks for such people will only intensify if unemployment or interest rates, or both, go on rising.

An issue on which all members agree is the need for more reliable statistics for Scotland. I had written yet again to the Council of Mortgage Lenders to ask for that information, but I regret that I received a reply in the negative yesterday. The CML's view is that issues to do with reporting the Scottish numbers cannot be resolved unless action is taken by the regulators—in this case, the Financial Services Authority. That is a disappointing reply. Given that the FSA will be under new management from the summer, subject to the election result and its consequences, I will again approach the FSA and ask it to take appropriate action.

In relation to the need for legislation to protect home owners, the FSA said recently that

"firms were often too quick to take repossession action",

and that

"some firms explored very few forbearance options before taking legal action against borrowers. We observed these poor practices across the mortgage market".

Not only in the Scottish Parliament but throughout the country, the bill is welcome and will make a material difference to many families and individuals who find themselves in the unenviable position of having too much debt and facing the prospect of repossession of their homes.

I am delighted to move, That the Parliament agrees that the Home Owner and Debtor Protection (Scotland) Bill be passed.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

I thank the clerks to the Local Government and Communities Committee for their help and support during the passage of the bill. The bill is relatively short and succinct and bears no comparison by length with the Marine (Scotland) Bill, which the Parliament considered last week. However, it is a highly technical bill, and I am sure that members of the committee agree that the clerks were a great help in ensuring that we have understood its complexities. I also thank the bill team, particularly for their assistance with the amendments.

I remind members how we have arrived at this stage today. At the beginning of 2009, Cathy Jamieson and other members of the Scottish Parliament—including Ross Finnie and Robin Harper, who are in the chamber—realised that the number of people at risk of having their homes repossessed due to mortgage arrears was increasing and, crucially, that people in Scotland did not have the same protections as people in England and Wales, where a pre-action protocol was in place that ensures that certain procedures are carried out before a court can grant a repossession decree.

Cathy Jamieson and others suggested that the same protection should be available to people in Scotland but, unfortunately, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing, Nicola Sturgeon, first said that it was not necessary and then, after significant pressure from many—including Mike Dailly of the Govan Law Centre, who experienced the deficiency daily in his professional role—decided to delay further by setting up the repossessions sub-group of the debt action forum. That should at least have ensured that potential legislation would be fully developed. However, the committee was concerned that many witnesses who gave evidence at stage 1 raised concerns about the consultation process. That concerned the committee enough for it to say in its stage 1 report that "on balance" the consultation on part 1 was sufficient, but on part 2 it was not. Indeed, committee members were unsure why part 2 was included in the bill, so it is to the credit of committee members that there is a bill here today to consider.

I acknowledge and welcome the fact that when the two ministers—Mr Neil and Mr Ewing—saw the committee's concerns, they listened and made efforts to respond to them. However, we should not have been in that position in the first place. I hope that lessons have been learned and that it is recognised, in particular, that there are still debt issues to address.

The bill is principally, as the minister said, about offering protection to those who are at risk of losing their homes due to debt, so I will highlight a few of the main points of the bill that will contribute to that aim.

Part 1 of the bill introduces the pre-action court protocols that were sought. I acknowledge that their legislative status means that they have more weight than their English counterparts, but I also contend that it may have been possible to achieve the same results through amendments to the Mortgage Rights (Scotland) Act 2001. That might have been a quicker route. How many people have been faced with repossession without the support that the bill provides?

The second most important aspect of part 1 is the provisions that will enable lay representation in repossession cases. Although that is to be welcomed, as organisations such as Citizens Advice Scotland, Money Advice Scotland and Shelter say, there is some concern about how well resourced they are to deliver the service. The committee convener, Duncan McNeil, pursued the issue with witnesses, including the minister, Alex Neil, and received some reassurance, but I agree with Mr McNeil that the matter needs to be kept under review.

In part 2, sections 9 and 10 provided further provisions in relation to a certificate for sequestration and the removal of the family home from trust deeds, both of which have proved—I am sure the ministers would agree—quite controversial. It is clear to everyone that those sections would have benefited from more detailed consultation before the introduction of the bill. However, I believe that the committee was right to be pragmatic and to recognise that the measures could offer assistance to certain people. I am grateful to Citizens Advice Scotland for the examples that it provided to demonstrate that; Labour will support the measures today.

There have been concerns about the bill delivering the protections that were sought without bringing about unintended consequences that would do more harm than good. The nature of the bill process is that there is detailed analysis and amendment, but that was particularly so in this case.

As I said, there are still some concerns about the resourcing of lay representation. There are also concerns, to which the minister referred this morning, about the ability of the courts to cope. More than ever, the regulations and guidance that are issued with the act will be critical in making it effective. Finally, it will be essential to ensure that the bill is working as soon as possible—I am sure that the minister will not delay further.

With these comments, I offer my and my party's support for the Home Owner and Debtor Protection (Scotland) Bill.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

For a measure that was fast-tracked procedurally by the Government without the usual public consultation, and which was regarded by the Labour Party as being so urgent that members were at one time exhorted to turn up during last year's summer recess to pass the bill, the reality of its progress through Parliament has turned out to be somewhat different.

Instead of a bill that focused exclusively on repossessions, building on legislation that was passed by the Parliament in the form of the Mortgage Rights (Scotland) Act 2001, we have been presented with a hybrid measure that contained contentious and extraneous provisions relating to personal bankruptcy, as set out in part 2.

The case for early action on repossessions arose from an alarming projection on the likely number of repossessions in 2009, which turned out to be way off the mark. It was founded on the belief that, without immediate reform of the law, thousands would be thrown out of their homes and on to the streets as a result of the actions of hard-hearted lenders who care only for money and not a jot for the welfare of families. As usual, that proved to be a gross caricature of the truth, which bore no relationship to the good practice of the overwhelming majority of lenders in this country. All the evidence that was taken on the bill demonstrated that customers who are in arrears with their mortgages are treated with sensitivity, both as a matter of corporate social responsibility and as a matter of sound commercial judgment, because it makes economic sense to assist people to stay in their homes and to ride out the recession rather than to lose money on loans that were secured over homes which were falling sharply in value and in which there was high negative equity.

However, as with many issues in politics, something had to be seen to be done, and when it turned out that there was a relatively minor difference in the law between England and Scotland, Labour was quick to demand that it be corrected and the Scottish National Party was anxious not to be caught out. Accordingly, the measures in part 1 were invested with a political importance and significance that far outweighed their practical consequences.

As I said in the stage 1 debate, in part 1 we have changes that will make marginal improvements to the law, but will do little more than codify existing good practice. They will make little or no difference to the number of people whose homes are repossessed. For that, we will require a recovery from the Labour recession. All that is being done in part 1 is to require the courts to take a more proactive supervisory role in ensuring that all the options have been considered, in conjunction with the debtor, before a repossession order in favour of the lender is granted.

The areas that the committee's report identified as requiring amendment have been duly amended and further tidied up this morning. Therefore, as regards part 1 we can look back with a degree of modest satisfaction on a modest measure, because that is what it is. I will leave the exaggerated claims and counter-claims for Labour and the SNP to fight over.

The criticisms of the Government's handling of part 2 have been many, various and wholly justified. The Government is guilty of ignoring the recommendations of its own debt action forum, which called for fuller public consultation on personal insolvency and the family home. The Government has engaged in all manner of sophistry and double-talk to imply consensus where none exists and consultation where none took place. It has acted in bad faith and forfeited the good will of professional bodies that are involved in this aspect of the law. All of that is particularly true in relation to section 10. Moreover, in relation to section 9, an amendment was approved at stage 2 that removed the legal responsibility of the authorised person in certifying the entitlement of a debtor to relief from debt that comes from sequestration. We now have a situation in which bankruptcy is available on demand and certificates of sequestration are granted by people who take no legal responsibility to creditors for doing so.

The history of this Parliament in the field of debt has been a one-way street of reforms that make it easier for people to avoid paying their bills. Before we go any further beyond this bill, we should pause to think about the stage that we have reached. The credit system is the engine of our economy. As we have seen in spectacular fashion recently, the credit system is good only when sound loans are made to people who can afford to repay them. That is true of a small personal loan from a credit union and a mortgage of tens of thousands of pounds from a major bank. The availability of credit is of the greatest importance to people on lower incomes. If we undermine the system and make credit more difficult or expensive to obtain because we make it easier for some people to avoid and default on paying their debts, we do our society and our economy as a whole a great disservice. In passing the bill, we should reflect on that.

Jim Tolson (Liberal Democrat, Dunfermline West)

I rise in support of the Home Owner and Debtor Protection (Scotland) Bill not only because I have listened to and agree with much of the evidence given to the lead committee, on which I sit, but because the bill will provide vital protection to people who are in serious debt and will allow them to remain in the home that they sought to purchase. It is vital that we minimise such stressful situations and help keep the family unit together.

We were pleased that, as a result of Opposition campaigning and pressure, which the Liberal Democrats led, the Scottish Government established the debt action forum and the repossessions sub-group. Both produced final reports, aspects of which have been taken forward in the bill. Feedback from Citizens Advice Scotland and others who gave evidence to the committee has demonstrated great support for the debt action forum and the repossessions group.

Concerns were rightly expressed about the unusually short consultation period, but that had to be balanced with the urgent need for reform.

Although we were happy to support the bill at stage 1, we had a number of concerns that we wanted to be addressed before the bill came back at stage 2, in particular about the recall of decree. We are pleased that the Government listened to our argument on that. We stressed at stage 1 and stage 2 that there should be an opportunity to make a second application for a recall of decree in certain circumstances and that the bill should be amended in that regard.

I thank the committee clerks and members of the committee who went through a great deal of detail in the bill. I thank Alex Neil and his officials for redrafting the bill as a result of the concerns that I raised in committee in relation to a spouse or partner of the debtor making a second application for a recall of decree where it is felt that the debtor may not be acting in the best interests of the family unit by allowing their home to be repossessed to pay off their debts. I believe that that provides a vital protection, which will both keep a family in its home and keep the family unit together at a time of great personal stress, giving people the best opportunity to recover from debt.

Insolvency practitioners voiced a number of concerns about measures in the bill that they believed might affect their livelihood, and creditors expressed concerns about the imbalance in some of the provisions, which they believe unfairly favour the debtor and may leave the system open to abuse.

Some of the key concerns have been addressed, within reason, by Government amendments that the committee agreed at stage 2 in order to have a more balanced and fair system.

Mr McLetchie pontificated at great length and sought to remove section 10 completely. However, as he well knows, many organisations that act on behalf of the debtor welcomed section 10 and the protection that it will provide to debtors. Given that he is never one to retire to the corner to lick his wounds, I am sure that Mr McLetchie will defend business interests to the max, even today at stage 3.

The fact that only three amendments were lodged at stage 3 is testament to the hard work of officials, members and outside groups, who have sought to ensure that the bill is not only robust and fair but brings real protection to people who are caught in the debt trap, which is often not of their own making.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I welcome the passage of the bill thus far and I very much hope that it will be passed at decision time.

I reiterate the thanks that have been given to the committee clerks, the bill team and the ministers involved. If there was ever a bill that had the fingerprints of the Parliament all over it, this is it. Where genuine concerns were raised, they were listened to and the bill has been shaped by the Parliament as it has gone through. That is the way that all legislation should go through this Parliament.

I will give some context to the bill. In 2004, the United Kingdom figure for repossessions was around 8,000. Despite the fact that the Council of Mortgage Lenders has revised the figure expected in the coming year down—I think to 48,000—in 2008 the figure was 40,000, which is still a huge increase in the number of repossessions over a four-year period.

I say to David McLetchie that just as Nero fiddled while Rome burned, if the Conservatives had their way, they would be sitting on their hands while vulnerable home owners had their homes repossessed. It is vital that we act, and the bill will ensure that we do.

There should be a Scottish figure for repossessions, but we have some data. We know that there has been a 77 per cent hike in the number of mortgages that have been in arrears for three months or more, which shows that more people are getting into mortgage difficulty. We also know that between 2008 and 2009, courts in Scotland granted more repossessions—the figure rose from 67 per cent to 75 per cent. There is an evidence base there. We also know that between December 2008 and December 2009, 21 per cent more actions to repossess were initiated in courts. The evidence is clear: we have to act.

That is why the Scottish Government has moved to introduce statutory pre-action requirements. I give credit to our neighbours in England who introduced the pre-action protocol. In looking at best practice elsewhere, we sought to improve on the pre-action protocol by putting pre-action requirements on a statutory footing. Perhaps the Government south of the border will look at putting its system on a statutory footing at some point, too.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Just for the record, the consultation on the measures south of the border does not finish until the end of March, so there is no chance of legislation before the general election. Therefore, yet again, Scotland is well ahead of what is happening in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I thank the minister for that information. I hope that whatever party gets in south of the border after the next election will look at best practice in Scotland and follow suit.

The minister raised issues about cost. The Scottish Government sought to put in the bill a provision that would ensure that sheriffs could award costs against lenders should they move to repossess via a court and that repossession fails. Shelter, Citizens Advice Scotland and Money Advice Scotland drew to my attention the fact that under the Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970—under the terms of standard conditions of security—it would be permissible for a mortgage lender to rack up thousands of pounds in legal fees while attempting to repossess a vulnerable person's home. Although a Scottish sheriff could say that it had failed to meet the statutory requirement to be reasonable in seeking a proper credit solution and could award costs against the mortgage company, under the same act, it is also permissible for the lender to introduce back-door charges, so the legal fee could be added directly to the debt of the vulnerable home owner. I find that unacceptable, which is why I worked with Shelter to lodge an amendment on that at stage 2.

However, I did not know at that point that that would impinge upon the regulation of financial services, which is outwith the terms of the Scotland Act 1998. I thank the minister for his reassurance that he will work with me on that. He has written to Lord Myners to raise the point with him. It makes no difference to me whether the UK Government legislates to end those unfair back-door charges or whether it gives Scotland the power to do so. I just want to help vulnerable home owners and I hope that we can all unite around that. I will certainly write to Lord Myners, too.

I am absolutely delighted with one or two other aspects of the bill. I am delighted to see provision for lay representation in Scottish courts. The experts who have helped vulnerable home owners from the first point at which they access debt advice to the end point, when they face repossession of their homes—Shelter, Money Advice Scotland and Citizens Advice Scotland—are the very people who should be in court. I thank the minister for his reassurance about voluntary surrender and ask him to keep a weather eye on how that process works.

I am delighted that section 10 has remained intact. There is no compulsion whatever on anyone—the creditor or the borrower—to enter into a protected trust deed. The same situation applies in England. Let us ensure that section 10 stays in the bill. I am delighted with the minister's reassurances. Let us vote for the bill today.

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

I, too, add my thanks to the members and staff of the Local Government and Communities Committee who worked so hard to get the bill through the Parliament in the short space of time that they had to deal with it.

From some speeches in the chamber, people might think that the pressure to bring the bill was about party political point scoring. I say to those members that I pursued the matter vigorously because of the scale of the problem. For example, in the Tesco car park in Auchinleck, a woman stopped me only to break down in tears as she told me that her house was about to be repossessed—she did not know where to turn to get advice; a businessman came to my office in Cumnock and was in tears as he told me of the pressures on him—his worry was that he would lose his home; a couple came to my surgery in Maybole to seek help in exactly the same kind of circumstances; and there was also the woman who e-mailed me at midnight, desperate for advice about where to go. That is what the bill is about.

The bill is about putting in place the right legislation to ensure that every possible step is taken before people are put through the courts and out on to the streets. The bill is also about ensuring that we do everything possible to intervene early in getting advice and information to the people who need it. I support the bill and I will, of course, vote for it at decision time.

When I, along with members of other political parties who were keen to see something done, raised the issues that I have just outlined, we were told, "We hear what you are saying. We will get a bill through and we will do it as quickly as possible." Alex Neil's speech would have led anyone to think that that happened; unfortunately, it was not the case. More than a year ago, Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens raised the issue on a cross-party basis and with the support of Margo MacDonald. At the time, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing's response was that the measure was not needed. As Mary Mulligan said, while the cabinet secretary was saying that, others at the front line were telling a different story. They were telling us that the measure was badly needed and that legislation should be taken forward.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

No matter whether or not her criticisms of the Government are valid, we are way ahead of the member's colleagues at Westminster, where she aspires to go in three months' time. Her colleagues do not even have a bill on the stocks. Indeed, they have not even finished the consultation. It will be another two months before they have done that.

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

I am glad that Alex Neil recognises that I may well be on my way to another place where I will, of course, pursue the issue as vigorously as I have done in this place.

I find it astonishing to hear him say that we are "way ahead". I accept that the bill will put us ahead, but that is only because Labour and other parties consistently pushed the Scottish Government to do something. As I said earlier, the cabinet secretary's initial position was that legislation was not needed.

I am always willing to work with anybody who has the best interests of our local communities at heart. I, for one, will not stand by and say nothing when people are being let down, and home owners were being let down. Thankfully, the cabinet secretary recognised that her initial judgment on the matter was wrong and did something about it. I wish that Alex Neil had a wee bit more grace about recognising that the issue was pushed forward on a cross-party basis.

Shelter Scotland and Citizens Advice Scotland welcomed the bill, albeit that Shelter pointed out that there is no room for complacency. In particular, it said—and I agree with Shelter—that the argument can be made for change, irrespective of the recession. It said that people would continue to require help and support after the recession eases.

In my area, we have a new pan-Ayrshire advice project. I was particularly pleased to attend the launch in Kilmarnock at which the cabinet secretary made a speech. That is exactly the kind of support that my constituents need. As I described at the outset, they need to know where to go to get help and legal advice and representation quickly and effectively—help that will mean that cases do not need to go to court. Concerns have been raised about additional burdens on the courts, but if the advice services work properly, my hope is that the courts will not have to deal with so many cases.

I regret that I have had to introduce a slightly sour note to the proceedings, but the bill was improved by the very good work of a parliamentary committee. That is what the Parliament is about and we should take credit for that. As I said, I will support the bill at decision time. I hope that the Scottish Government has the good grace at least to recognise that it brought the bill before the Parliament because of cross-party consensus.

John Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I rise to support the Home Owner and Debtor Protection (Scotland) Bill. Members will be well aware of their constituents' problems in retaining their home, particularly in the current economic climate, and Cathy Jamieson portrayed them eloquently. I am glad that there is general agreement in the chamber on the need for measures to avoid home repossession wherever possible.

The main driver of the Scottish Government in bringing forward the bill was to offer greater protection to the home owner. Clearly, that is desirable, particularly given the economic backdrop to the debate. In practical terms, the bill aims to put into legislation in part 1 of the bill the recommendations of the repossessions group and in part 2 proposals in respect of bankruptcy. The bill aims to enhance debtors' rights under the Mortgage Rights (Scotland) Act 2001 by extending protection to people in all repossession cases that involve residential property.

The stage 1 debate saw recognition that agreement differed on the provisions in part 1 and part 2. During the bill's passage, a number of members said that the Council of Mortgage Lenders' figures on repossessions needed to be made available in Scotland. I was reassured when the Scottish Government said that it was endeavouring to pursue the matter by writing to the Council of Mortgage Lenders and the Financial Services Authority to get the figures for Scotland prepared and released. Like the minister, I express my disappointment at the Council of Mortgage Lenders' decision not to release the figures. Clearly, the Council of Mortgage Lenders does not understand the role of Government and Parliament in dealing with housing issues in Scotland.

As I said in the debate on the bill back in December 2009, behind the repossession figures there is "a human price". Significant issues remain with loans that are secured against the family home. Concern has been expressed that the process will be overly bureaucratic—lenders claimed as much. Secured creditors are concerned about the potential additional costs of raising repossession cases in the courts. However, financial lenders and institutions need to be aware of the wider demands of society. There is no point in simply talking about corporate social responsibility; they have to do some real work on that theme, particularly in relation to debt.

Importantly, the committee supported the principle of enshrining the pre-action requirements in legislation so that they would have legal force. The bill imposes a clear obligation to ensure that the lender has considered alternatives to repossession before it raises an action. The bill addresses some concerns that have been identified in England and Wales about the process of voluntary pre-action protocols where borrowers have limited redress to lenders. The overarching objective of the bill is clear and unambiguous protection for vulnerable home owners.

Part 2 is probably the most contentious aspect of the bill. One provision, the certificate for sequestration, aims to introduce a new route into bankruptcy that does not require a debtor to show insolvency. A debtor will be able to apply to an authorised person for a certificate, with which they can petition for bankruptcy. The Government acted on committee concerns that further information should be sought on the work that would be required of the Accountant in Bankruptcy and on its new role in the route into bankruptcy provisions. I welcome the fact that the minister acted on his commitment: amendment 43 at stage 2 leaves it open to insolvency practitioners to take on that work. It is worth noting that the Government said that it is committed to continued dialogue with the credit reference agencies on their concerns about the need for all necessary information to be included in the register of insolvencies.

I welcome the stage 3 debate and the key principles that are contained in the bill. I look forward to the bill being passed at decision time. I believe that it will have a positive effect in reducing the number of domestic repossessions in Scotland.

I put on record my thanks to all those who provided written and oral evidence during the stages of the bill. I also thank the clerks, SPICe, the ministers—Alex Neil and Fergus Ewing—and my colleagues on the Local Government and Communities Committee. I trust that the chamber will pass the bill at 5 o'clock today.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

As other members have indicated, Parliament and, more important, people who live in fear of debt and its consequences have waited too long for this bill. Even at this late stage, there are one or two worrying areas in which there is a lack of certainty that the bill can or will deliver what the Scottish Government promises. Parliament has been ahead of Government in this case. A year ago, parties represented in the Parliament—the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens—along with Ms MacDonald urged the Government to take action.

Nevertheless, the bill is important. The work that the Local Government and Communities Committee has done has helped to clarify some, if not all, of the areas in which there were uncertainties. However, as a general rule, the Government should not come to a committee with legislation that is so unclear. There seems to have been a last-minute rush to address issues that might have been better dealt with in future legislation. I hope that the Government will learn from the experience and from the slight controversy that some of the proposed measures have provoked.

I hope that the Government will keep a watching brief on who can be permitted to exercise a second recall. I was pleased that the Government lodged amendments at stage 2 that meant that a second recall of decree could take place, but I am concerned that one category of residents may have been missed. At stage 2, some members of the Local Government and Communities Committee realised that adult children living with their parents might be penalised if they did not have the same right. With more young people living at home, partly because of the particular economic situation that the bill seeks to recognise, it would seem sensible for them to have some protection under law.

In spite of the Government's assertions, I am still not sure that the funding that is currently allocated will be sufficient to allow advice centres to bear the additional burdens that the bill will place on them. If we expect citizens advice and money advice centres to accept the additional work, to give it the priority that it deserves and to do so to the high standard that we and they would want, and if the Government believes that that is a key plank of its policy, surely we should take steps to ensure that the work is funded properly. I hope that ministers will monitor the situation and will act if there proves not to be enough money in circulation in advice centres to provide the training, support and back-up that will undoubtedly be needed.

At stage 2, the Local Government and Communities Committee rejected amendments from Mr McLetchie that sought to remove section 10 from the bill. Many members had a little sympathy for Mr McLetchie's argument; however, they were willing to give the bill their support because they thought that, on balance, ministers had a point, albeit one that should have been better developed and discussed.

Mary Mulligan's stage 3 amendments on the issue of reasonableness make sense and ensure consistency in the tests that are used. In my view, the amendments themselves are entirely reasonable and build on stage 2 amendments that were discussed in committee. I am pleased that the chamber has agreed to the amendments today and that the Government saw fit to support them.

I thank the committee clerks for their hard work and usual diligent approach to their tasks. In particular, I thank those who gave evidence to the committee. This was a technical bill and the evidence that we received was often conflicting. It was to the credit of those giving evidence that they were able to put their case in such a comprehensive manner.

Finally, I thank Mr Neil for tempering his cheerful consensual approach in opening this morning with a little of his usual political bias. Anything else from Mr Neil would have been just too disconcerting at this time in the morning.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

As Cathy Jamieson pointed out, Liberal Democrats and I were happy to join her and the Labour Party, Patrick Harvie of the Greens and Margo MacDonald in raising this issue. I want to make clear, as Cathy Jamieson did, why we did so, as it is germane to some of the comments that David McLetchie made in his opening speech. We were concerned about instances that were being brought to our attention. We had believed that adequate protection was provided by the Mortgage Rights (Scotland) Act 2001, which the Parliament passed unanimously, but there was disturbing evidence that a number of people were being exploited in different financial circumstances.

My point is directed to Mr McLetchie, in particular. It was interesting that the Council of Mortgage Lenders took grave exception to the suggestion that something was wrong. I had to point out to it that I was not attacking the council or its members, which have acted in a responsible way. I was concerned that issues were being raised about a number of people who were not necessarily members of the council, who dealt with matters in a different way and who were perfectly happy, in different economic circumstances, to exploit the weak and the vulnerable. Legislation must address the needs of the population as a whole, but frequently it must be passed to address the situation of the weak and the vulnerable. The bill does both, but I raised the issue to which it relates out of concern for the weak and the vulnerable.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I reinforce the point that the member has just made. The Financial Services Authority has made available evidence about rogue lenders that illustrates why the bill is needed. Although the FSA was not called to give evidence to the Local Government and Communities Committee, we should take cognisance of the research that it has done.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I wholly agree with the minister. The fact that the FSA has evidence about rogue lenders may be one reason why the Conservative party proposes to abolish it. We will find that in its forthcoming—

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Will the member give way?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I will be delighted to hear Mr McLetchie speak about abolition of the FSA; I am sure that all members will be thrilled to listen to him.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Would the member care to name one of the rogue lenders to whom he refers?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I am not prepared to do that, because the issue is directly associated with particular constituents and I am not about to give anyone the opportunity to pursue them. It is necessary only to track down where someone lives—who and where they are—to start to do that, and I do not intend to provide that information. However, rogue lenders, rather than the people to whom Mr McLetchie referred, were the cause of concern.

We were glad that the repossessions group and the debt action group were established. At the time, it was felt that there was a need for speed. I thought that it would be good if something straightforward could be done over a year ago to amend the law. However, this is a complex body of law, so we opposed moves to rush the bill through Parliament. That would have been a grave mistake. We are a unicameral Parliament and it is vital that we observe all our current protocols when passing legislation. To that extent, I agree with David McLetchie. Given that we are a unicameral Parliament, it is not excusable for us to ignore consultation and proper evidence taking.

We wholly support the bill—which enshrines pre-action protocols, gives lay representation, removes the family home from trust deeds and provides for action for the recall of decrees—and believe that it will make a valuable contribution not just to the population as a whole but to the weak and the vulnerable, in particular.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I am pleased to be able to make a short contribution for the Scottish Conservatives in summing up the stage 3 debate. Like others, I pay tribute to the members of the Local Government and Communities Committee, including my good friend David McLetchie, for the excellent work that they have done on the bill, including the stage 1 report that informed our stage 1 debate and the improvements at stage 2, which effectively clarified and simplified elements of the bill. I thank organisations such as Citizens Advice Scotland, which provided useful briefings to me at this stage and previous stages in the legislative process.

As David McLetchie indicated, the Scottish Conservatives will vote to pass the bill today. David has already dealt with some of the points of detail in the stage 3 amendments, having himself helped to improve the bill at the committee stage. In general terms, we believe that it is appropriate that existing good practice in the area of repossessions is codified and that previous legislation is built upon. It is right that repossession pre-action is put into statute.

One issue that I identified during my contribution in the stage 1 debate, as others did in their contributions, was the widespread concern about the lack of Scotland-specific data on the number of repossessions. Since we are looking for that situation to be addressed, I am disappointed that the minister has not come up with that very important data. Will he make amends for that at some point?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Had I access to the data, I would undoubtedly publish them. I do not have access to the data, but I would welcome a commitment from the Conservatives that, if they win the general election, within 24 hours they will order the FSA to publish the data.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I thought that the minister said earlier that we were going to abolish the FSA, and I would have thought that the SNP might be able to come up with data about Scotland.

Cathy Jamieson had some very poignant examples of repossessions, which we all want to see the end of. Unfortunately, as David McLetchie said, it will require a Conservative-led recovery from Labour's recession for something to be done about the economic plight in which people find themselves. I hope that the bill will help improve the current legislative framework and boost the rights of under-pressure home owners in the short term and in the future.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

This has been a consensual debate, apart from some contributions, although I suspect that the only person with whom I would take issue is Mr McLetchie. There is a need for the bill and a need for speed. I acknowledge that the repossession figures are lower than we anticipated, but any repossession case deserves our full consideration, so it is important to progress the bill.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Accepting that it is necessary to take matters forward, the member said that there was a need for speed. Does she acknowledge that, in fact, that is precisely what we did not get from the Government, because of its failure to focus on the primary issue in part 1 of the bill?

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

If the member had listened to my opening statement, he would have heard me say that I regret the fact that there was delay at the beginning. The committee tried to speed up the process and I welcome committee members' contributions to that.

At stage 2 and, indeed, at stage 3 today, members raised the issue of the situation in which expenses are awarded against the debtor, even when an action for repossession is unsuccessful. I think that all committee members recognise the injustice of that, as does Shelter. The minister, while sympathetic, suggested that the situation strayed into reserved issues. I note that the minister has now written to Lord Myners at Her Majesty's Treasury expressing our concerns and asking for his view. I understand that we cannot legislate on a reserved matter, but it strikes me as perverse how often this Scottish Government turns to Westminster to decide on issues such as this. I realise that the Scottish Government may be trying to make a point, but it is not helpful to have yet further delay.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

If we included a reserved matter in the bill, the danger is that we would be referred to the Supreme Court, which would mean that the bill would not be enacted for a considerable time. I do not think that any of us would want that to happen. I suggest to the member that the Local Government and Communities Committee writes to Lord Myners to support the points that I have made to him and to request urgent action from the United Kingdom Government.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

The minister will be clear that I was not asking for a reserved matter to be included in the bill—I know the rules as well as he does. I am sure that the committee will consider his suggestion about writing to Lord Myners.

Patricia Ferguson referred earlier to another issue that was raised at stage 2, which was the definition of the "entitled resident" who would be eligible to apply for a recall. I thank the minister for responding in writing on the issue after stage 2. I understand why the bill uses the same definition as the Mortgage Rights (Scotland) Act 2001. However, with due regard to our earlier discussion on the need for consistency and to the points that Patricia Ferguson raised, there is a different situation now, after almost 10 years of the 2001 act, because more adult children live at home and contribute, if the parents are lucky, to a mortgage. That circumstance needs to be kept under review and I hope that the minister will do that.

I acknowledge that the minister has reconvened the repossessions group to carry out further discussions with stakeholders on protection for unauthorised tenants. My colleague Hugh Henry first raised that issue in the Parliament, and I welcome the minister's serious consideration of it. I understand some of the difficulties in recognising an unauthorised tenant, but I am sure that committee members will be happy to consider any proposals in that regard during the passage of the Housing (Scotland) Bill. Obviously, the sooner proposals are made, the more properly we will be able to test them during the passage of the bill.

The minister referred in his opening statement to Pauline McNeill's stage 2 amendments on the fees charged by insolvency practitioners. In fact, her examples showed that some fees were exorbitant. I know that the minister has given a commitment to look at that issue further, and we welcome that. I offer my support for the minister's attempts to get figures on a Scotland-wide basis, because it is important to have such helpful figures.

The bill aims to offer additional protection to those in danger of repossession, but the minister will be aware that there is an equally difficult situation in relation to rent arrears. I hope that we will be able to have further discussion with the minister on that.

People across Scotland face repossession as we speak. The measures in the bill may help them, so enacting it as quickly as possible is critical. Regulations and guidance should be available as soon as possible. I am pleased to be able to offer my and the Labour Party's support for the bill. I look forward to joining others later in the day to pass the bill.

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

I thank most sincerely the Local Government and Communities Committee, ably convened by Duncan McNeil, for its work in considering the bill, which was not without some controversy. I also thank the Subordinate Legislation Committee, the Finance Committee and everyone involved in the debt action forum and the repossessions group, who gave their time freely and willingly. Finally, I thank the officials working for Mr Neil and me in both directorates, including the Accountant in Bankruptcy and her predecessor, for showing a commitment to their work for the ministers whom they support that was beyond the call of duty.

At times of economic hardship, people look to their Government for practical solutions. We believe that the bill that we will pass today offers just that. It is important to remember why the bill is so important and whom it is intended to help. Increasing numbers of people in Scotland are struggling with debt and facing the prospect of homelessness. We have been warned of further financial strain in the years ahead, with unemployment and interest rates expected to rise. Indeed, the most recent figures show a rise in unemployment in Scotland of 9,000 for the period September to November 2009. That is likely to put many more homeowners in the most serious financial difficulty, which they may have been able to avoid only temporarily due to reduced home loan costs.

Undoubtedly the most traumatic impact of debt is the harm that is caused to families, especially children, because of the stress and anxiety arising from the threat to the family home. That has been acknowledged by many members, including Mary Mulligan and Cathy Jamieson. We entirely support those sentiments and share the views that have been expressed. In my former life as a solicitor I had some experience of trying to help people stay in their homes and avoid unnecessary eviction during times of hardship. We must not underestimate the impact of the recession on Scots who are struggling to make ends meet.

As I have made clear throughout the passage of the bill, the Government agrees with the principle that those who can, should pay their debts. We entirely agree with that statement as it was expounded by Mr McLetchie. We also believe that the rights of creditors must be balanced with humane debt solutions that are proportionate to the impact of debt on families and the wider community.

The impact of debt on individuals can be most severe. It can exacerbate problems and can lead to addiction, the breaking up of families, depression and have all sorts of horrendous consequences that all members will be aware of from seeking to assist their constituents. The Home Owner and Debtor Protection (Scotland) Bill offers those people more help and I am delighted that it is likely to receive cross-party, indeed all-party, support today.

The bill widens access to the debt relief of bankruptcy. That is not a first choice, however—it is not like picking a bag of sweeties from a supermarket—it is a last resort, and a serious step. It is not something that people enter into lightly or are advised to enter into lightly. That said, as representatives of citizens advice bureaux in particular have emphasised, section 9 will provide to a large number of people an option that is presently denied to them. Those people are stuck. They are in limbo. They do not have access to debt relief. The bill will change that, and I am very pleased that that measure will be supported.

Section 10 involved some controversy. I thank all the stakeholders with whom I worked on the matter: those who supported the measure, such as CABx and Money Advice Scotland; and those who had reservations about it, such as the representatives of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Scotland with whom we engaged thoroughly and consistently, and whom I met just last week to discuss how to take these matters forward. We will continue to engage with those organisations in that work. We have listened to stakeholders throughout the process, and we have responded to the views that committee members expressed. I was pleased and gratified that the Local Government and Communities Committee responded in kind by accepting at stage 2 that we had a case—a strong case, I believe—and almost all the committee's members supported section 10.

I am in no doubt that the Home Owner and Debtor Protection (Scotland) Bill will prevent unnecessary eviction, that it will provide new debt solutions for many families throughout Scotland and that, with the contributions that have been made in the Parliament, it will be a worthy addition to the statute book.

In the stage 1 debate I was compared to Bob the Builder and was asked, "Can you fix it?" My response then was:

"Yes, we can and, yes, we will."—[Official Report, 17 December 2009; c 22400.]

Today I can say with confidence: yes we have. I urge members to support the bill.

BBC Alba

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-5720, in the name of Fiona Hyslop, on access to BBC Alba. If any member speaks in Gaelic and members wish to hear the interpretation, the headphones are available on members' desks. The interpretation is available on channel 1, which can be selected using the button to the right of the voting buttons on members' consoles.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Madainn mhath is fàilte. I am very pleased to lead this debate on BBC Alba. Since its launch in September 2008 it has provided an essential service in supporting Gaelic heritage, identity and culture. It has clearly demonstrated that it deserves to be available to a wider audience, and I hope that everyone in the chamber will join me in supporting that position.

The Scottish National Party Government wishes to advance three key messages. First, we value and recognise the importance of the Gaelic language and Gaelic media. Secondly, BBC Alba has achieved much over the past 17 months. Thirdly, BBC Alba should be available on Freeview, and the BBC trustees should take that decision sooner rather than later.

The Scottish Government recognises Gaelic as an integral part of Scotland's heritage and its current cultural life. Our aim is to create a secure and sustainable future for Gaelic in Scotland. We are at a critical point in our support for Gaelic. There have been a number of important campaigns over recent years, which have led to important structures being put in place. We now have a Gaelic education sector, a Gaelic bòrd, a Gaelic act—the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005—and much more. It is crucial that we use those structures effectively to increase the use and learning of Gaelic throughout Scotland.

Today, our focus is on an essential support for the Gaelic language: BBC Alba. The Scottish Government believes that Gaelic media, consisting of radio, on-line delivery and television, is of critical importance for the future of the Gaelic language. Gaelic media have access to the home. Gaelic broadcasting appeals to young people. Gaelic programmes have the potential to support Gaelic language learning at every level. A Gaelic media industry supports artistic and technical skills and creates opportunities for Gaelic to be used in those contexts. Those opportunities are vital for the future of the language.

The importance of Gaelic media explains why there was such a long campaign for a Gaelic television channel before BBC Alba's launch in September 2008. The service has undoubtedly been a success and it is a welcome addition to Scottish broadcasting. It now has an average weekly reach of more than 220,000 adults. In Scotland, it has a higher approval score than BBC 2, BBC 3 and BBC 4. It has clearly demonstrated its ability to attract a wide range of people in Scotland as viewers of Gaelic television. We understand that, for every Gaelic speaker, BBC Alba has, since its launch, attracted at least three non-Gaelic speakers.

It is Gaelic speakers, of course, who use the channel most intensively. Research surveys conducted by the Lèirsinn research centre show that 70 per cent of Gaelic-speaking viewers who are able to receive the channel do so, and that their average viewing time is about six hours per week.

MG Alba supports new talent. In Inverness last week, for example, it hosted the FilmG awards, its awards ceremony for Gaelic short films. The awards attracted 54 entries in total, 23 of which were from young people. The awards exemplify the talent, creativity and enthusiasm of many young Gaelic speakers.

BBC Alba plays a vital role within the Scottish broadcasting industry. It spends about 75 per cent of its content budget on independent production companies in Scotland. It has created business models to enable the sustainability of the independent Gaelic TV production sector.

BBC Alba's impact would be even greater if it were more widely available. The reason for holding this debate now is that the BBC trust has recently been reviewing BBC Alba and consulting on whether it should be made available on Freeview. We expect a final decision to be made in March. It is important that, at this critical time, the Parliament speaks with one voice regarding our wish that BBC Alba be made available on Freeview. The Scottish Government's long-standing view is that it should be available on Freeview and all other relevant platforms, including cable.

We acknowledge the wider point about access that is made in Pauline McNeill's amendment. We made that view very clear to the BBC trust in our response to its consultation. At present, only 43 per cent of Scottish viewers have access to satellite services. There are therefore significant numbers of people who are being denied access to BBC Alba.

I agree with a point that I know that Iain Smith will stress. The choice with which we have been presented is not the ideal solution. Under BBC management proposals, access to BBC Alba will be gained only at the expense of access to radio stations on the television. Although it is crucial for BBC Alba to be placed on Freeview as soon as possible, I urge the BBC to find a way to address the issues around the availability of radio stations.

Over the past 17 months BBC Alba has clearly met the criteria that the BBC trust set in order to determine whether it should be available on Freeview.

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

What is the Scottish Government's preferred multiplex when it comes to the availability of BBC Alba on Freeview? In other words, would it be available only to people who receive from a main transmitter, or would it also be available to those who receive from a relay transmitter? There is nothing in the Government's submission on that.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

On numerous occasions, we have made the point to the United Kingdom Government that the availability of broadcasting—not just BBC Alba but other channels—is unsatisfactory in certain parts of the country, including the member's constituency, and that resolving that issue must be part of the overall solution.

The Government has demonstrated that the appeal of BBC Alba extends beyond its core audience of Gaelic speakers and learners. We recognise that BBC Alba has significant potential to support learners of the Gaelic language, regardless of which stage they are at.

BBC Alba is an essential part of the range of initiatives and programmes that are in place to support and promote the Gaelic language in Scotland. It is also an essential part of the Scottish broadcasting industry and plays a vital role in supporting the independent production sector in Scotland. Ted Brocklebank's amendment rightly stresses the importance of BBC Alba to those companies, as well as to its own employees. However, BBC Alba will achieve its full impact only if it is available to viewers across Scotland, so I urge colleagues to support the motion. Mòran taing.

I move,

That the Parliament welcomes the contribution made by BBC Alba to Scottish culture and the promotion of the Gaelic language since its launch in September 2008; believes that this contribution would be even greater if BBC Alba was available on a wider variety of broadcasting platforms, and urges the BBC Trust to decide to make BBC Alba available on Freeview following its recent consultation on this issue.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

We would all agree that by any standard or system of measurement, BBC Alba has been a phenomenal success since its launch a little over two years ago. Its success in securing audiences of more than 220,000 viewers a week is impressive, especially when we consider that the channel is available in only about a third of Scottish homes.

Labour has a strong interest in BBC Alba, given that we agreed to fund the channel in 2006, when we were in government, and we support the Scottish Government's motion, which seeks to persuade the BBC trust to extend the franchise to more viewers through Freeview.

I once said with great authority at a meeting about the Gaelic language that Partick in my constituency was home to the highest number of Gaels in Scotland and no one challenged me. Suffice it to say that that is not true, but I do have a local interest in the matter.

The situation has been wrong for some time. Given BBC Alba's importance as a Gaelic medium, it is unjust that thousands of people cannot access it on Freeview. BBC Alba is the only general entertainment channel to be wholly managed and broadcast from Scotland, and 95 per cent of its content is provided by Scotland-based companies. Its carriage on Freeview has been the dominant issue for discussion over the past few years.

In the most recent debate on the subject, I said that if the BBC trust uses audience figures as a measure of the channel's success, it is quite ludicrous to exclude the 150,000-plus viewers who cannot be counted because they cannot see the channel, and I repeat that assertion. As the minister said, we have the opportunity to extend coverage from 40 to 83 per cent of the population. If BBC Alba were provided on cable, that figure would rise by a further 15 per cent. In its consultation, the BBC trust has received an impressive 5,000 responses on the issue of Freeview carriage for BBC Alba, which represents one written response from every 1,000 people who live in Scotland. That is a significant figure.

BBC Alba is good value. For every Gaelic speaker that it has reached since its launch, it has attracted a further three non-Gaelic speakers. That is a great achievement, particularly as we know that the British and the Scottish public are not known for their love of subtitles. In my opinion, the channel's diversity is the secret of its success. It offers a fantastic choice of interesting programmes. The traditional music awards showcase the incredible musicianship of home-grown talent, which I do not think has had anywhere near the amount of exposure that it deserves. BBC Alba's coverage of the event has introduced non-Gaelic audiences to an amazing sector of our music industry. The channel has attracted a mainstream audience, and it should continue to do so. As I have said, if it were shown on Freeview, those benefits would extend to 83 per cent of the population, and the figure would be even higher if it were broadcast on cable.

The Gaelic content of BBC Alba, whether in its children's programmes, its documentaries or the fresh perspective that it has on the news, is unique and cannot be found anywhere else. However, the potential loss of access to digital and analogue radio stations through television is a concern to everyone, and I will address the Liberal Democrat amendment, which deals with that, later.

BBC Alba's purpose as a new channel is to help promote and sustain Gaelic language and culture as a key strand of Scotland's culture, which is an extension of what we agreed to in the Gaelic language plan. The channel makes one of the most notable and important contributions to that goal. Its approach to broadcasting has brought many economic benefits, as the minister said, including the continued growth of the Scottish broadcasting industry.

At Friday's broadcasting summit, which Fiona Hyslop chaired, we discussed the need to develop our capacity for production, given the economic benefits that flow from that. If we are to meet the BBC's target of producing 8 per cent of its programmes in Scotland—Channel 4 is lagging behind in that regard—BBC Alba will have a not insignificant role to play. At the summit, Anne Mensah, who looks after Scottish interests in London and who is passionate about commissioning programmes in Scotland, talked about the stiff competition that we face from elsewhere. BBC Alba's record is commendable. It has used 28 production companies, including four new ones, and has conducted training programmes and initiatives that have definitely contributed to the industry's overall capacity.

I am sure that, like me, many other members will have been written to by members of the Producers Alliance for Cinema and Television who are concerned about STV's application to change its status to that of an independent company. I hope that we all agree that any change in STV's status should not impact on the ability of Scotland's small independent sector to compete for a share of the increase in programming.

The Labour amendment addresses the dispute between the BBC and Virgin, which we hope will be resolved soon so that BBC Alba can be provided on cable. In my constituency in the west end of Glasgow, where it is not possible to get a satellite dish for conservation reasons, cable provision is extremely important. That is why we lodged our amendment, which I hope will be supported. We urge the minister to work with the Secretary of State for Scotland to help achieve that.

Radio coverage, which is the subject of the Liberal amendment, is probably an issue for future debate. Radio is often tagged on to broadcasting discussions, but it is an important medium—although I notice that the figures suggest that the proportion of people who listen to radio does not seem to be as high in Scotland as it is in England; I do not know why that is. We want an alternative arrangement to be found for the radio stations concerned, particularly Radio 6, Radio 5 Live and the BBC Asian Network, which, under the BBC's proposals, people will not be able to access if they do not have access to a digital radio. We need to identify the small number of listeners who would be affected. The BBC trust is duty bound to do that during the consultation. We do not want to break the consensus—we agree with the minister that we must move forward in a consensual way—but I want it to be confirmed that the Liberal Democrat amendment is not saying that we should not proceed with the extension of Freeview if the problem with radio cannot be resolved. I hope that the answer to that is in the affirmative.

The Labour Party supports the motion. I move amendment S3M-5720.2, to insert after "platforms":

"and therefore calls on the BBC management and Virgin Media to resolve the ongoing dispute regarding carrying BBC channels on the cable network to ensure the widest possible access to BBC Alba".

Ted Brocklebank (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

In recent weeks, I have watched two outstanding films on BBC Alba. One was about the Gaelic poet, Sorley MacLean; the other was about the Gaelic writer and comedian, Norman Maclean, and his lifelong battle with alcoholism. Both were beautifully crafted and bore comparison with anything that I have seen on BBC Scotland or STV over the same period.

Of course, not everyone wants to learn about Gaelic poets or alcoholic comedians, and BBC Alba now does its own gardening and cookery shows, and there is plenty of coverage of music, religion, sport, as well as in-depth interviews and kids' shows—in fact, all the things that one would find on a normal channel. We can all understand the shows because they are subtitled in English, but they have the advantage of being produced in the Gàidhealtachd and in Gaelic, which means that as well as being entertained and informed, those who do not speak Scotland's oldest language have a genuine opportunity to begin learning it.

There are around 60,000 Gaelic speakers left in Scotland and that is widely regarded to be the lowest level at which it is possible to sustain a language. The number of Maori speakers in New Zealand had dropped to half that figure—30,000—until a new Maori TV channel was made available to all. Now the number of fluent speakers of Maori has risen to about 136,000, and most of the country's 650,000 Maoris have a smattering of the language.

Of course BBC Alba should be available on Freeview, not only to secure an even wider viewership, but to give a sense of security to those who have worked so hard to make the new channel a success. Why should access to the channel be denied to all except people who can afford to subscribe to Sky? I cannot tell members how impressed I was with the quality of the personnel I met working for the company, both at its headquarters in Stornoway and at its studios at Sabhal Mòr Ostaig in Skye.

As we have heard, 75 per cent of BBC Alba's programmes come from independent companies. It has now commissioned shows from some 30 production companies, which are mostly based in the heartlands. Those companies include four new starts. It was heartwarming for a former broadcaster to see young people with well-paid jobs producing excellent television from a part of the world that has sent many splendid broadcasters, including virtually all the current top brass at BBC Scotland, to the mainland over the years.

Conservatives have always supported Gaelic. Members do not have to take my word for that. The West Highland Free Press and its founder, Brian Wilson, are hardly natural Tory supporters, but that former Labour minister said in a recent editorial:

"The Tories have a pretty good record on support for Gaelic. George Younger gave crucial backing to Gaelic-medium schools and Malcolm Rifkind set up the Gaelic Broadcasting Fund."

Brian Wilson was responding to a somewhat ill-judged attack by Alasdair Allan, who had claimed that the Tories' Westminster broadcasting spokesman, Jeremy Hunt, was going to abolish BBC Alba. BBC Alba is largely funded by the Scottish Parliament, so it is difficult to see how Jeremy Hunt could have done that, even if he had wanted to. I am delighted to inform members that he does not want to do that.

As the current affairs chief who introduced Scotland's first Gaelic news bulletins on Grampian TV years ago, I hope that I am not being too immodest if I complete the quote from Brian Wilson's editorial. Referring to Alasdair Allan and the SNP, he wrote:

"When he and his crew have done as much for the status of Gaelic and Gaelic broadcasting as Younger, Rifkind and Brocklebank, then they too will win the approval of this column without regard to wider political differences."

I know that there are many members from all parties in the Parliament whose support for Gaelic and BBC Alba runs deep—I include the minister and Alasdair Allan among them—but the simple fact is that BBC Alba would not have happened if the Tories had not pioneered and then fought to safeguard the Gaelic broadcasting fund in the 1980s. That money has now matured into the £12 million that the Government annually contributes to BBC Alba's budget. I look forward to the channel winning its rightful place on Freeview and going from strength to strength.

The Conservative party supports the Government motion and the Labour and Liberal Democrat amendments, and commends the amendment in my name. Mòran taing.

I move amendment S3M-5720.1, to insert after "2008":

"; believes that BBC Alba's growing viewership, along with the direct employees and the independent broadcasters working for the channel, requires assurances about its long-term economic and cultural future".

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I am pleased to contribute to this short debate on the future of BBC Alba.

There is no question but that BBC Alba has exceeded all expectations since it was launched in September 2008. It is already making an extremely valuable contribution to the development and sustainability of independent producers in rural Scotland in particular, increasing the diversity of that important sector of the Scottish economy. Despite its availability being limited to Sky and Freesat, it has attracted a weekly reach of up to 5 per cent of Scottish viewers, helped in no small part by its shrewd decision to broadcast live football and other sports. Some may criticise that emphasis on sports broadcasting rather than on pure Gaelic programmes, but it is clearly an effective way of drawing in a non-Gaelic speaking audience. We should not forget the role that Bob the Builder—not Mr Ewing, I hasten to add—played in the success of S4C. In any event, BBC Alba's Gaelic programmes, not least its news, current affairs and community information programmes, have a weekly audience of more than 70 per cent of the Gaelic speakers and learners who are able to receive the channel.

The debate is about who is able to receive the channel. There is and always has been cross-party support in the chamber for BBC Alba being available on digital terrestrial television, or Freeview, at the earliest opportunity. It is simply not acceptable that the channel is available only to those who have access to satellite-based platforms. That is not the case for S4C in Wales, and it will not be the case for the Irish language channel TG4, which will be available on Freeview in Northern Ireland following the digital switchover. Scots Gaelic should be on an equal footing with Irish Gaelic and Welsh, and BBC Alba, as the primary Gaelic language channel, should be available as a main channel on Freeview in Scotland.

I welcome the BBC trust's consultation on the issue, but the options that it offered in its consultation paper were unacceptable. I simply do not accept that the only way to provide BBC Alba on Freeview is to take down another BBC service. That has not happened for S4C in Wales, and it will not happen for TG4 in Northern Ireland, so why is it necessary for BBC Alba in Scotland? Providing three unacceptable options involving red button services, BBC Parliament or BBC Radio and asking us to accept the least worst of those options is simply not good enough.

Dave Thompson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

The Liberal Democrat amendment is fine in principle, and I agree with it, but it would require the purchase of space on another spectrum at colossal cost. Is there not a risk that that huge cost could be used as an excuse not to extend BBC Alba on to Freeview?

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I do not accept that argument. That has not happened in Wales and it will not happen in Northern Ireland. There is space on the spectrum for BBC Alba; it is simply a case of making that space available.

As a point of principle, wherever they are in the United Kingdom, licence payers should be entitled to the same access to the BBC services that they fund. Why is the BBC proposing a form of digital apartheid? Why should listeners in Scotland be denied access to BBC radio stations via Freeview? For many people, there is no other way to access digital-only radio services such as the Asian Network, 1Xtra, 5 Live Sports Extra and Radio 6 and Radio 7, as they have no DAB radio signal and have limited broadband speeds. After analogue radio is switched off in 2015, they will also be denied access to Radio 1 to Radio 4, Radio Scotland and even Radio nan Gaidheal.

Digital exclusion does not affect only people in the most remote communities; it even affects fairly large towns and villages in the central belt. In my constituency, DAB signals are limited, broadband speed is restricted, and many will receive Freeview lite after switchover. That will deny them access to many of the services that are available to others, despite their paying the same licence fee and the digital levy. I am sure that my colleague Jeremy Purvis will speak more about that later.

It is time for the buck passing to stop. The UK Government must step up to the mark and tell all those responsible for digital switchover that they must upgrade all relay transmitters to provide a full Freeview service. There are other ways to provide BBC Alba on Freeview now without excluding residents of Scotland from BBC services that they pay for. The answer may lie with our old friend the seventh mux. Whatever the solution is, the BBC trust must be told to find it.

I move amendment S3M-5720.3, to insert at end:

"however the removal of existing BBC radio stations from the digital terrestrial TV platform in Scotland should not have to be a consideration in that decision; further believes that all Scottish residents should have access to the full range of broadcasting following digital switchover, and calls on the UK Government to require that all relay transmitters in Scotland are capable of transmitting the full range of Freeview channels by the 2010 and 2011 launch dates."

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Western Isles)

Thairis air na pàrtaidhean, agus ann an Alba air fad, bha daoine a' toirt fàilte air BBC Alba nuair a thòisich e o chionn bliadhna gu leth. A-nis, tha e inntinneach fhaicinn dè cho dìleas 's a tha na daoine a tha a' coimhead air BBC Alba a' fàs. Tha clann a-nis a' fàs cleachdte ris an smuain gu bheil e àbhaisteach cartùnaichean a chluinntinn anns a' Ghàidhlig. Tha daoine gun fhacal Gàidhlig a' fàs cleachdte ris an smuain gu bheil e àbhaisteach a bhith a' coimhead air ball-coise anns a' Ghàidhlig no air prògraman mu nàdar ann an Afraga no ge b' e càite. Ma tha sinn ag iarraidh aon rud ann an saoghal na Gàidhlig, 's e normalisation, mar a chanas iad, den t-seòrsa sin. Tha cànan sam bith gun telebhisean mì-àbhaisteach, agus cha bhi ùidh sam bith aig na daoine òga ann an cànan mì-àbhaisteach, ge b' e cho innteannach 's a bhios i dha na h-anthropologists.

Trì fichead bliadhna air ais, bha cuid ann an Israel ag ràdh gun robh cànan nan sgriobtar ro naomh airson prògraman còcaireachd air an rèidio agus a leithid. Anns an aon seòrsa dòigh, tha sinn air rathad fada a shiubhal bho na làithean nuair a bhiodh daoine a' sgrìobhadh a-steach dha na pàipearan a ghearan gun robh Gàidhlig mìorbhaileach math aig a' Mhòd ach nach robh i freagarrach airson prògraman còcaireachd. Gus a' phuing sin a dhearbhadh, bidh BBC Alba a' bruidhinn rium fhèin an ath mhìos mu na recipes as fheàrr leam. Coimhead a-mach airson na fish fingers agus an Creamola Foam.

Mar a bha Ted Brocklebank a' dèanamh soilleir, tha BBC Alba a' tuigsinn gu bheil e fìor chudromach gu bheil e a' craoladh a h-uile seòrsa prògram, agus gu bheil iad tarraingeach dhan a h-uile seòrsa neach-coimhead. Ach bhiodh an obair sin tòrr na b' fhasa nam biodh BBC Alba ri fhaicinn air Freeview. Chan eil mi a' cantainn sin dìreach air sgàth 's nach b' urrainn dhòmhsa BBC Alba fhaicinn ann an Leòdhas airson sia mìosan—bha mi a' feitheamh ri Sky dish agus bha sreath a' feitheamh còmhla rium. Chan eil mi eadhon a' gearan dìreach air sgàth 's nach urrainn dhomh fhathast an t-sianal fhaicinn anns a' Phàrlamaid, a tha a' cleachdadh càbal; ach is sin sgeul eile, ged a bha Pauline NicNèill a' bruidhinn mu dheidhinn anns an òraid aice. Nam biodh BBC Alba ri fhaicinn saor is an-asgaidh leis na sianalan Freeview eile, bhiodh sin a' toirt misneachd mhòr gu craoladh tro mheadhan na Gàidhlig. Mar sin, bhiodh barrachd taighean ann far am biodh daoine ag èisteachd ris, ag ionnsachadh agus a' fàs eòlach air a' Ghàidhlig. Bhiodh beagan fois aig Urras a' BhBC cuideachd.

Nach eil e neònach gur ann le Westminster fhathast a tha an smachd air craoladh na Gàidhlig? Ach sin mar a tha cùisean fhathast.

Bidh 220,000 neach a' coimhead air BBC Alba gach seachdain mar-thà. Cia mheud eile a bhiodh a' coimhead air, nam biodh e ri fhaotainn air Freeview? Ma bhios an t-urras a' gearradh sianalan rèidio a-mach à Freeview airson beàrn a dhèanamh airson BBC Alba, tha mi an dòchas gum bi e a' mìneachadh carson, agus nach bi an t-urras a' leigeil le sabaid gun phuing a bhith a' fàs anns an Daily Mail mun ghnothach.

Tha mi a' tuigsinn a' phuing a bha Iain Mac a' Ghobhainn a' dèanamh mu dheidhinn a' chuspair seo, ach tha e cudromach aig an aon àm a bhith a' mìneachadh gum biodh na sianalan eile sin ri fhaotainn fhathast air-loidhne agus air an rèidio fhèin. Chan fhaodadh mòran ge-tà—air a' Ghàidhealtachd co-dhiù—prògraman fhaicinn air loidhne.

Following is the simultaneous interpretation:

People welcomed BBC Alba across party lines and throughout Scotland when it began to broadcast a year and a half ago. It is interesting to see the growth in loyalty of BBC Alba viewers. Children are now accustomed to the view that it is normal to hear cartoons in Gaelic, and people who are without a word of Gaelic are getting accustomed to the view that it is normal to see football or nature programmes about Africa or other areas in Gaelic. If there is anything that we in the Gaelic world want, it is normalisation of that kind. Any language without television is unusual. Youths have no interest in an unusual language, no matter how interesting it may be to anthropologists.

Sixty years ago, some people in Israel said that the language of scripture was too sacred to be used for cookery programmes on the radio and the like. We have travelled down a long road since the days when people used to write to the newspapers to complain that, although wonderfully good Gaelic could be heard at the Mod, it was not suitable for use in cookery programmes. In order to prove that point, BBC Alba will speak to me next month about my favourite recipes. Members should look out for fish fingers and Creamola Foam.

As Ted Brocklebank said, BBC Alba appreciates that it is vital for it to broadcast every kind of programme and for its programmes to be attractive to all viewers. However, its work would be much easier if it could be seen on Freeview. I am not saying that simply because I could not access BBC Alba in Lewis for six months. I was waiting for a Sky dish; several others were also waiting. I am not even complaining because I cannot access the channel in Parliament, which uses cable television, to which Pauline McNeill referred. If BBC Alba could be viewed at no cost with other Freeview channels, that would give tremendous encouragement to broadcasting through the medium of Gaelic. If that were the case, there would be more homes in which people could listen to, learn and become familiar with Gaelic, and the BBC trust would get a bit of peace.

Is it not strange that Westminster still has control of Gaelic broadcasting? However, that situation remains.

Already, 220,000 people watch BBC Alba every week, but how many more could watch it if it were available on Freeview? If the trust plans to remove radio channels from Freeview in order to make space for BBC Alba, I hope that it will explain why and that it will not let a needless fight about the issue arise in the Daily Mail.

I understand the point that Iain Smith made, but it is important to explain that those channels will still be available online and on the radio. Not many, especially in the Highlands, are able to view television programmes online.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I made the point that many people do not get the required broadband speeds or a DAB signal, so they will not be able to receive those channels. Some people do not get a good analogue signal, either, so those radio channels are available to them only on Freeview.

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Western Isles)

Chan eil mi ag argumaid an-aghaidh a' phuing sin no an-aghaidh an leasachaidh aig Iain Mac a' Ghobhainn. Tha mi direach ag ràdh gum biodh e feumail nam biodh an deasbad mu dheidhinn a' chuspair reusanta agus gum bu chòir fios a bhith aig daoine gu bheil na sianalan sin ri fhaotainn air loidhne cuideachd.

Tha BBC Alba a' dèanamh a h-uile rud a bha Urras a' BhBC ag iarraidh. Tha ceum eile ri ghabhail a dhearbhadh ann an saoghal craolaidh gur e cànan àbhaisteach a tha anns a' Ghàidhlig ge-tà, agus 's e sin Freeview. Tha mi a' cantainn ri Urras a' BhBC, "Siuthadaibh, ma-thà." Following is the simultaneous interpretation:

I am not arguing against the point that Iain Smith makes; I am just pointing out that it would be useful if the debate were reasonable and people knew that those channels are also available online.

BBC Alba is doing everything that the trust has asked it to do. There is another step to be taken in order to prove in the broadcasting world that Gaelic is a normal language: Freeview. I say to the BBC trust, "Go for it."

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I am pleased to take part in the debate. For me, it is unfinished business. When I was the minister with responsibility for Gaelic, I had some responsibility for the discussions and negotiations, and responsibility for some of the funding, in securing BBC Alba in the first place. At that time, Patricia Ferguson was the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport, and she played the biggest part by concluding the discussions on whether to establish a channel. I am pleased that we secured the channel, as it is making a big contribution to strengthening the normalisation of Gaelic in our society. The points that Alasdair Allan made about normalisation are extremely pertinent and important: normalisation is part of the function of the channel.

At peak, BBC Alba has had more than 600,000 viewers, although the average is about 220,000—5 per cent of the Scottish population. Its reach into the Highlands and Islands is something like 11 per cent, which is very impressive indeed. So viewing is not confined solely to Gaelic speakers, and the channel is not a Gaelic ghetto—a point that Ted Brocklebank ably made—but an active bridge between Gaelic and the many other cultures of our country. The fact that the viewing numbers are far greater than the current number of Gaelic speakers shows that non-Gaelic speakers are viewing and encountering Gaelic influences. I hope that their interest in the language and their support for this important part of our culture increase. Through BBC Alba, Gaelic is reaching out into English-speaking communities in an important way. That is happening because the channel is not parochial or introspective but reflects the culture of our Gaels, who are outward-looking, internationalist and multicultural in their perspectives.

The promising start that BBC Alba has made needs to be strengthened, however. People will testify that many Gaels living in their own communities cannot get the service for technical reasons. If the channel were provided through Freeview, the BBC estimates that that would attract a further 150,000 to 180,000 viewers—a significant number. Such a move would be important for the channel's development in the future. That would not just empower Gaelic speakers to view programmes in their own language and through the roots of their own culture, but enable non-Gaels to access that rich and important dimension to our national life. Without BBC Alba being available through Freeview and cable, there is a real danger of people continuing to be disenfranchised in that way. The very communities that BBC Alba was primarily intended to reach would not be fully reached without that development, which we are all arguing for today.

I support the thrust of the Government's motion and our important amendment. I also support the Tory amendment. However, it is still unclear to me whether the Liberal Democrats are saying that Freeview should not be used to extend the reach of BBC Alba until the question of the radio channels is resolved. Perhaps they could clarify that.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

We are saying that the Parliament should send a clear message to the BBC trust that its present proposals are not what we want to see happen and that it needs to get its act together and come up with an alternative option, as soon as possible, to ensure that people in Scotland are not denied BBC services.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The Liberal Democrat position is still not 100 per cent clear to me. If they are saying—as I hope that they are—that they do not want to hold back BBC Alba until an answer is received on the radio channels but that they want to get that answer, I share that view. I, too, want an answer on that issue.

I trust that the BBC will accede to the application that has been made and the strong support for that application. However, as we have touched on, that will not happen without some difficulty. The spectrum that would be allocated—to which Iain Smith and others have referred—could mean that some people would lose their radio service. The reasons for that are technical, and there are normally technical answers to technical questions. I hope that the BBC can find those answers; I encourage the minister to work closely with the BBC and encourage it to find those answers, so that nobody is disenfranchised in any respect because of this important development.

Gaelic remains in a very fragile state. The development of BBC Alba is just one way in which we can strengthen and normalise a culture that, for so long, has been disadvantaged by a variety of mechanisms in our society. I strongly support the thrust of the debate and hope that we will quickly see the developments that we all want to see and that more people will be able to access this very important channel.

Dave Thompson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Tapadh leibhse, Oifigeir Riaghlaidh. Tha mi gu math toilichte pàirt a ghabhail anns an deasbad seo. Tha Freeview glè chudromach airson BBC Alba.

Following is the simultaneous interpretation:

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am very happy to take part in the debate. Freeview is very important for BBC Alba.

The member continued in English.

I welcome this debate on access to BBC Alba, not least because I do not subscribe to satellite television and rely on Freeview for my TV viewing. That means that I have never seen BBC Alba, despite the fact that I am a keen Gaelic student who would like to watch it and whose Gaelic would benefit greatly from access to it. In that, I suppose, I must declare an interest.

BBC Alba is a great success, but at present it is available only to the 40 per cent of Scottish households that receive satellite TV. Freeview would make it available to nearly all others. Its current weekly reach is 4 to 5 per cent of viewers throughout Scotland and 11 per cent in the Highlands and Islands. It also has a high approval rating. Its availability on Freeview would probably double those figures and give the channel a huge boost.

Gaelic is an important part of Scotland's culture, heritage and identity, and it was once widely used all over Scotland. It has been discriminated against for a long time, however, and it has only relatively recently started to receive fair treatment. As Ted Brocklebank said—dare I say it, too?—the Tories at Westminster were instrumental in getting that going with the promotion of Gaelic-medium education in the 1980s, for which we must thank them. That continued with the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005, the bill for which was ably promoted by Peter Peacock, who has done a lot for Gaelic. It is all the more sad, therefore, that, at a time when the confidence of Gaelic speakers is beginning to grow, some people choose to attack and vilify Gaelic under the pretexts of disproportionate spending on a minority and the need for savings. Some councillors in the Highland region, of all places, have jumped on that misinformed populist bandwagon. Councillor Crawford, of Inverness, and Councillor Rosie, of Caithness, spring to mind. That is despite the fact that Highland Council spends only a quarter of 1 per cent of its annual budget on Gaelic—well below what would be proportionate given the number of Gaelic speakers in its area.

The latest populist to jump on the bandwagon is Labour Councillor Deirdre Mackay, of East Sutherland and Edderton, who, as it happens, is the daughter of Councillor Rosie. She has obviously seen her dad hitting the headlines and wants some of the action. At a recent meeting, the Labour councillor criticised Government support for Gaelic and labelled the council's efforts to develop Gaelic education elitist. Bizarrely, she went on to say that she supported bilingual education, which could involve Spanish, Urdu or Chinese but not Gaelic. Are those languages cheaper? She also criticised the plans that were introduced by the previous Labour-Liberal Democrat Scottish Executive to support the promotion of the Gaelic language, despite the fact that she works for Peter Peacock, who, as I said, has done a lot for Gaelic and promoted the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

Mr Thompson is taking a rather unfortunate line when we want to adopt a united position in the Parliament. If he is going to raise such points, I ask him when the SNP is, finally, going to deliver on its manifesto pledge to make Gaelic-medium education available to parents on demand.

Dave Thompson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Mr Macintosh talks about unity, but he should ensure that there is unity within his own party before he criticises others.

Peter Peacock must be very embarrassed about the situation. I hope that he and the Highland Council Labour group will give serious consideration to Councillor Mackay's position.

I conclude on a more positive note. I also attended the MG Alba awards in Eden Court theatre last Friday—what a wonderful showcase of Gaelic-speaking talent, young and old. The films were all fantastic and were a testimony to the richness of Gaelic Scottish culture and the benefits of bilingualism, which improves brain development and cognitive abilities. If the last sentence was too difficult for members to understand, they are probably monoglots and should get along to Gaelic classes right away. If they do, they too will be able to benefit from BBC Alba when it moves to Freeview in the near future.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

I spoke in support of an Executive motion on the Gaelic language 10 years ago in an historic debate that happened to fall on my daughter Iona's second birthday. I mentioned how pleased her forebears would have been to know that the Gaelic language was being debated and celebrated in the first year of a devolved Scottish Parliament. I looked forward then to the new opportunities that her generation would have to enjoy Gaelic language and culture to the full, thanks to the positive support of central Government in Westminster and Holyrood and of local government in Aberdeen and elsewhere.

Ten years on, much of that optimism has proved to have been justified. My daughter and many of her age group have enjoyed Gaelic-medium education at pre-school, nursery and primary levels, and in Scotland's cities and in the Gàidhealtachd itself there are opportunities to extend that through secondary education, too, even if not always to the fullest extent. The Gaelic college at Sabhal Mòr Ostaig has continued to thrive, and the commitment of my party in government, and other parties too, has put in place a Gaelic-medium broadcasting sector such as previous generations could hardly have imagined.

BBC Alba is at the heart of that, but it is not alone. We should celebrate BBC Alba, but we should support also the broadcast of Gaelic programming on BBC2 and on STV, all of which contributes to the health and strength of the language and culture. For young people of school age such as my daughter Iona, there is no better platform for their talents and no better source of information and education than "Dè a-nis?". Long may that programme continue to provide such a vibrant forum for Gaelic-speaking children and young people.

BBC Alba takes matters to a new plane. The provision of a dedicated channel for Gaelic-language broadcasting is a recognition that culture in the 21st century is as much about what people see on screen as it is about what they read in books or hear in their daily lives. It is also a powerful tool for regeneration, not only of Gaelic language and culture but of those parts of Scotland where Gaelic has its deepest roots.

We should, in that context, recognise the effective leadership and judgment of MG Alba and BBC Alba in bringing this new medium to market. Many of my constituents with satellite access first take an interest in BBC Alba when they tune in to watch an as-live Scottish Premier League game with Gaelic commentary—for example, many will have watched last night's rousing encounter between Aberdeen and Hibernian when they got home. Football is as much part of Highland sporting culture as shinty is, and the platform that BBC Alba provides for football, shinty and rugby matches is appreciated by Gaels and other viewers alike. It also advertises to the population in general that Gaelic is not only a literary language for poets and singers, important though that is, but a medium for day-to-day life of people with the same interests and enthusiasms as the rest of the population.

So I am glad we have the opportunity today to express our collective view, and I hope that Parliament will, at the end of today, speak once again with one voice in support of giving everyone in Alba access to BBC Alba. That should be the first priority of the BBC trust when it makes its decision. Providing BBC Alba with the platform that it deserves, through carriage on Freeview and on cable, will be another significant step for the BBC trust—which has been supportive of the Gaelic language—to take in support of the indigenous cultures of these islands, and I very much look forward to a clear, positive and early decision.

Mòran taing.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I am happy to speak in support of the motion that BBC Alba should appear on Freeview as soon as possible. It is interesting to have to focus on a language, as such, because language is a medium for expressing all the things that we do in life. At a recent meeting of the cross-party group on co-operatives, co-operative members talked about what their main focus was and said that the bottom line was that their businesses were made a success because they were co-operatives. The fact is that, for Gaels and others throughout this country, life is made more of a success by having the medium of Gaelic through which to view all the things that we do every day.

The high approval ratings for BBC Alba so far in the areas of news, current affairs, community information, music, lifestyle and entertainment show that people are looking at the normal things in life through the medium of another of this country's great languages. It is essential that the normalisation of Gaelic, which has been mentioned by a number of people today and was discussed by Arthur Cormack in his submission for the debate, is seen as the way forward. In communities in which there is resistance to such normalisation, we need to argue for a live-and-let-live approach. We also have to point out that the model of a local television system that we now have, which breaks the mould of the system whereby programmes are delivered to our television screens by a large, centralised body from afar, provides an excellent model for other kinds of local television that should develop in our country so that we have a multitude of choices. That choice is obviously there nowadays on platforms such as Freeview, which I have benefited from in my home in Easter Ross. I have had free satellite television in Edinburgh, but I think that that is only because I inherited a dish—there is no way that I would be buying one from Mr Murdoch.

The fact is that programming has to be made available to people on their own terms. They have a right to that access.

It is interesting to see the reach that BBC Alba already has. At the Sutherland summit that took place last August, there was a discussion about the role of Gaelic in that area. One of the points that was made was that German tourists who had seen BBC Alba were interested in coming to Sutherland and the Highlands to see what the places where Gaelic is spoken were like. That is an exact example of how the reach of BBC Alba helps our attempts for Scotland to be recognised further afield. There is evidence of continental interest in the Gaelic language, and I hope that the people of Sutherland will take that interest in that spirit.

The summit identified the geopark in the north-west as one of the principal features that make Sutherland unique. Alongside the geopark and the range of internationally important natural heritage features were Gaelic culture and place names, local food and crofting, all of which could be better developed to sustain the economy.

BBC Alba can play a part in helping to sustain the economy of fragile areas and can expose viewers a wider range of entertainment than the big centralised channels carry. Who could have seen some of the lower divisions of football, rugby and other sports if BBC Alba had not gone for that gap in the market? Well done. Let us get it on to Freeview.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

I am sure that a few colleagues will remember "Tutti Frutti", that great BBC television series of the 1980s, which starred Robbie Coltrane, Emma Thompson, Richard Wilson and others. One of the most memorable moments in the series came when the band had difficulty prying one of its members away from the television. The guitarist, who was a telly addict, was watching "Postman Pat", and the joke was that he was watching it in Gaelic, which meant that, in theory, he could not understand a word. I always liked that scene. It was a very warm moment. I mention it now because it captures one of the most important arguments for making Gaelic television available to all: Gaelic is part of our shared culture; it is there for all Scots, not just a small and diminishing enclave. We must actively ensure that it is available to all, accessible for us to enjoy or ignore as we see fit.

It would be easy for us to appease our liberal consciences—those of us who have liberal consciences—with gestures of support for Gaelic: a little funding here, a few projects there. However, if we are serious about saving and revitalising the language, we need to share it with one another. We all need access to Gaelic in our everyday lives, not just on our Hebridean summer holidays. Several submissions to the BBC trust's consultation on BBC Alba and colleagues such as Alasdair Allan who have spoken in the debate this morning have referred to that as "normalisation". I would like to know which word Alasdair Allan used, as I do not know what the Gaelic for "normalisation" is—it is an odd word in English. If Gaelic-medium education is the key to growing the language again, access through television is the key to normalising Gaelic for all of us in Scotland.

As is the case in many consensual debates, members are preaching to the converted in the chamber today. I doubt that many of us here need to be convinced that the launch of BBC Alba has been a great success, and all those who are associated with the channel should be congratulated. The figures for audience reach are hugely impressive, when there was every chance that the output could have been simply worthy but dull, and therefore unwatchable.

As has been mentioned, BBC Alba has a core audience of more than 200,000, which is very impressive. Crucially, one in three of those people is a non-Gaelic speaker. The key statistics that we have received from BBC Alba show that the channel is currently available to only just over 40 per cent of Scottish households, so it is very important that we widen that access.

The Labour amendment is crucial in that regard, as it refers to Virgin Media. The access issue concerns not only Freeview; it is important that Virgin makes the channel available on cable too, because around 15 per cent of viewers will not have access to it if Virgin does not resolve its difficulties with the BBC.

Nonetheless, Freeview is the key. Those audience figures, which were gained despite the channel's limited availability, show the success and the impact of BBC Alba, and that is the key reason why we need to make it available on Freeview. Another reason is that the channel has proved to be an important economic driver in the Gaelic community. Members of the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee visited the BBC at Pacific Quay earlier this week; I was certainly envious of the new technology that was on display for use by my former colleagues. The main Gaelic news programme, "An Là", is broadcast from Inverness and Stornoway, but we saw the transmission gallery more than 100 miles away in Glasgow. The new technology that the BBC has employed allows the high-end, high-quality top production jobs to remain in the Hebrides, and the Highlands and Islands in general, which attracts young, ambitious and successful graduates to stay in their communities.

I ask the Lib Dems to clarify their amendment; I believe that we are close to unity on the matter, but I have one problem. Let us assume for a moment that the BBC trust does not come back with an alternative. Would the Lib Dems support BBC Alba going on Freeview if it meant that Radios 1 to 5 would be taken off? Those radio stations would not become unavailable—they would just be unavailable on television. I cannot believe that the BBC would want to keep a high production value television channel off a medium that is specifically designed for it, for the sake of enabling people to listen to a blank screen. The worst that would happen is that the audience would have to listen to radio on a radio.

I am pleased that members of the Parliament are almost as one on this matter, and I hope that—in English or Gaelic, on radio or television—the BBC trust is listening.

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

I wish to do two things in my short contribution: to represent my constituents, who are already disfranchised with regard to broadcasting; and to address helpfully Ken Macintosh's question, if not his liberal conscience.

I brought a debate on digital broadcasting to the chamber on the day before the switchover in the Borders took place, when at midnight the Selkirk transmitter became the first in Scotland to move to digital. In the debate, the Minister for Europe, External Affairs and Culture said:

"Please be assured that, as far as I am concerned, the move forward with digitalisation is a joint initiative and Scotland's case will always be pressed by this Government."—[Official Report, 5 November 2008; c 12074.]

That was reassuring. However, almost 18 months on, many of my constituents continue to be disfranchised in relation to the provision of digital broadcasting. Nothing that any member has said today with regard to the hope that BBC Alba will be provided on a digital terrestrial television platform will change that. The Government does not seem to know whether anyone who receives signals from a relay transmitter would get BBC Alba if it was provided on Freeview.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Will the member give way?

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

I give way to the former Minister for Culture, External Affairs and the Constitution.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I apologise for intervening, as I am only here for the closing speeches, but, as someone who represents the South of Scotland, I recognise what Jeremy Purvis says. How viewers in the South of Scotland are treated is appalling. However, is it helpful to disfranchise one group because another group is disfranchised? Perhaps we should help both groups.

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

That is entirely the point of the Liberal Democrat amendment, and I will address it specifically. I had hoped that the Government's submission to the BBC trust would say that but, regrettably, it did not. The Government had an opportunity to raise that point in its submission, but its response to question 8 in part 2 of the consultation document—"Any other comments?"—was, "Nil". I had hoped that the case would be stressed on behalf of constituents in the Borders and elsewhere in the South of Scotland, and those in the Highlands and other parts of Scotland, who will receive signals through relay transmitters.

It is not an academic point. Half of all viewers in my constituency in the Borders will receive the reduced Freeview service. The Government does not know whether—even if it gets its way on the provision of BBC Alba—that service will be provided in the area. BBC management say that if it is, it will result in the provision of a reduced service elsewhere.

I turn to the specific point that Labour members have made. The BBC trust has issued a consultation, to which I hope we in the Parliament are responding to say that it is simply not good enough for the BBC to present an either/or option. I am sure that all the Labour members have seen, among the options that BBC management have presented, the option of buying commercial space. That seems to have happened with S4C in Wales.

The efficiency outturn figures that the Government presented in November showed that there has been an £8 million efficiency saving in Gaelic broadcasting this year. We are told by the Government that that money should be put back into Gaelic media, and that the saving was a result of changes to the procurement of independent commissioning for BBC Gaelic services. If that is the case—I have no reason to doubt it—the Government has resource, which it would presumably wish to use to move forward with the Scottish digital channel, which is a stated Government policy.

I am not sure which channel would take precedence. If the Government says that it wants to move towards provision for a Scottish digital channel on Freeview, the same principle should presumably apply to BBC Alba, for which the Government provides the lion's share of the funding. If considerable efficiency savings of £8 million have been gained in Gaelic broadcasting, what is the Government doing with that money?

If we want—as the Liberal Democrats do—BBC Alba to be available to all, we must consider those viewers in Tweeddale who are likely not to have any digital radio broadcasting, as well as the prospect that Radio Scotland will be moved to a digital-only service. If the Government does not take action on the provision of BBC Alba and respond aggressively to the BBC trust, we will end up disfranchising more listeners and viewers.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

As a Highlands and Islands MSP, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in today's short but important—and very timely—debate.

As my friend Ted Brocklebank said, the Scottish Conservatives are proud that we have been consistent supporters of BBC Alba since its inception, and we have consistently argued that it should be available on Freeview. I made that point very strongly to the then Minister for Culture, External Affairs and the Constitution, Mike Russell, at question time in the chamber just after the BBC trust announced its review of BBC Alba in late October last year.

The Scottish Conservatives' wider record on support for Gaelic has been steadfast and meaningful, and has included support for the establishment of the Gaelic broadcasting fund. I thank Dave Thompson for his recognition of that—members should look at what it has led to. Conservatives in Government delivered tangible benefits for the Gaelic language and Gaelic speakers, and I expect that the next Conservative Government will do the same.

BBC Alba's availability on Freeview is important for many reasons. At the basic level, there is the issue of fairness. Many of my constituents in the Highlands and Islands do not want to or cannot afford to pay hundreds of pounds to access the Gaelic channel through satellite television. Given that Irish people can watch the Irish Gaelic channel for free and that people in Wales can watch the Welsh channel for free, surely it is logical that people in Scotland should be able to access BBC Alba for free. In turn, developing and maintaining a critical mass of viewers for BBC Alba require it to be available on Freeview. I want to dispel any concerns that we might lose our access to BBC network radio stations if BBC Alba is added to Freeview in place of some radio stations. Even if that does happen, radio listeners would still be able to access their stations on Freeview when BBC Alba is not on air. They would also be able to access it at any time on FM, AM, DAB, satellite, cable and online. I share Jeremy Purvis's concerns about people who cannot get coverage under the new digital network. I hope that that will be dealt with at some point.

There is also a wider argument, of which I am wholly convinced, that BBC Alba has a vital role in sustaining and expanding the Gaelic language. If members on all sides of the chamber are unanimous that we need to reach out to Gaelic speakers and, crucially, to encourage greater awareness of the language and a greater number of people to become involved in learning it, BBC Alba will be a much more powerful tool in achieving those ends if it is available on Freeview.

The medium of TV is critical in reflecting and supporting Gaelic culture, identity and heritage, and that medium must be widely and easily available. BBC Alba has been a success story, with some excellent programming. Everyone should have the opportunity to watch it, which would allow the channel to fulfil its role in assisting the sustenance and future development of the Gaelic language. I, too, watched a fine film on the exceptional comedian Norman Maclean, which prompted me to buy his book, "The Leper's Bell", a sharp and poignant reflection of life in Glasgow and the islands—I recommend it as an excellent read.

I hope that today's debate will help to inform further the BBC trust as it prepares to respond to the consultation that it has undertaken—a consultation that I am confident demonstrated a widespread support for the availability of BBC Alba on Freeview. I support the amendment in the name of my friend Ted Brocklebank.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

It is clear that there is at least a consensus about the success of BBC Alba. Its primary purpose is to give Gaelic speakers and learners access to television programmes in Gaelic that did not previously exist. Without it, there would be a significant loss to the Gaelic community and those who want to learn Gaelic. The gain is significant, and not to extend it would have a marked impact on those who now rely on the channel and those who want to rely on it. It is the diversity of the channel that makes it the success that it is. I would not have such strong support for it if I did not recognise that its diversity has attracted a non-Gaelic audience. I listened carefully to Ted Brocklebank's pleas about the Conservatives' staunch support for Gaelic. I am pleased that he has had an opportunity to make those pleas this morning.

Lewis Macdonald's talked about his family and his daughter Iona, one of many young people for whom BBC Alba provides opportunities that did not exist before. Rob Gibson made the same point. Anyone who watches BBC Alba will see that many new and young presenters are getting a chance to present in Gaelic that did not exist previously. There is a lot at stake.

I commend the Government for choosing to debate this subject. Although there is not much between the Government and Labour in our support for BBC Alba, Dave Thompson's approach was completely out of tune with that of every other member. As Labour spokesperson on the issue, I will put it on the record for Dave Thompson's benefit that the Labour Party's record in the Scottish Parliament is a good one with regard to BBC Alba. We have shown our party's commitment to the channel. Make no mistake: our support for BBC Alba will be influential. I would like to have heard a more consensual approach from Dave Thompson.

Dave Thompson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I accept that Labour's record is good, which is why it was more with sadness than with anger that I raised the point. A growing number of people are vilifying Gaelic, and if we do not nip that in the bud, it could spread, to the great detriment of Gaelic and the confidence of Gaelic speakers. The member really needs to consider that it was a Labour councillor who made those comments.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

The member further compounds the issue by rising to his feet. That is an argument for another day. Glasgow City Council, which is a Labour-led authority, has a fantastic record—there is a new Gaelic school in my constituency. However, I am sure that the member takes the point in the spirit in which it was intended.

Alasdair Allan, Ken Macintosh and others tackled the normalisation of Gaelic. To watch telly programmes in one's own language is the kind of normal thing that people want to do, which is why it is a significant issue for someone who is a Gaelic speaker and for whom Gaelic is their choice of language.

I assure the Liberal Democrats that Labour wants to achieve a consensus on this issue. The Lib Dem amendment raises crucial issues about the digital switchover. Lib Dem members have spoken out strongly for their communities and we have supported them in that. However, we might have difficulty supporting the Lib Dem amendment this evening if we are not clear about what it means. There are 4 per cent of listeners who use this service. If we discount people who can get access to radio stations by analogue—FM, AM—and online, there is a small number of people who do not get a digital signal at all. I do not know how many they are; the Government is duty-bound to find out. They are the ones who would be affected. I am advised that such listeners will be concentrated in the Highlands—in fact, some of them would probably prefer to have this choice, if a choice had to be made The Liberals are right to say that it should not be an either/or option. I was surprised that the consultation was based on that option. However, we must be honest here and say that there might have to be a choice in the short term. I am no technician—I think Jeremy Purvis knows a lot more about this than me, so I ask him not to challenge me on it—but I feel certain that there is a technical solution; we must ask for such a solution. However, if the Lib Dem position is to delay the extension of Freeview until a solution can be found, it would make it difficult for us to support the Lib Dem amendment this evening. I therefore seek clarification.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

We are trying to say that Parliament should send a message to the BBC trust that we do not think that radio should be removed from Scottish listeners—there are people who will lose services completely as a result of the proposal. There are other options, such as what happens in Wales. In Cardiff, although it is not possible to get E4, it is possible to get E4+1, which means that Wales can get S4C and S4C's news channel. Such solutions may cost a bit of extra money—not a huge amount—but they are possible and the BBC trust should investigate them fully. They can be implemented pretty quickly.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

We would support the Government in pursuing that, although, if the cost of buying commercial spectrum would result in any delay—the member has to concede that it might; he has not really addressed that point—we would have some difficulty in doing so. This is a TV platform, for television stations. It would be with regret if we could not support the Lib Dem amendment this evening, but there is a significant cost in buying additional spectrum. I am running out of time but would be happy to discuss the issue with the member. We are trying hard to get a consensus. I fear that what the Liberal Democrats are asking for might delay the extension of Freeview.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I am grateful to colleagues for their comments and their support for the motion. We have had much reflection on the journey that we have travelled, and there has been support for the Gaelic language from various parties. This is a short but important debate. I am especially grateful for the constructive spirit in which most members have approached the debate. Interesting and informative points have been made—not least, we have had an insight into Alasdair Allan's eating habits.

First, I will respond to some points that have been made in the debate and, in particular, the amendments that have been lodged. On Iain Smith's amendment, I agree that the decision to place BBC Alba on Freeview should not be made at the expense of access to digital radio stations. The Scottish Government's response to the BBC trust's consultation made it very clear that we want a better solution and I am happy to re-emphasise the point. However, I share the perspective of Pauline McNeill and Peter Peacock on this matter. Indeed, when Pauline McNeill said that this should not be an either/or option, I noted that Iain Smith was nodding in agreement. Perhaps that shows that we can reach consensus in this area.

Iain Smith also pointed out that, even after digital switchover, not everyone will be able to access all Freeview channels. Indeed, approximately 15 per cent of the population, almost half of whom live in the Scottish Borders, receive only the public service channels instead of the full range of more than 40 channels. The Scottish Government has already made representations to the UK Government on that matter and I am happy to do so again. However, because broadcasting is reserved to the UK Government, our ability to change the present state of affairs is greatly limited.

The Scottish Government welcomes the BBC trust's support for Gaelic media and the current interest in detailed matters relating to the operation and availability of BBC Alba, and the trust's review of the channel and its consultation on Freeview access are also welcome. We have recently emphasised the urgent need to increase the number of Gaelic speakers in order to secure the language's future and have recognised BBC Alba's vital role in that respect. We are encouraged by the channel's current performance and are strongly in favour of its being made widely available.

Given that digital switchover in Scotland will be completed by June 2011 and that Freeview is now regarded as normal telly, the BBC must ensure that Gaelic has a place. Welsh is present through S4C; Irish will also be available; and we are now asking the BBC trust to ensure that Gaelic is included in what we all regard as normal telly.

The evidence shows that BBC Alba not only is providing a good service to Gaelic speakers and those who are learning the language but has an appeal beyond the Gaelic speech community and is contributing to the education strategy for the language. Indeed, Lewis Macdonald made a good speech on that very matter. Of course, its educational and cultural contribution would be even greater if more people were able to see it.

That means that it has to be available on cable as well as Freeview and, in that respect, I support Pauline McNeill's call for the BBC and Virgin Media to resolve their differences and ensure that cable viewers have full access to the channel.

As Ted Brocklebank's amendment rightly points out, BBC Alba has played a crucial role in supporting Scotland's independent production sector. Last year, almost three quarters of its content budget was allocated to the 27 companies outwith the BBC from which it commissioned programmes.

Over the past 17 months, BBC Alba has established itself as a crucial element in the Scottish broadcasting industry and in Gaelic as well as Scottish culture. However, its long-term success relies on its being available to as many people as possible in Scotland and, for that reason, I urge all members to support the motion as amended.

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

Does the Government agree that the BBC trust's indication that it remains open to the proposal to carry out another public value test on the removal of radio services, including Radio Scotland, from Freeview provides an opportunity to explore other areas and ensure that we do not have an either/or option? If so, there should be no obstacle to supporting the Liberal Democrat amendment.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

We agree with the suggestion in Iain Smith's amendment that there should not be an either/or option, but I acknowledge and agree with the Labour Party's argument that there should be no delay in this matter. Of course, that will not stop us making it imperative that the BBC trust come up with alternative solutions. Indeed, I believe that the chamber can come together on that very point.

I urge all members to reach a consensus on this matter, support the motion as amended at decision time and ensure that the Scottish Parliament speaks with one voice.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

That concludes the debate on access to BBC Alba.

We are a few seconds early for general question time but, as the key players are in place, we will go straight to the first question.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — General Questions

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

To ask the Scottish Executive what progress has been made with the implementation of summary justice reforms. (S3O-9473)

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

The reforms have made a significant contribution to the delivery of summary criminal justice. Nationally, good use is being made of direct measures for low-level offences, meaning that they are dealt with swiftly and without the need to take up valuable time in the courts. Cases that proceed to court are now being dealt with more quickly. We are also seeing more pleas of guilty at pleading diet, which means that victims and witnesses in those cases avoid the stress of a court case. However, although good progress is being made, there is still scope to improve efficiency and effectiveness in the summary courts and work is on-going at national and local level.

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

When this issue was recently discussed by the Justice Committee, the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents expressed concern that the rights of victims and communities are being sacrificed. Does the cabinet secretary agree that those fears are being harnessed in the pursuit of a policy of a presumption against sentences of six months or less and that that policy has been undermined further by statistics that were reported on Tuesday, which show that a third of community service orders are being breached?

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

No, I do not agree. The summary justice reforms that Mr Kelly seems to be so staggered by and aghast at were first begun under the previous Labour-Liberal Administration. As with so many matters, Labour in government says one thing and does nothing, but in opposition takes the contrary position.

I refer the member to the Solicitor General for Scotland's evidence at the meeting of the Justice Committee that Mr Kelly attended, which showed that a far higher percentage—60 per cent—of fiscal fines are being paid now compared with the 40 per cent that were paid before the summary justice reforms. We are implementing the reforms; progress is being made; and Labour remains with its soundbites, having done nothing while in government and saying something completely different when in opposition.

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Does the cabinet secretary believe that the introduction of arbitrary six-month mandatory sentences for carrying a knife, which take no account of the crime's context or circumstances, will simply clog up the courts and prison system with offenders, many of whom will be young first-time offenders who could more appropriately be dealt with through other types of disposal? Does he also agree—

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Briefly, please. This is a supplementary question.

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Does the cabinet secretary agree that effective policing and education represent the best way of tackling and preventing knife crime?

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

Absolutely. In this matter, I must stand by the fine words of Hugh Henry. He is not here today to stand up for himself, but when he was the Deputy Minister for Justice he made it clear how ridiculous the proposal was. That said, I note that with regard to its own proposal, Labour is now talking about exceptional circumstances relating to both the offender and the offence. How is that any different from the current law? Hugh Henry ruled out the proposal when Labour was in government but, yet again, when in opposition Labour tries to score cheap political points and refuses to address the fundamental issue of the booze-and-blades culture that my predecessor highlighted. Labour talks tough about blades, but it did nothing about them when it was in power. As for booze, it is now doing nothing to tackle the real problem of the availability of cheap drink.

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee West)

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to combat the use of legal highs such as bubbles, which is a form of methadrone. (S3O-9520)

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

Last week, I wrote to the Home Office to stress the importance of finding a solution to this problem as quickly as possible. I am of the view that these synthetic cathinones can be as harmful as any other illicit drug and should therefore fall under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 as soon as possible.

We are to fund the provision of training materials for alcohol and drug partnerships and have also expanded our know the score drug awareness campaign to include many of these so-called legal highs, including mephedrone, and to make advice on drugs and their risks available through our helpline and website.

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee West)

Anecdotal evidence suggests that bubbles seems to be a growing problem, particularly in Dundee; indeed, the name first appeared in the media in the city's Evening Telegraph . Given that, as the minister has pointed out, the use of mephedrone can cause adverse reactions, including, in extreme cases, death, does he agree that we really need to urge Westminster to add it to the list of illegal drugs as quickly as possible?

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

The local member has highlighted the problem in Dundee, where, as reports in November 2009 indicated, five young people needed treatment after using so-called bubbles. All recovered, but two had to be hospitalised.

Research by the University of Liverpool reported a number of possible adverse and serious health effects. That is why I wrote to the Home Office last week to express my concern on behalf of the Scottish Government. We believe that such legal highs should be added to the list of illegal drugs. The sooner that that happens, the better.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

Will the minister join me in praising the efforts of Tayside Police to educate young people in particular about the severe health dangers of so-called legal highs such as bubbles? Does he agree that, while it is absolutely right to move to ban such substances—consideration of mephedrone must be part of that—the interim action that police forces are taking to prosecute for reckless conduct those who distribute such substances must also be supported?

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

Of course we recognise and support the excellent work done by police forces throughout Scotland. Arguably, they have had greater success in tackling drugs in the past 12 months than they have had at any other stage in the history of policing in Scotland, not least in Grampian, where they have carried out massively successful operations. We continue to support the police and the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency in taking tough and effective action.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

To ask the Scottish Executive when it expects to respond to the report of Lord Cullen's "Review of Fatal Accident Inquiry Legislation". (S3O-9465)

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

The Government is giving careful consideration to the recommendations that Lord Cullen made in his report "Review of Fatal Accident Inquiry Legislation". Many of his recommendations have practical implications for the Scottish Court Service and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, and the Government will liaise closely with those bodies in identifying how the recommendations should be implemented.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

The minister will be aware that lengthy delays in holding FAIs cause distress to the relatives of those who have died, and can also affect the quality of the evidence given, because memories fade and, in some cases, people die. Does the minister agree with Lord Cullen's recommendation that preliminary hearings could be held before a full inquiry, so that relatives' concerns could be considered, even though criminal proceedings might be pending in some circumstances?

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

Patricia Ferguson said that Lord Cullen recommended preliminary hearings. That would have implications for the operation of the Scottish Court Service and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. We instructed Lord Cullen to carry out the review because we are aware, as the Crown Office is aware, of the difficulties with FAIs, one of which is delays, and we are seeking to address those, but the courts have to rise to the occasion in the current situation and deal with cases quicker.

We are discussing the proposals for preliminary hearings with those who are in charge of the Court Service, given the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008, and with the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, which initiates fatal accident inquiries in the public interest.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

The cabinet secretary knows that I have been working with Julie Love and her family following the tragic death of her son Colin on Margarita Island, with a view to extending fatal accident inquiries to include the deaths of Scottish citizens overseas. At Tuesday's Public Petitions Committee meeting, I raised the issue of the timetable for the Scottish Government's response to Lord Cullen's report. Can I press the cabinet secretary to answer that question as a matter of urgency, because relatives are waiting? Will he look at the wider issue of how the consular system and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office could assist in any extension to the FAI process?

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

Bob Doris raises two matters. We have had the opportunity to meet him and his constituent.

The issues around the death of Scottish citizens abroad are extremely complex. Lord Cullen makes it clear that in normal jurisdictions, where there are procedures for such circumstances, matters would be dealt with there. Equally, there are countries in which circumstances are more difficult, and the Crown Office might have difficulty in gaining access, therefore Lord Cullen has raised the point that we should be able to consider those cases.

How the Foreign and Commonwealth Office deals with such cases is another issue. That matter is reserved to Westminster, but the local consulate or embassy has a significant role, especially in dealing with the clear and immediate needs of bereaved relatives. We are more than happy to liaise with the United Kingdom Government on that, because it is appropriate not only to find out the cause of death and the lessons that can be learned but to provide for those who are grieving at the time. The front-line officers abroad are not from the Crown Office in Scotland, they are embassy and consulate officials, so that matter rests with the UK Government.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

To ask the Scottish Government how much it will have to find in total from 2010-11 onwards to fund all existing PFI and PPP contracts. (S3O-9521)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The total unitary payments for all existing PFI and PPP contracts from 2010-11 onwards are approximately £27.7 billion. That figure is inclusive of Scottish Government PFI/PPP funding contributions.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

Does the cabinet secretary agree that PPP and PFI contracts have proven to be an extremely expensive way of delivering new schools, hospitals and infrastructure projects, often to a less than impressive standard? Will he confirm that the Scottish Government will use traditional procurement methods and the Scottish Futures Trust to build much needed infrastructure projects that represent much greater value for money and do not bequeath an intolerable burden on future generations?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I assure Mr Gibson that running through the Government's capital programme, the work that we are undertaking with the Scottish Futures Trust and all our capital investment is the determination to maximise value for money for the taxpayer. Many PPP and PFI contracts were procured at far too high a cost to the public purse. The Government is determined to maximise value and sustainability in our capital programme in the years to come.

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

Does the cabinet secretary recall telling me at the Finance Committee that the non-profit distributing model was part of the PPP family? Does he agree that his Government has changed the hub initiative of the previous Government by making it an equity investment model, which is currently being tendered for, and that private sector investors will receive profits according to the share of their equity investment, which will be neither limited nor capped? How does that fit with his answer to Mr Gibson's question?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

My point was that the Government is pursuing value for money in all its capital investments. That is the absolutely consistent point in what the Government is doing. We have made that central to the initiatives that the Government is taking forward and any decisions on capital investment. That is how we will proceed with our capital investment programme.

David Whitton (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

The cabinet secretary and his colleagues might not like PPP but they are not shy about opening facilities that were built using that funding model. Indeed, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister did so earlier this week at Victoria infirmary, and will do so again at Stobhill hospital. Mr Russell is going to visit the new St Ninian's high school in my constituency.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Question, please.

David Whitton (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

If PPP is so bad, can the cabinet secretary tell us when his £180,000-a-year chief executive of the expensive quango the Scottish Futures Trust will come up with a suitable alternative funding model?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I am sorry to have to add my name to the list that Mr Whitton is banging on about. Through an unbelievable set of events, I have been invited to open my former school, Forrester high school in the city of Edinburgh, which has been refurbished. I will be delighted to return to see the school as a new venture in continuing its fine academic tradition. I am not sure if Mr Whitton gets invited back to his old school; maybe he has to see the headmaster, or something like that.

I assure Mr Whitton that the Scottish Futures Trust is working extremely hard on a range of different interventions to ensure that value for money is at the heart of our capital investment programme.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

To ask the Scottish Executive what progress there has been in community planning. (S3O-9482)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Community planning partnerships are doing extremely good work. I am delighted that we have agreed single outcome agreements with all 32 partnerships, in which they have set out their priorities to deliver better outcomes for their communities.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

Is the cabinet secretary aware that a recent case study by the Scottish centre for regeneration highlighted concerns about a lack of community engagement in community planning and about the future use of the fairer Scotland fund after the removal of ring fencing? Will the cabinet secretary assure us that he will take steps to improve community engagement and to prevent fairer Scotland funding from being used to prop up mainstream budgets, which are increasingly under pressure?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I agree with Michael McMahon's substantive point that it is essential that effective community engagement is at the heart of community planning. That is an essential element of the arrangements that are in place. If Mr McMahon has examples from his constituency work or wider areas that he wishes to draw to my attention, I would be delighted to take action in that respect. We have agreed with local authorities and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities a set of outcomes that will assist us in deciding how the fairer Scotland fund money is used to support the achievement of those outcomes. I suspect that Mr McMahon will agree with those outcomes. As I say, if he has particular concerns, I would be delighted to respond to them.

Cathy Peattie (Labour, Falkirk East)

To ask the Scottish Executive what action it has taken to address dangerous and antisocial parking since May 2007. (S3O-9491)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Enforcement of parking restrictions that are imposed by local authorities under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 is a matter for the police or, where decriminalised parking enforcement has been introduced, for parking attendants who are employed by or under contract to the local authority.

Cathy Peattie (Labour, Falkirk East)

The minister will agree that, in fact, that is not working. Pavement parking creates a risk for children, parents with buggies and people with disabilities who have wheelchairs or scooters. Will he consider how the measures can be strengthened and perhaps how local authorities can introduce byelaws to end pavement parking?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Local authorities have powers to promote traffic regulation orders under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. That allows them to cover wide areas and hotspots where such unhelpful and unsocial parking takes place. I encourage them to do so. My officials will be happy to advise, if that is of assistance.

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Livingston)

To ask the Scottish Executive how it will ensure that courses developed under the curriculum for excellence meet eligibility requirements for Scottish Qualifications Authority awards. (S3O-9516)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The curriculum for excellence aims to raise achievement through improved learning and teaching. Ensuring that learners can progress smoothly from their broad general education at the end of secondary 3 into qualifications during the S4 to S6 senior phase will be a key part of that. The Scottish Qualifications Authority is working positively with the education profession to ensure that the new qualifications build on prior learning and are flexible enough to be timetabled in different ways while maintaining standards.

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Livingston)

Does the cabinet secretary share the concerns that have been expressed that some of the new highers that are being developed under the curriculum for excellence are at risk of appearing to be highers in name only, first, because they do not contribute to the national statistics on school performance and, secondly, because some pass marks equate to only 45 Universities and Colleges Admissions Service points, which is not even the equivalent of a C pass?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

We must ensure that every qualification that is available at school is rigorous and contributes to the continual improvement in achievement by young people. I am certain that the new qualifications will do so but, as I have made clear in the Parliament before, I will not sign off any arrangements for the curriculum for excellence or new qualifications until I am absolutely convinced that they contribute positively to the development of Scotland's young people.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what consideration has been given to using people subject to community service orders, where appropriate, to work in alleviating flooding. (S3O-9533)

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

We have seen the excellent work that people who are on community service have been doing clearing snow in the recent winter months. That type of work demonstrates clearly the potential for work by offenders in the community.

In doing so, they do something necessary, rather than getting free bed and board in prison and giving nothing back to the communities that they have harmed. However, flooding is a different situation from snow clearing. Although local authority community service teams assist with emergency situations, flooding management is highly skilled and potentially dangerous and is under the control and command of the police and fire and rescue services.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I am not sure whether the cabinet secretary is aware of my campaign on the issue in Inverclyde, which has had major problems with flooding in recent years. I agree that there are health and safety legislation aspects, but I am sure that, where there is a will, there is a way. Will the cabinet secretary therefore agree to meet me to discuss the matter further and, I hope, find a way of making progress on the proposal?

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

Absolutely. The Government is keen that, as I said, people should not be given free bed and board. They should be locked up when they are a danger to the community and have committed serious offences that merit that but, other than that, they should pay back the harm that they have done and make our communities safer and better.

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-2203)

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)

In paragraph 7.7 of the Scottish ministerial code, it says:

"in some cases it may not be appropriate for a Minister to provide a reference, even as an MSP."

What about the case of a criminal who stole £80,000 of benefits and who had previously been convicted of stealing people's pension and benefit cheques while running their post office? Does the First Minister think that someone who is guilty of that crime should go to prison?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Iain Gray should realise that a First Minister commenting on a live case before sentencing would be in breach of a range of things, including parliamentary procedure, ministerial procedure and every other procedure. If I or Iain Gray was the MSP, of course we would have an absolute obligation—[ Interruption ]—an absolute obligation to take on a case, as specified in the code of conduct for members of the Scottish Parliament, in paragraph 8.1.1.

There are times when members cannot do anything to help their constituents. Sometimes there is conflict with other cases and when people come to it they represent other constituents; sometimes there is political disagreement. However, every MSP in the Parliament should have a duty of care to their constituents, and if they can help they should try to help. That is how a real constituency MSP like Nicola Sturgeon serves her constituents.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

It is a matter of judgment. For the avoidance of doubt, I say that I would not have written such a letter for a constituent who was guilty of such a repeat crime. Is any MSP willing to say that they would have written the same letter for the same man having committed the same crime? Put your hands up! [Interruption .]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

The First Minister and his deputy seem to be on their own on this one. I ask a general question: where does the First Minister draw the line? What crime does someone have to commit not to receive a character reference from the First Minister or his deputy?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Nicola Sturgeon was elected as the constituency MSP for Govan. Iain Gray lost his seat as a constituency MSP.

We have a range of examples of people representing their constituents. When Gordon Brown was Chancellor of the Exchequer, he prepared a character reference for one of his constituents. That case is not live before the courts. When sentencing, Lord Cowie said:

"This would normally result in a custodial sentence but in all the circumstances, and taking account of all the references before me, I have decided to make a community service order".

It is the right of members of Parliament to represent their constituents, through their legal representatives, to a court. It is the obligation of the court then to dispense sentence. That is the law and that is the obligation of constituency members of Parliament.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

For all the people who are watching at home, let us be very clear. No member of this Parliament is bound to vouch for the character of just anyone. The code of conduct for MSPs says that members

"should consider issues on their merits, taking account of the views of others."

What about decent, law-abiding Scots? What about the pensioners and families who were left with nothing when their cheques were stolen? Did Nicola Sturgeon consider their views when she wrote the letter?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The code of conduct says, in paragraph 8.1.1—let us quote it exactly—that

"It is expected that each member will take on a case when approached"

by a constituent. It goes on to specify the circumstances in which a member would not take on a case. The circumstances are that a constituent's request could conflict with other interests or perhaps with "existing casework"—a conflict of interest in constituencies.

There is example after example of members of Parliament and MSPs making representations to court. I mentioned Gordon Brown when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. What about Paul Goodman, the Conservative MP for Wycombe and the shadow minister for communities and local government, who wrote to Reading Crown Court in September last year on behalf of three men who were accused of attacking another man in High Wycombe? What about Joe Benton, the Labour MP for Bootle, who wrote to Liverpool Crown Court in December 2008 on behalf of Christopher Brown, a constituent who was charged with firearm offences after selling guns online? [Interruption.]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Or what about John McDonnell—a fine Labour MP in my estimation—who wrote to Isleworth Crown Court in September 2006 in defence of two constituents who were accused of using false passports? Members of Parliament have to do their best for their constituents. They should do it without fear or favour and not because they condone their actions, not because they like or dislike them, and not because the constituent votes for, or does not vote for, them but because they have a duty of care.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

If members do not understand that obligation on members of Parliament, they should not be representing constituents on any matter.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

When I ask for order, I must get it. As I have said before, I allow as much flexibility as possible. When I ask for order, please give it to me.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

The conflict of interests that lies at the core of this question is between the interests of the criminal and those of the victims of crime. My constituents will judge me on which side of those interests I lie. I spent yesterday standing up for the victims of knife crime; Nicola Sturgeon spent yesterday standing up for a criminal. That is how bad her judgment is, but this is now about the First Minister's judgment. Whose side is he on? I give him one last chance: will he back Nicola Sturgeon or sack her?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I admire, like the people of Scotland and her constituents do, Nicola Sturgeon's work as a constituency member of Parliament. She is a fantastic Deputy First Minister of Scotland and she has my 110 per cent support.

For the avoidance of doubt, the conflict is actually specified in the code of conduct. I would have thought that Iain Gray would have some mastery of the code of conduct after all the comments that he has made on it in recent days. The code of conduct refers to action that would

"represent a conflict of interest with existing casework".

Conflict with another case in the constituency is specified as the conflict.

The rules for and obligations of a member of the Parliament are laid down and Nicola Sturgeon has followed those rules and obligations. However, the heart of the issue is about more than that; it is about whether people can rely on their constituency member of Parliament to represent them, without fear or favour, whether they like them or dislike them and whether or not they vote for the member. Do we or do we not recognise an obligation to do our best for our constituents?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Nicola Sturgeon's obligation is to do her best for her constituents. The court's obligation is to dispense sentence. I hope that we never get to the day when Iain Gray decides what sentences should or should not be dispensed by the courts of Scotland. [ Interruption .]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order. [ Interruption. ] Order! I repeat that when I ask for order, I expect to get it. No matter whom I ask it from, I expect the same response.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S3F-2204)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

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

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The events of the past 24 hours are extremely worrying and they go to the heart of the conduct of this Government. The Deputy First Minister is under serious scrutiny. I am not calling for her resignation at this stage—I believe that such a call is premature—but many questions need to be answered, and must be answered if Ms Sturgeon is to retain the confidence of this Parliament. If necessary, she should come before this Parliament and make a statement.

In the meantime, clarification is overdue. Is this a constituency issue or a Government issue? The Government's chief spin doctor—at taxpayers' expense—was sent out to defend Ms Sturgeon. Surely that makes it a Government issue. Did Ms Sturgeon seek or receive advice from Government officials on this matter? Is she now receiving advice from Government officials? Did Government officials do checks on Mr Rauf on behalf of Ms Sturgeon?

Will the First Minister now insist that Ms Sturgeon make a statement to this Parliament?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I appreciate the way in which Annabel Goldie has raised the matter. It is an entirely a constituency matter for Nicola Sturgeon as the MSP for Glasgow Govan. The reason for the Government representatives putting forward comments on behalf of Nicola Sturgeon was of course the call for her resignation as Deputy First Minister of Scotland. If somebody, however ill-advisedly, calls for the resignation of a minister because of their constituency duties—which sounds to me a remarkable thing to do—of course it is perfectly proper for that minister to be defended by Government spokespeople. Now that that has been clarified, I hope that Annabel Goldie will accept that at least that part is quite clear and capable of defence and no misunderstanding.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Given that the First Minister has now confirmed that this is an issue for the Government, there are questions for the Government. MSPs are not, as Ms Sturgeon has claimed, "duty-bound" or, as the First Minister has averred today, under "absolute obligation" to make representations to a court for a constituent. An elected politician is not an officer of the court making a plea in mitigation. We all have discretion as to whether and how to get involved. Indeed, who asked Ms Sturgeon to get involved?

The First Minister did not answer Mr Gray's question. Will he confirm that paragraph 7.7 of the ministerial code has not been breached?

Do Mr Rauf or his associates have any connections with the Scottish National Party or the independence movement?

Does the First Minister genuinely believe that serial fraud, two convictions and 779 fake signatures can all be dismissed as, to quote Ms Sturgeon, "mistakes"?

That is why a statement must be made to this Parliament.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I clarify the point again. Nicola Sturgeon dealt with this matter as the constituency MSP for Glasgow Govan. The only Government involvement has been after the calls for her resignation as Deputy First Minister of Scotland. Not just the Government spokespeople's reaction but my reaction has been to do two things: to defend the rights and obligations of constituency members of Parliament as I see them—hence the questions to me today—and to say absolutely that I am 100 per cent behind Nicola Sturgeon as the Deputy First Minister of Scotland.

Now that I have clarified that point, I know that Annabel Goldie will see that it is perfectly reasonable for a Government minister to act as a constituency MSP and it is perfectly reasonable for spokespeople for the Government to defend Government ministers when they are attacked by other parties and there are calls for their resignation. It would be an extraordinary situation if I were not allowed to dismiss calls from Iain Gray for Nicola Sturgeon's resignation.

On the specific points that Annabel Goldie made, I know of no contact or anything else—apart from with Nicola Sturgeon as a constituency MSP—between the individual in question and the Scottish National Party. I could—but I will not strain the tolerance of the Parliament—list occasions, of which I have so many, on which Labour members of Parliament have defended people where there were contacts with the political party. On the specific point that Annabel Goldie raised, I repeat that I know of no contact, apart from with Nicola Sturgeon in the constituency MSP role, between the gentleman and the Scottish National Party. I hope that Annabel Goldie will accept that, now that I have made it clear.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-2205)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

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

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

People outside Parliament do not understand how the First Minister and ministers have let all this happen. Yet again, will the First Minister tell the chamber where he draws the judgment line? Is there anyone who can walk through an SNP minister's door and not get the letter that they want? How bad does it have to be before the SNP says no?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The specification is in the code of conduct. Let me read it again, so that even Tavish Scott understands it fully:

"Every constituent is represented by one constituency MSP and ... regional MSPs ... It is expected that each member will take on a case when approached".

The exceptions that are recognised in the code apply to specific things such as conflict of political beliefs or other constituents' interests. The process of sending, on behalf of constituents, letters that will be used by their legal representatives is well known. Indeed, Gerry Brown, one of Scotland's most prominent solicitor advocates, who presumably knows a bit about the issue, described it on the radio this morning as "reasonably common".

I can give countless examples of MPs who have taken that role in serving their constituents. For example, when Gordon Brown made a submission on behalf of somebody who was charged with having grown £10,000 worth of cannabis at his home, I do not believe that he did so because he condoned the growing of cannabis. He did so because he was that person's constituency representative. The whole basis of the duty of care is that, as a constituency representative, an MP or MSP has to represent people, whether or not they agree with them, condone them—whatever their politics are. That is at the heart of representative politics.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

That was another shifty answer from the First Minister. He is trying to shift the blame on to someone else. The key word in the code is "expected". Mr Salmond would do well to look closely at it.

The Cabinet Secretary for Justice has called for new laws under which criminal assets can be confiscated. The cabinet secretary has said that such criminals are "parasites" who live

"off the back of law abiding folk".

Why did none of that occur to the Deputy First Minister when—I assume—she was sitting opposite one of them? The Cabinet Secretary for Justice has said of such criminals:

"we're going to take them on and we're going to take them down."

Does the Deputy First Minister simply take down whatever someone says and send it to the judge? Why does the First Minister have one minister who talks tough and another who begs for leniency?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I would have thought that Tavish Scott would welcome the huge success of the asset campaign that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice is pursuing.

The issue is clear: someone who operates as a constituency MSP does their best for their constituents without fear or favour. There are countless precedents for this and similar cases. Is it the case that all the people whom I have listed should be called upon to resign, as Iain Gray suggests? Are we going to merge totally the role of a constituency MSP and that of a Government minister, or will we retain at the heart of our system of politics that, when a constituent asks for help—and if it is possible for that help to be given—the MSP should give it? If an MSP does not understand that, regardless of popularity, they should not be a constituency member of Parliament. The hard stuff is part of the job, as well as everything else.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I will take a constituency question from Cathy Jamieson.

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

The First Minister is aware of the murders in my constituency of Diane Fallon and her 10-year-old daughter, Holly: a tragedy that has shocked the whole community. Given that the person who was convicted of the murders was a known sex offender with a previous conviction, does the First Minister agree that, although an internal inquiry by the police is welcome as a first step, it is not a wholly adequate response? Will he ensure that an independent inquiry is held, with the findings reported to Parliament and made public? Will he also ensure that immediate steps are taken to extend the pilot scheme under which communities are given access to information about sex offenders who live in their community?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I thank Cathy Jamieson for the way in which she raised the constituency issue and welcome her welcome for the police inquiry. At this stage, we should see what progress the inquiry makes. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice will keep on review whether another inquiry is necessary, given the findings of the current inquiry. The member makes a strong point, which was discussed at the Cabinet on Tuesday, about whether there may be a strong case for accelerating the pilot study in Tayside, to see whether aspects of the early examination of that work might have been relevant to the case that we are discussing and might give more security to the people of Scotland generally.

Ian McKee (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Government will respond to the increasing public demand for the availability of primary care medical services in the evenings and at weekends. (S3F-2210)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The Government is committed to ensuring that high-quality primary medical care is available whenever and wherever people need it. National health service boards, working with multidisciplinary teams and NHS 24, are well equipped to continue to provide a high-quality service. We recognise the fundamental part that is played by general practitioners.

We have invested record sums in primary medical services—up by 2.7 per cent over the past three years—and are taking through the Parliament the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Bill, which safeguards GPs' role. The number of GPs has increased by 14 per cent since 2004. We have invested £7.4 million to extend access to GP practices across Scotland, meaning that more than two thirds of practices now offer their patients appointments at times more flexible to their needs. However, we agree with the British Medical Association that we cannot return to the days when individual GPs, as opposed to the health service, were forced to provide cover 24/7.

Ian McKee (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I welcome the Government's commitment to high-quality primary medical care and investment in that. Does the First Minister agree that one of the strengths of such care in the past has been the continuity that it offers? Although I accept that a 24-hour individual GP commitment is neither desirable nor achievable, the retreat from practices providing services in the evening or at weekends that has taken place since 2004, which means that it is impossible for some people to be seen routinely without missing work, has led to a fragmentation of delivery of primary care that is not in the interests of patients, the national health service or the wider economy. Should not the issue be given further attention?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I recognise Ian McKee's expertise in this area and his concern. The matter is kept constantly under review. Equally, I hope that the member recognises that the extension of access that has been taking place is intended precisely to enable people to see their general practitioner outwith normal working hours, so that that is not disruptive of work patterns. The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing has pushed through a substantial advance that will be welcomed and which we would like to see applied more widely across Scotland.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

Does the First Minister agree with the recommendation in the BMA's recent report that the NHS 24 should focus on improving its core business of call triage and integration with local services, rather than planning further service expansion?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

NHS 24 is doing that. Its performance has been improving and is exceptionally good. In my estimation, the recent threat of a flu pandemic demonstrated the worth and resilience of NHS 24 across Scotland. The issues that Ross Finnie raises are being taken on board and considered, but he should acknowledge that NHS 24, after a period of strong initial criticism following its launch, has made substantial improvements and is recording a first-class performance.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

The First Minister will recognise that increasing public demand on primary medical services may have an impact on funding. Does he agree with the Deputy First Minister, who said yesterday that there is record funding for the NHS in the coming year, or does he agree with another member of the health and wellbeing ministerial team, one Alex Neil, who on the same day expressed in the Wishaw press his fury at cuts to health services? Who is right?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The figures are quite clear. The health service has been protected in the Government's budget, as witnessed by examples in Glasgow such as the new Southern General hospital, which is the largest capital project in the history of the national health service, and built with public money. Even Jackie Baillie should welcome that commitment from this Government not just to the west of Scotland and the health service, but to the great city of Glasgow.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's response is to the survey by Unison that predicts that local authorities are facing a £305 million drop in income and the loss of 3,000 jobs over the next year. (S3F-2217)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The response is that local government, along with the rest of the public sector in Scotland, has to cope with over £500 million of cuts in the Scottish budget imposed by Johann Lamont's colleagues at Westminster for 2010-11. As Johann Lamont well knows, we are, in contrast, increasing revenue funding to councils by £325 million in 2010-11 on a like-for-like basis exactly to help local authorities protect front-line services and play their part in the economic recovery. She will remember that, under the previous Administration, local government's share of the Scottish budget was in steady decline year after year. We are now delivering on our commitment to increase local government's share of the overall budget year on year. It will go up from 33.4 per cent in the last budget set by the Labour Party in 2007-08, to 34.1 per cent in 2010-11.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I am sure that the First Minister would wish to acknowledge the authority of Unison, given that it represents workers who are committed to delivering critical services in our communities, rather than dismissing it, as his answer suggests.

What steps has the First Minister taken to meet Unison to discuss its concerns and, in particular, its troubling findings that care assistants who support vulnerable people in their own homes will be the first to lose their jobs? The First Minister clearly shares his Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth's complacent view that the Scottish Government is funding local services with, as I think he said yesterday, some style. If he does, will he explain why local authorities, the unions, voluntary organisations and worried families in our communities all report, and are fearful of, significant cuts at the local level? Are they making it up? Can it be that they are all out of step, bar the First Minister? Will he respond to those serious concerns rather than dismiss them?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Certainly, if Johann Lamont wants to have a look back at my previous answer, she will find that, far from dismissing them, I acknowledged that local government, with the rest of the public sector, has to cope with cuts that are being imposed by her colleagues at Westminster.

Johann Lamont asked about meetings with Unison. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth has met Unison, and the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing met Unison on Tuesday. They are fully involved in allowing Unison to make its representations, as we would expect.

Johann Lamont's question implies a fundamental misunderstanding of the Government's position and, indeed, of simple economics. We have just heard a comment from Jackie Baillie that, if I interpreted it correctly, suggested that the health service should have more money. We have just had comments from Johann Lamont that, if I interpret them correctly, suggest that local government should have more money. We know as an absolute fact that the share of expenditure from Westminster to Scotland is declining, so at some stage will the financial geniuses on the Labour seats tell us, if the budget is going down by £500 million, how is it that, in their looking-glass world, every service, depending on who asks the question, can get more money? Far from dismissing complaints, our message to the people of Scotland is to look at the Westminster cutbacks and get this nation control over its resources, because that is the only solution for Scottish public services.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

To ask the First Minister what assessment the Scottish Government has made of potential locations for offshore wind turbine manufacturing and construction operations, in light of the recent report by Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. (S3F-2214)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

As Iain Smith will acknowledge, Scotland has massive renewables potential, with an estimated quarter of the European Union's offshore wind resource, as well as a quarter of the tidal resource and 10 per cent of the wave resource. We are therefore well placed to make Scotland the green energy powerhouse of Europe, creating tens of thousands of jobs and generating billions in revenue for the economy. It is therefore vital that we put in place the energy infrastructure that will not just support the industry itself, but enable manufacturing and construction to be carried through in Scotland. That is exactly the challenge that the Scottish Government has set itself and has set the whole country—hence the report from Scottish Enterprise, to which the member refers.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

We all agree that Scotland has the potential to be a world leader in low-carbon energy. Our port structure, company base and skilled workforce are critical to our success.

Today, Nick Clegg, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, pledged to create 57,000 jobs by investing £400 million to upgrade shipyards—

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

That was to ensure the production of offshore wind turbines.

In last week's report, Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise identified 11 key ports, including the Fife energy park—[Interruption.]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order. Let the member ask his question.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise identified 11 key ports requiring investment, including the Fife energy park in Methil, so that we can fulfil that potential. How will the Government take forward those recommendations to ensure that Scotland can maximise the economic benefits of its renewables potential?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I thank Iain Smith for that follow-up question, but point out that the report from Scottish Enterprise and the actions from the Government are not two distinct things. The report from Scottish Enterprise was commissioned by the energy advisory board, which I chair—indeed, it was at my suggestion. To identify the potential for manufacturing sites, it is necessary first to identify the sites. We have a comprehensive, rational renewables infrastructure plan, and I recommend that every member of the Parliament read stage 1 of it.

Iain Smith suggests that the salvation of the Scottish renewables industry and the fulfilment of its potential will be dependent on Nick Clegg becoming Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. I do not, for a second, decry good policies from whatever source, but I would like to offer just a bit more assurance to the renewables industries of Scotland—instead of taking on what might be considered a rather long-term debt. I suggest that the member gets behind the Scottish Government's policy, which is paving the way for offshore renewables.

Already, 29 significant onshore renewable applications have been consented to during our term of office. Without breaking the cross-party consensus on the matter, I point out that that is a considerable number more—many times more, in fact—than those that were consented to by our predecessors.

The green energy powerhouse of Europe vision is not something for the hereafter; it is for the here and now. Get behind the Government's actions to bring it forward.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

That concludes questions to the First Minister.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. In his replies to Iain Gray and Tavish Scott, the First Minister quoted from the code of conduct for MSPs in relation to how we deal with constituency matters. He missed out a key sentence. The code clearly says:

"it is recognised that there may be legitimate reasons for a member to decline a constituent's case in certain circumstances".

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

And what is the point of order, Mr Smith?

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I am coming to it. The First Minister missed out this sentence. The code continues:

"for example, where a constituent requests an MSP to take inappropriate action".

My point of order is this: can you confirm that that is what the code of conduct says and, secondly, that it is for individual MSPs to use their own judgment to determine what is an "inappropriate action"?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I can confirm that, but it is not a point of order for me to consider.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — Health and Wellbeing

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

To ask the Scottish Executive what the catchment area is for maternity services at the Southern General hospital and whether it considers that there is sufficient capacity in Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board. (S3O-9484)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

The catchment area for maternity services is determined by postcode analysis. I am more than happy to forward to the member the analysis that NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde has provided. The board assures me that, based on its detailed forward planning projects, there is sufficient capacity in NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

The minister might be aware that the Queen Mother herself suggested the name of the Queen Mother's hospital—the maternity service in my constituency—in 1963. She might also be aware that Andrew Calder has led calls to retain that name for the new maternity service at the Southern general hospital. He said that it would be a shame if the memory of the facility was lost and that the Queen Mum's is the "cradle of ultrasound scanning" and of Ian Donald's world-renowned work on that. Given that the cabinet secretary acknowledged in a recent letter to me the strength of feeling on the Queen Mum's, does she agree that NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde should retain the name for the reason that I have given? Will the cabinet secretary support the idea of retaining the name?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

As I said in my letter to Pauline McNeill, I understand the strength of feeling on the issue and the reasons for the view that the name of the Queen Mother's hospital should be retained. As I said in the letter, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde is still considering the name of the new maternity unit and it will make a decision on that in due course. I expect the board to take account of the representations on the matter that have been made to it by Pauline McNeill, Sandra White and others before taking a decision.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I am sure that the minister will want to join me in acknowledging the great work and dedication of staff in the maternity units throughout Glasgow. She will be aware that Glasgow's Princess Royal maternity hospital had a United Nations Children's Fund seal of approval for promoting breastfeeding, but has recently lost that seal. What steps is the Scottish Government taking to promote breastfeeding?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

The Government is absolutely committed to the objective of promoting breastfeeding. The health benefits to children later in life from breastfeeding are well known and we will continue to work with NHS boards, which have the principal responsibility on the ground, to do everything possible to promote breastfeeding. I know that all members support the calls to encourage women to breastfeed their children where it is right for them. I certainly welcome the support of any MSP in that endeavour.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Does the cabinet secretary accept that the future of midwife-led services at Inverclyde Royal hospital and throughout Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board depends on accurate workforce planning? Does she share my concern that newly qualified midwives are being forced to leave the country to find their first position? Is she disappointed that health boards are turning their backs on the Scottish Government's job guarantee scheme and that, to date, only nine newly qualified midwives throughout Scotland benefit from the scheme?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I agree with Duncan McNeil on the value of midwife-led maternity services and that it is important that we have robust workforce planning in place, not just for maternity services, but for all services in the NHS. As all members will be aware, workforce planning is not an exact science and it takes considerable work by boards to ensure that they make the best estimates. The methodology that is used in workforce planning continues to improve.

It is obviously a concern if any newly qualified midwife or nurse cannot get a job, particularly in the area of their choice. That is why the previous Administration—it was not the current Government—introduced the one-year guarantee scheme for nurses and midwives. Obviously, we cannot compel people to apply to the scheme, and nor should we do so, but it is a guarantee. If midwives who cannot through their efforts find a job apply to the scheme, they will be assisted. However—again, members will appreciate the reasons for this—that will not necessarily guarantee midwives jobs in the part of the country of their choice, because it is important that we ensure that, through the scheme, we place midwives where there is a need for them.

Nevertheless, there is a guarantee that will secure them a job for one year.

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

To ask the Scottish Government what reports it has received from NHS Lothian regarding the new pyjamas campaign organised by the Sick Kids Friends Foundation. (S3O-9535)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I am aware of recent media reports regarding the new pyjamas campaign organised by the Sick Kids Friends Foundation. NHS Lothian has confirmed that it recently met representatives from the Sick Kids Friends Foundation and will work with them to ensure a successful fundraising campaign, with the appropriate governance structure. I have asked NHS Lothian to keep me fully up to date with the situation.

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I welcome the investigations that the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator and NHS Lothian are carrying out into the matter. Does the cabinet secretary agree that although it is important that the investigations are completed as soon as possible and that any action that is necessary is taken, we should never lose sight of the fantastic work that has been undertaken in the past by the Sick Kids Friends Foundation? She will be aware that my family had cause to spend time at the royal hospital for sick children recently. We saw at first hand how the results of fundraising efforts have made a difference to patients and families. Will she join me in encouraging people in Edinburgh and further afield to continue to support the worthy fundraising work for facilities at the new hospital at Little France?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I am sure that Shirley-Anne Somerville and other members agree that it is vital that the allegations that have been made are properly investigated. That is not a matter for me or the Government; it is a matter for OSCR. The Sick Kids Friends Foundation has made it clear that it will co-operate fully with OSCR, and everyone will welcome that.

Shirley-Anne Somerville was right to draw attention to the fantastic work that has been done and I hope will continue to be done by the Sick Kids Friends Foundation. Parents like her who have seen the direct benefits for their children of the foundation's work will know that it is impossible to put a value on that work. On visits that I have undertaken in my role as Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing, I too have seen the benefits of such work and the differences that it can make to the lives of sick children. I am sure that we all want the Sick Kids Friends Foundation to go from strength to strength and to continue to work with NHS Lothian as it does so.

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh South)

I associate myself with the comments of the cabinet secretary and Shirley-Anne Somerville. What a fantastic job the Sick Kids Friends Foundation has done over the years. The foundation is based in my constituency and I have had quite a lot of contact with it.

Does the cabinet secretary agree that, particularly in the current economic climate, the Sick Kids Friends Foundation must be constituted in such a way as to maximise charitable donations to that worthy cause? Does she acknowledge that moves to bring the charity under the control of NHS Lothian, as some people have suggested should happen, would not only be unprecedented in the United Kingdom but endanger charitable giving from the general public, who might be unwilling further to fund a source that is paid for through public taxation?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I thank Mike Pringle for his words of support for the Sick Kids Friends Foundation's work. I am sure that he agrees that it is important that the foundation works with NHS Lothian to secure the future of fundraising and—this is crucial—to ensure that the governance arrangements around fundraising are absolutely robust, whatever they look like. I encourage NHS Lothian and the Sick Kids Friends Foundation to continue their dialogue, to ensure that the work of the foundation in general continues, notwithstanding what might or might not have happened in relation to the new pyjamas campaign. As Shirley-Anne Somerville said, the foundation's work brings great value to the lives of sick children.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Executive what will be discussed at its next meeting with representatives of NHS Fife. (S3O-9457)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

Forthcoming meetings with representatives of NHS Fife will cover a wide range of matters of current interest to the NHS in Scotland in general and to NHS Fife in particular.

I meet NHS board chairs and chief executives, including those from NHS Fife, regularly. I chaired the NHS Fife annual review in Dunfermline on 18 January and I met all chief executives on 20 January. The next scheduled meeting with board chairs is on 22 February. Scottish Government health directorate officials also regularly meet representatives of NHS Fife.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Does the cabinet secretary share my concern that Levenmouth in Fife has a population of almost 40,000, a high density of older people, families with young children and households with no access to a car, and no local pharmacy that is available on a Sunday—a day when there are poor public transport links to Kirkcaldy and Glenrothes? Does she agree that that leaves many in the Levenmouth area vulnerable? Will she support my request for a pilot for increased provision and raise it with NHS Fife?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I certainly appreciate Claire Baker's interest in raising the issue. It is important that, in all areas, there is access to a range of good-quality health care services. Obviously, what is available in every local community depends on a range of factors but, if Claire Baker wants to pursue the matter with NHS Fife, I would be happy to draw it to the health board's attention and I encourage her to enter into discussions with the board.