Scottish Parliament

Wednesday 25 June 2008

[THE PRESIDING OFFICER opened the meeting at 14:00]

Time for Reflection

The Presiding Officer (Alex Fergusson): Good afternoon. As always, our first item is time for reflection. Our time for reflection leader today is Rabbi Nancy Morris from the Glasgow Reform synagogue.

Rabbi Nancy Morris (Glasgow Reform Synagogue): Everyone knows that the Scots invented the modern world. So asserts Arthur Herman in his book "How the Scots Invented the Modern World". The Scots formed the first literate society and invented our modern ideas of democracy and free-market capitalism. Their

"contributions to the world's list of great names in literature, science, art, music, finance, medicine, and abstruse learning are also away out of proportion to the weakness of"

their

"numbers."

Is that not true? Herman puts forth good arguments for all those assertions—but that previous sentence was actually a quote from Mark Twain, in the article "Concerning the Jews". Such statements about literate culture, democracy and capitalism have been made by many people with regard to Jews as well. Undoubtedly, both Scots and Jews have much to be proud of.

In our cycle of scriptural readings this past week, we read chapters of the book of Numbers that describe how Moses, still wandering with his people in the desert, moving towards a land promised to them, sends out a group of 12 spies to scout out this promised land. Ten of them come back afraid of what they have observed and lacking in any confidence in their own strength or resources. Because of them, the Israelites are condemned to wander the desert a full 40 years.

The spies had been terrified of the fortifications surrounding cities such as Jericho. Because of the walls, they concluded that opposition was massive, and that, because the cities were strong, the people were strong. In fact, Jewish tradition concludes that the truth was the opposite: the cities were strong because the people were weak.

We Jews, as a wandering, exiled people, have had many historic challenges to face in a world without walls to protect us—external challenges such as anti-Semitism, but also internal ones such as assimilation, lack of confidence and even loss

of faith. It is only firm belief in our own inner strength, great culture and tradition that permits us to be at home in a world without walls—a diverse world, a world that can at times be scary and threatening. It is powerful self-belief and rejection of fear that allows us not only to survive but to become a positive moral and spiritual influence on the societies of which we form a part. Let us understand how much we Jews and Scots are well suited to living in a world without segregating walls.

 By not giving in to tribalism or triumphalist nationalism, nor retreating to a seemingly safe but constricting place, we can teach the world that true liberty requires a sense of personal obligation as well as individual rights. We can show that modern life can be spiritually, as well as materially, fulfilling. We can demonstrate that

"private affluence can enhance a sense of civil responsibility"

and, finally, that

"confidence in the future depends on a reverence for the past"

—a true past. Are those the aspirations of a Moses, or are they more admiring words from Mark Twain? No. They form the conclusion of Herman's book about the Scots.

Business Motion

14:04

The Presiding Officer (Alex Fergusson): The next item of business is consideration of business motion S3M-2257, in the name of Bruce Crawford, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a revised business programme for today.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees the following revision to the programme of business for Wednesday 25 June 2008—

after

followed by  Scottish Government Debate: Alcohol Misuse

delete

followed by    Business Motion

followed by  Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm    Decision Time

followed by    Members' Business

and insert

followed by  Ministerial Statement: Scottish Ambulance Service Contact Information

followed by    Business Motion

followed by  Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.30 pm    Decision Time

followed by    Members' Business.—[Bruce Crawford.]

Motion agreed to.

Housing

The Presiding Officer (Alex Fergusson): The next item of business is a statement by Nicola Sturgeon on housing. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of her statement, therefore there should be no interventions or interruptions during it.

14:04

The Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing (Nicola Sturgeon): Last October, in the consultation paper "Firm Foundations: The Future of Housing in Scotland", the Government set out its vision for the future of housing in Scotland. It is a vision of more houses of all tenures, that are built to higher environmental and design standards, that meet the needs of those on lower incomes, and that contribute to the creation of sustainable, mixed communities. Our proposals are ambitious and radical. They have to be if they are to tackle the problems that afflict housing in Scotland—problems that, as we all know, result in too many people failing to find homes that meet their needs and which they can afford.

"Firm Foundations" generated an enormous amount of interest, and I am pleased to say that there has been huge support for many of our key proposals. Given the critical role of local government in taking forward so much of our agenda, I am particularly pleased by the extent to which the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Government agree on the priorities for action, which include increased supply throughout all tenures, the creation of mixed communities, and joint working between councils. In my statement, I will set out the Government's plans to build on that support in the coming months and to work with our partners in local government and throughout housing to translate our vision into delivery on the ground for the people of Scotland.

"Firm Foundations" recognised that improved supply is the key to achieving our vision for the sustainable economic growth of Scotland. Our proposal to set ourselves, as a country, the goal of increasing the rate of house building to 35,000 new houses a year by the middle of the next decade was strongly supported and endorsed by stakeholders. In proposing that goal, we recognised that making the supply of houses more responsive to demand is a long-term challenge that requires both reform of the planning system and a change in cultural attitudes towards the building of new houses.

In recent months, it has become clear that developments in the credit markets will have a significant adverse effect on house building in the

short to medium term. As we all know, the situation is fluid, and the Government will require to be flexible in its response. However, we all understand that the root cause of the situation is not reduced demand for housing but reduced liquidity in the market. The underlying long-term requirement for more housing remains. People continue to need homes that they can afford and which meet their needs. Accordingly, I confirm our commitment to that goal. We will work to ensure that house building is best placed to grow again when market conditions recover.

Today, as part of our drive to improve the operation and responsiveness of Scotland's housing system, we are publishing, jointly with COSLA, new guidance that enhances the role of local housing strategies. Next month, we expect to publish the revised Scottish planning policy on housing. Taken together, those will create a stronger national framework for housing and planning to ensure that the right number of houses can be built in the right places.

I said a moment ago that the credit crunch will not deflect us from the long-term goal of increasing the supply of new housing, yet we cannot and must not ignore the impact that the credit crunch might have on some households in the short to medium term. I confirm that the Scottish Government will press the United Kingdom Government to do everything possible to restore normality to the operation of credit markets and to improve its financial regulatory arrangements to encourage more responsible lending. We will also press the UK government to make good on its promise to reform the income support mortgage interest scheme so that it can help a much wider range of people.

As a Government—and, I am sure, as a Parliament—we recognise the significant effort and sacrifice that people have made to buy their own homes. For that reason, I want our Government to take some direct action in the coming months. I want to encourage anyone who is facing difficulties in paying their mortgage to take action as soon as possible and to get advice on their options from both their mortgage lender and independent agencies. We will also provide additional specific support and training for money advisers, and later this year we will produce revised standards for money and housing advice and consult on a new lighter-touch accreditation scheme.

Together, those measures will help us to ensure that home owners can obtain high-quality advice, without charge, that will help them to make the best choice possible in their circumstances. In addition, to ensure that people do not slip through the net, we will develop legislation to ensure that

lenders that intend to repossess notify local authorities.

I can also announce that we intend to launch a home owners support fund to help those who cannot obtain help from elsewhere to remain in their homes if possible. The new fund will include and build on the existing mortgage to rent scheme. To support the fund, we will increase in the first instance the resources that currently are available to the mortgage to rent scheme. Over the next two years, we will make available £25 million to help home owners who face the repossession of their homes.

In developing that approach, we will work with lenders and social landlords to extend the options that are available to home owners who face repossession, beyond the single option that currently is available under mortgage to rent. We want specifically to include the option of shared equity and shared ownership, which allows people to retain ownership of their homes instead of giving up home ownership completely.

When first-time buyers who have bought their homes as part of the Government's shared equity schemes find themselves in difficulties in meeting mortgage payments, we will explore with social landlords how those first-time buyers might be allowed to adjust their stake in accordance with household circumstances rather than give it up altogether or face repossession.

Those measures demonstrate that we understand the sacrifice that those who have struggled to buy their own home make and that we are prepared to target support wherever we can. Last year, we announced the low-cost initiative for first-time buyers—LIFT. As part of that, we launched the revised open market shared equity pilot scheme. We are committed to helping more people to achieve their home ownership aspirations when that is sustainable for them. We have taken on board the views expressed in the responses to "Firm Foundations", and we have assessed the changing credit situation, which has meant that first-time buyers have to find ever larger deposits.

Following its recent assessment of the changed housing market, the Council of Mortgage Lenders said that an expansion of the shared equity schemes would

"help underpin confidence at this uncertain time".

I can confirm today that we intend to expand our shared equity schemes, backed by investment of £250 million over the next three years. It is our judgment that, in the current market climate, that approach offers more effective help to first-time buyers than direct grants.

It is also important in the current climate that first-time buyers and others have good information about the condition and value of houses before they make what for many is the biggest financial commitment of their lives. We were pleased that the regulations to introduce the home report into the Scottish housing market received strong, if not unanimous, support from across Parliament earlier this year. The surveying profession and others in the market are making good progress in their preparations for the new system, which will come into force on 1 December this year.

An important feature of "Firm Foundations" was its recognition that not everyone is able, or wishes, to own their own home. Consequently, it gave equal weight to proposals on renting in both the private and social sectors. That included a review of the private rented sector, which is under way, to ensure that the sector is capable of delivering the right types of housing in the right places to help to meet housing need. A consultation launched earlier this week on proposals to give local authorities more scope to use the private rented sector to house homeless people when that is appropriate also has an important role to play.

At the same time, we are continuing our important work to improve standards in the sector through measures such as the mandatory private landlord registration scheme—which, I am pleased to say, has an approval rate of 78 per cent compared with just 15 per cent in May 2007—and the new repairing standard, which came into force last September. In April, we launched the national landlord accreditation scheme. Part funded by the Government, it promotes best practice in the sector through training and advice for landlords and agents.

I turn to the social rented sector. Responses to our proposal to end the right to buy for new social housing were almost universally positive, so I confirm today that we will legislate to implement that commitment at the earliest opportunity.

What struck me about the responses was the impassioned pleas for us to consider further restrictions. Social housing landlords have given us the clear message that they want to protect their stock, which will help them to meet pressing housing need and assist them on the road to the 2012 homelessness target. I make it clear that we will not remove an existing right-to-buy entitlement but, having listened to respondents, we remain committed to reviewing the policy further in line with our manifesto commitment. Therefore, through working with key stakeholders to examine a range of options, we will conduct a short-term review over the summer and draw up detailed proposals for public consultation.

Support for our proposal to kick-start a new generation of council house building was also

extremely strong. In April, I announced that £25 million of Government funding would be provided over the next three years to support that initiative. I have discussed with COSLA the principles that will underpin how we allocate that money. Our aim is to secure the maximum number of extra homes in the right places for the minimum outlay per home. To achieve that, we will focus our investment on councils that are well placed to progress new-build programmes. Those councils will have resources from prudential borrowing or other sources, well-developed plans for building quality houses that meet local need, and the necessary infrastructure to manage such homes effectively. We will also focus our investment on places with housing need and where the homes will help the council to meet the 2012 homelessness target.

We are developing the detail behind those principles with COSLA to make the final process as transparent and non-bureaucratic as possible. In addition, so that councils that are just beginning to consider building new houses have time to develop their plans, we will allocate the £25 million in more than one tranche.

I acknowledge that some councils have a limited ability to borrow because of high debt, so the scheme might not benefit them, but it is right to concentrate our resources where they will have the greatest impact. We will, of course, continue to work with all councils on ways to address their affordable housing need and the long-term sustainability of their housing business.

"Firm Foundations" described the imperative to make our investment in new social housing more efficient, which is why, last month, we changed the assumptions that underpin awards of housing association grant so that they are more realistic and at the same time secure better value for the taxpayer. The next stage will be to reform the investment processes to permit a more strategic and competitive approach. As members have said before, that could be done in a variety of ways. We need to explore all the options before deciding on the form that the new system will take. I make it clear that we intend to work with the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, COSLA and other housing stakeholders to develop specific proposals on which we will consult in the autumn.

Procuring new stock efficiently is critical to our aim of delivering more and better-quality social housing. However, I want to be sure that the new stock—and all our existing stock—is managed and maintained to deliver improving value for tenants and the taxpayer. Local authorities and housing associations are responsible for delivering that value. To ensure that they do so, we have the Scottish Housing Regulator. "Firm Foundations" proposed a series of reforms to modernise the regulator's powers and duties by making it more

explicitly focused on protecting and promoting current and future tenants' interests, reducing the burden of regulation on landlords, and concentrating its efforts on assessing and improving the value that landlords provide.

Those proposals attracted widespread support during the consultation on "Firm Foundations". I can confirm that, in consultation with COSLA, the SFHA, tenant groups and lenders, we intend to develop detailed proposals for ensuring that tenants and taxpayers receive the value that they have a right to expect. Just as important, given the vital role of private lenders in supporting the delivery of new social housing, the modernised regulator will continue to perform the important role of reassuring lenders by keeping governance and sustainability under constant review and by being empowered to act decisively whenever governance or sustainability are at risk.

I turn to the city of Glasgow, which is very close to my heart. Protecting and promoting the interests of tenants and taxpayers are the twin aims that are at the heart of my approach to the challenging issues in Glasgow. A few months ago, I promised a review of grant arrangements with Glasgow Housing Association. That review is now under way. I am confident that the new arrangements that flow from it will deliver transparency and accountability and show a clear link between the money that the Government invests and the positive outcomes that are delivered for tenants. As part of the review, I am considering ways in which the arrangements can better support regeneration. I have asked the council and Glasgow Housing Association to make proposals for the transformational regeneration areas that are ready to go, and I expect to see progress on that front very soon.

The Minister for Communities and Sport and I have made it abundantly clear that we want to see second-stage transfer delivered where it can be sensibly achieved, therefore I welcome the real progress that has been made over the past few months. Five transfer business plans have been submitted and another five are due to be submitted this week. It gives me particular pleasure to announce that two housing associations have now set dates for second-stage transfer ballots. Subject to agreement on the detailed proposals and the necessary approvals, Parkhead Housing Association and Cassiltoun Housing Association in Glasgow are aiming for ballots to take place on 17 November. I am delighted to say that they and the GHA are committed to ensuring that that aim is met.

To be working towards a date for the first second-stage transfer ballots after so long is a sign of real progress. Tenants in Glasgow will be given the chance to have their say at long last.

However, let me be clear: I expect to see even more progress in the months ahead. I have made it plain to the GHA that I see it as a transitional organisation. [Applause.] To that end, I expect to see more ballots and, in areas in which transfer cannot sensibly be achieved now, I expect realistic proposals from the GHA to empower tenants. [Applause.]

The Presiding Officer: Order. I asked for no interruptions. That includes clapping.

Nicola Sturgeon: I have outlined a substantial programme of work that will deliver lasting improvements to all aspects of our housing system. It is a challenging programme for challenging times. It is aimed at getting the fundamentals right over the medium to long term, and I am pleased to say that it commands extensive support among stakeholders. We have made a good start with stakeholders in taking the programme forward, and it is important that we pursue it consistently while, of course, continuing to respond to the impact that the current credit crunch is having on households and the housing system as a whole. I look forward to working closely with all stakeholders and members in developing and implementing all of our initiatives over the coming months.

The Presiding Officer: As I intimated earlier, the cabinet secretary will take questions on the issues raised in her statement. We have around 40 minutes for such questions, after which we will move on to the next item of business. The times for this item of business and the next debate are tight.

Johann Lamont (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab): I thank the cabinet secretary for early sight of her statement. I recognise that there was a lot in it, particularly about people who face repossession and so on, with which we can all agree. I look forward to further debate in committee on some of the detailed issues of the housing policy, including homelessness, that the statement could not address.

I recognise, as the cabinet secretary said, that "Firm Foundations" secured support for some of its proposals, but ultimately it did not secure support for its key proposals. The document is troubling because, despite assertions, it did not respond to the coherent opposition to the central proposition around the role of housing associations in particular and developing that agenda. "Firm Foundations" was unconvincing when it was first published, and the changing context of the current housing circumstances mean that it is now well past its sell-by date. The current housing circumstances present a huge challenge to the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Administration, to which I hope that the cabinet secretary will rise.

I note in passing that the £2,000 grant for first-time buyers is now officially dead, and that the cabinet secretary has had sufficient sense to back off slightly from the single developer model and will consult further on it. I urge her to hold on to the option of jettisoning that model altogether. Regrettably, the key notion of driving efficiencies into housing associations remains, despite the strongly expressed views of housing associations and others that that will expose them to risk in the financial markets, will result in increasing rents and potentially will involve a raid on their reserves, which we all know should be used for the good maintenance of properties and to ensure that they meet the Scottish housing quality standard.

I have three specific questions for the cabinet secretary. First, she said:

"We will work to ensure that house building is best placed to grow again when market conditions recover."

Does she acknowledge that private sector house builders and housing associations now argue that housing associations have a critical role to play as an anchor for the whole housing sector, in order to sustain the house building sector while conditions remain as they are? I urge her to reflect on how she might use the housing associations creatively—giving them more resource, not less—in order to provide that anchor.

Secondly, what targets has she set for social rented housing in different areas of Scotland? Given the fact that home ownership is not now going to be an option, the fact that repossession is a genuine possibility for some, and the level of homelessness, I am interested to know what her targets are.

Thirdly, does the cabinet secretary recognise the disappointment that many housing associations in Glasgow feel because her signalled commitment to independent scrutiny of the Mazars report—which would give confidence to the GHA and to those housing organisations—has not been honoured? Does she acknowledge the significance of having public confidence in that matter? Given the role of public moneys in the work of the GHA, will she at least take responsibility by convening the meetings between the GHA and housing associations?

The Presiding Officer: You really must close now, Ms Lamont.

Johann Lamont: I have said elsewhere that they require supervised contact. Will she consider convening those meetings to ensure that the progress on which she is insisting is realised?

Nicola Sturgeon: I genuinely thank Johann Lamont for her questions, which, in the main, were expressed constructively. I hope that we can continue in that tone this afternoon.

David McLetchie (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con): No.

Nicola Sturgeon: David McLetchie says no. I will cross that bridge when I come to it. For the moment, I will continue in a constructive tone.

I said in my statement that I want to work with the SFHA, COSLA and other housing stakeholders as we take forward our proposals for further reform of the affordable housing subsidy regime. That is right and responsible. I hope that Johann Lamont is not suggesting that we should not look critically at those matters. I hope that she is not suggesting that, for example, this year we should not have taken decisions to bring some of our assumptions around HAG into line with the assumptions that housing associations already make. In a tight financial climate, that is the responsible thing to do, to ensure that we get the maximum bang for our buck—to build as many houses as possible with the investment that we have. Moreover, I believe that further reform is necessary. In challenging times, further reform becomes more rather than less necessary. I also recognise the need to work with key partners to find the way forward that is right for them and for the overall conditions of the housing market.

I will answer Johann Lamont's three specific questions as briefly as I can.

I agree that there might be creative roles for housing associations in the current climate. The Minister for Communities and Sport and the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth recently met Homes for Scotland, the umbrella body that covers private house builders, to discuss some of the issues that they are currently facing. I know that housing associations believe that they might have roles as the situation develops. I assure Johann Lamont that we will stay close to both parties to ensure that if we can face up to some of those challenges creatively, we will not lose the opportunity to do so. I know that members who have an interest in the situation will want to continue to discuss that.

I have been very clear about our target for house building. We remain committed to a long-term target of 35,000 new houses per year. I want that to include increases across all tenures, because that is essential if we are to create the kind of mixed and sustainable communities that we want.

We are going to have to face up to more challenging circumstances than we thought when "Firm Foundations" was launched, but it is right to remain focused on increasing the rate of house building as much as we can—I hope above the rates that we have seen in the past few years. We will focus our attention on doing that as successfully as possible.

On the GHA, I had hoped that Johann Lamont would find it within herself to welcome the date for the first two second-stage transfer ballots, progress towards which was not delivered under the previous Administration, but it is now being delivered under the Scottish National Party Administration. I know that people throughout Glasgow will welcome that progress.

I have two things to say about the Mazars report. First, it has been independently reviewed, and I caution Johann Lamont and any other member against calling into question the independence of the Scottish Housing Regulator, because that could have quite serious implications. I hope that no responsible member of Parliament would do that.

Secondly, I have said very clearly that the book is not closed on the Mazars report. I have urged the GHA and the Glasgow and west of Scotland forum of housing associations to get around the table and discuss some of the issues that the report raised. I am pleased to say—more optimistically than I dared to hope—that they had a meeting last week and both sides said that it was constructive. I encourage them to continue to talk and to find solutions that both sides want.

Jamie McGrigor (Highlands and Islands) (Con): I thank the cabinet secretary for early sight of her statement. I welcome the dropping of the £2,000 grant to first-time buyers in favour of expanding the funding for shared equity schemes. Another bad SNP policy has been dropped in favour of a good Conservative one.

However, I am disappointed that the Government intends to further restrict the right to buy, and my party will oppose any legislation that the Government introduces to do that. The right to buy has enabled 480,000 Scottish households to buy their own homes. Why is the cabinet secretary so determined to remove the right to buy from one group of tenants and so take home ownership out of their grasp?

In addition, housing associations have been expressing to me their concerns about future funding. Will the cabinet secretary today guarantee that she will not reduce the level of housing association grant in future?

The cabinet secretary will be aware that the chief executive of Homes for Scotland said earlier this week that the number of new houses being built in Scotland this year could be down no less than 20 per cent on last year. What impact does the cabinet secretary think that that will have on plans to boost the number of affordable homes?

Nicola Sturgeon: I thank Jamie McGrigor for his questions and for his enthusiastic support for our plans to expand shared equity schemes to further help first-time buyers. That is a very

important step to take in the current climate; the Council for Mortgage Lenders has been clear that it thinks that it is an important step that will help to sustain confidence.

I accept that there is a difference of opinion between my party and Jamie McGrigor's on the right to buy. David McLetchie made that very clear when I appeared before the Local Government and Communities Committee to discuss the issue; it has been made abundantly clear. We will have to agree to differ.

I have said repeatedly that, as someone who grew up in a house that was purchased under the right to buy, I accept that the right to buy has helped many people to aspire to home ownership who would not otherwise have been able to do so. However, we are in different circumstances and every Government has a responsibility to respond to the circumstances in which it finds itself. Given the shortage of affordable homes to rent, it would seem crazy to spend lots of taxpayers' money incentivising local authorities to build more affordable housing only for that stock to be sold off under the right to buy. Indeed, local authorities have made it clear that they are not prepared to build new stock if it can be sold off in that way. I have made it clear that we will not take away the existing right to buy—although we intend to review it further—but those who struggle to find housing perhaps have a legitimate expectation that they should have a right to rent. We must not lose sight of that.

On the housing association grant, I can scarcely believe that a Tory is asking me to guarantee that I will not try to deliver further efficiencies in the use of taxpayers' money. Even if we take into account all the legitimate differences between Scotland and England, levels of subsidy are higher in Scotland than they are elsewhere in the United Kingdom. We need to address that issue, particularly in the current financial climate, if we are to ensure that the desired number of houses is built. We will continue to do what we can to drive through efficiencies, but we will do that by working with housing associations, as I indicated in my statement.

On Homes for Scotland's point about the situation now facing private developers, of course I accept that that is serious. As I said, we have had discussions with Homes for Scotland and we are aware that the arrangements for some private developments mean that the situation will have an impact on the availability of affordable housing. Of course we need to be very aware of that issue and be prepared to respond to it.

The Presiding Officer: The cabinet secretary thanked Mr McGrigor for a number of things; let me add that I thank him for his brevity, which I recommend to other members as an example.

Jim Tolson (Dunfermline West) (LD): I will try to take that on board, Presiding Officer.

I, too, thank the cabinet secretary for the advance copy of her statement, which includes aspects that the Liberal Democrats can support, such as the extension to the mortgage to rent scheme to give home owners the opportunity to retain ownership of their homes.

Before last year's election, the Government made its great promise that it would give all first-time buyers a £2,000 grant. I am glad that the Government has finally decided to listen to all the stakeholders and Opposition members who warned about the folly of such a pledge by abandoning the first-time buyers grant. I welcome today's announcement that that will be scrapped.

The Liberal Democrats welcome the Government's announcement on ending the right to buy for new build, but precisely when will the Government introduce legislation to change that? Has the Government considered the Liberal Democrat policy of devolving powers to give local authorities more control of their housing supply? Under our plans, councils would be able to take the key decisions on the right to buy in their area. That means that a council could decide to abolish the right to buy altogether, to vary the discounts, to change the qualification period or, indeed, to apply pressured area status for up to 10 years to either a specific geographic area or a particular housing type. Key housing stakeholders such as Shelter support our policy. Will the Government's summer review include such an option to protect existing stock?

Nicola Sturgeon: I thank Jim Tolson for those comments. I think that there is much common ground between my party's position on such issues and the position of the Liberal Democrats. I also thank him—and other members in the chamber—for the warm support for our plans to help first-time buyers. That support is gratefully received.

Jim Tolson rightly raised some important points about the right to buy. We have made it clear that we intend to legislate at the earliest opportunity—which, if memory serves me correctly, will be later next year—to remove the right to buy for new-build houses. I think that the many issues that Jim Tolson raised about giving local authorities greater flexibility, such as by allowing further variation of discounts and the extension of pressured area status, need to be further considered. I assure him that all the issues that he has raised today will be up for discussion in the short-term review and the subsequent consultation that we intend to conduct.

The Presiding Officer: We come to questions from back-bench members. I repeat my plea for

brevity. A large number of members would like to ask questions, and I would like to fit all of them in.

Kenneth Gibson (Cunninghame North) (SNP): I warmly welcome the many excellent provisions in the cabinet secretary's statement, especially with regard to second-stage transfer. Does she agree that, if communities are truly to thrive and to transform themselves, it is fundamental that they should be able to take housing decisions about matters that impact directly on them? Will she work to ensure that the Parkhead Housing Association and Cassiltoun Housing Association ballots are followed by many others in the months and years ahead, to ensure that the GHA gradually fades into history?

Nicola Sturgeon: The announcement today of the date for the first two ballots is important both in its own right and symbolically, because it signals clearly to tenants throughout Glasgow that the dam on the issue has broken and that they have the prospect of having a say in their futures. That is incredibly powerful for them, especially after the long years of frustration in which it seemed not only that no progress was being made but that no progress was in prospect.

I made clear in my statement—and am happy to do so again—that I see the ballots as a first step. I want second-stage transfer to happen where it can sensibly be achieved. That is why I said that I want further ballot dates to follow. In those areas where second-stage transfer cannot sensibly be achieved—at least not now—the GHA has a responsibility to come forward with plans and proposals for empowering tenants. I have asked the GHA to do that and expect that it will. The end result of the process will be much more control and empowerment for Glasgow tenants. Labour said that it wanted to deliver that through stock transfer in Glasgow; I am glad to say that it looks like the SNP will deliver that.

Sarah Boyack (Edinburgh Central) (Lab): Will the cabinet secretary confirm that, on the basis of the criteria that she has set out in her statement today, Edinburgh will not benefit from the £25 million that she has allocated to new council housing? Given the current state of the housing market, would it not be better for her to use some of the new £0.25 billion that she is allocating to shared equity schemes to meet the demand for new social rented housing? Is she aware that Edinburgh housing associations are deeply worried about their ability to build new social housing, given the standstill in the budget for housing associations and current inflation pressures? Is she aware that, unless there is a rethink, housing associations will have to increase rents, lose wardens or not build as many houses as they planned? That is what housing

associations are saying. Will she have a rethink on the HAG support that she is offering?

Nicola Sturgeon: I knew that it would not take long for scaremongering about issues such as lost wardens to appear in the chamber. I thought that we were managing at long last to have a constructive, sensible debate that focused on the issues, but I will answer Sarah Boyack's questions.

Sarah Boyack asked whether Edinburgh would be able to share in the £25 million that has been provided to kick-start new council house building. I have made clear what the criteria for that investment will be; those criteria were discussed with COSLA. If she had listened to my statement, she would have heard me accept that some local authorities may not be able to take advantage of the money that has been allocated. It is right that we should use the £25 million to best effect, to ensure that it builds as many houses as possible, in the right places.

If Sarah Boyack had listened to my statement, she would also have heard me say that, nevertheless, the Government intends to work with all local authorities to assist them in confronting the challenges that they face, such as meeting the Scottish housing quality standard and tackling debt. Assistance will be available to councils such as the City of Edinburgh Council and Renfrewshire Council. The Government will not shy away from such challenges.

I will not repeat what I have already said about housing association grant. We want to work with housing associations, which are vital partners in achieving the aims that we have set. However, it is important that we trade in reality, rather than myth. Over the comprehensive spending review period, the affordable housing investment programme budget will increase by 19 per cent compared with planned expenditure over the past three years. That is the reality, so let us not talk about budgets being at a standstill or being cut.

I have made it clear that we have taken what I think are sensible decisions on housing association grant this year. It would have been negligent of us not to take those decisions and bring our assumptions into line with housing associations' assumptions so that we and they can get maximum value for taxpayers from the money that we invest. As I have said repeatedly, we will continue to discuss, liaise and work with housing associations as the situation that we face develops so that we get the right solutions for all of us.

Stuart McMillan (West of Scotland) (SNP): When does the cabinet secretary expect to introduce legislation to ensure that lenders notify local authorities when they intend to repossess properties? What discussions have ministers had

with private landlords? What support will be offered to homeless people taking on private lets to enable them to settle in new accommodation?

Nicola Sturgeon: I thank Stuart McMillan for that question, which goes to the heart of the important issue of the prevention of homelessness and meeting the 2012 homelessness target. It is especially important in the changed financial climate that we ensure that people who might face the prospect of homelessness get access to support and advice. That is why I outlined today the measures that we intend to take and why we intend to use legislation to ensure that not only landlords but creditors notify local authorities if they are considering repossession, which will add an important protection for people facing that situation. Those regulations will be consulted on shortly.

Using the private sector to assist local authorities in meeting the homelessness target was a key proposal in "Firm Foundations". Albeit that members have expressed legitimate questions and concerns about using the private sector, I think that most of us accept that it is the right thing to do, as long as the appropriate protections are in place. The consultation document on that talks about what those protections might be. I hope that all members take the opportunity to read the consultation document and respond to it, if they feel that to be appropriate.

Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab): I invite the minister to be clear today and confirm that she has dropped the lead developer model. Will she acknowledge that, particularly in the present financial climate, housing associations have a particularly valuable role to play? I welcome the focus on regeneration that she has indicated for the GHA, but will she acknowledge that housing associations other than the GHA are also often well placed to be partners in regeneration and will she encourage that role for them?

Nicola Sturgeon: I am not signalling that we have dropped the lead developer proposal. I am saying that we want to consult partners in the housing association movement on what the right way forward should be. A range of options is available to us to achieve the objectives that we have set. That is why, as we draw up proposals for consultation, it is important that we have a discussion in which everything is on the table—that is what we intend to do.

On housing associations more generally, I am glad that Patricia Ferguson welcomed the progress with Glasgow Housing Association. She is right that housing associations are much more than landlords. She has made that point before in the chamber, and I have concurred with it before.

Good housing associations should be much more than landlords. I have used examples of housing associations in my constituency that perform that wider role exceptionally well, and I know that Patricia Ferguson will have similar examples in her constituency. Housing associations have a vital part to play in regeneration. That is a message that I am delighted to continue to convey because it is one that I believe passionately.

David McLetchie: In the section of her statement dealing with the council house building programme, the cabinet secretary acknowledged that some councils have limited ability to borrow because of high debt and that the house building scheme will not benefit them—quite so. Will she acknowledge that, with stock transfer, the high debts of those councils that will not benefit from her scheme would be written off by the Treasury, thereby facilitating new investment in new homes by new social landlords? Why does she refuse to encourage positively first-stage stock transfers in those areas as a way of generating new social housing across Scotland?

Nicola Sturgeon: Whether local communities decide to go down the stock transfer route is not up to me; it is up to local communities. That option is not closed to any community in Scotland. If my memory serves me correctly, when the City of Edinburgh Council's tenants were asked about the option they rejected it. Their democratic right to make that choice should be respected by members—

David McLetchie: Who advised them to make that choice? The Scottish National Party and the Scottish Socialist Party.

Margo MacDonald (Lothians) (Ind): And me.

The Presiding Officer: Order.

Nicola Sturgeon: I would like it not to be the case that tenants are in effect blackmailed over the debt and told, "Go down the stock transfer route and get the debt written off; don't go down that route and the debt stays." I would like there to be other options for considering how to remove the debt burden from councils. That is why the Government has vigorously lobbied the United Kingdom Government to put other options on the table. It is unfortunate that to date the UK Government has responded with a flat no, and I would welcome support from all parties in our quest to make it change its mind.

In the meantime, we will continue to work with local authorities to help them to manage debt and to help them to meet the Scottish housing quality standard and the homelessness target. Discussions on such matters are not always easy, because the solutions are not always easy, but I am committed to working with local authorities, so

that by working together we can find a way through the issues.

Ross Finnie (West of Scotland) (LD): I make a different point about council house building, which is related to the point that Sarah Boyack made. In her statement, the cabinet secretary said that her aim is to secure the maximum number of extra homes in the right places, where there is housing need. Will she explain the connection between housing need and the state of a council's finances? By saying that the councils that will have the maximum access to resources will be those that are able to secure resources through prudential borrowing, she is setting as a criterion the financial status of councils, which is not necessarily related to need.

Nicola Sturgeon: That was a perceptive and legitimate question, as I have come to expect from Ross Finnie—[Interruption.] If Labour members stop heckling, I might be able to answer the question.

As I said in my statement and as I explained in detail when I appeared before the Local Government and Communities Committee—I appreciate that Ross Finnie is not a member of the committee—in partnership with COSLA we have developed key principles around which decisions will be taken about the allocation of the £25 million. Some councils will satisfy some principles but not others, and I accept that some councils that have housing need might not be able to access the £25 million, because of their lack of prudential borrowing capacity. That is why it is so important to reiterate that we will continue to work with such councils, to help them to find other solutions to the circumstances in which they find themselves. Ross Finnie made an important point, to which I was glad to try to respond.

Bob Doris (Glasgow) (SNP): I hope that the cabinet secretary agrees that the proposed housing transfer ballots on 17 November represent significant progress, in that they will present the first opportunity for GHA tenants to move to proper community-based social landlords. That is something that the Labour Party failed to achieve when it was in power.

I welcome the cabinet secretary's assurance that more GHA tenants will move to community ownership if they choose to do so. Does she agree that the GHA, as a transitional organisation, must implement effective proposals to ensure that it downsizes its organisation, whether that happens voluntarily or otherwise?

Nicola Sturgeon: I repeat what I said about SST ballots. The two ballots represent progress but not enough progress; I want there to be more progress. I know that Bob Doris and other members accept that not every area of Glasgow is

able to pursue SST at this stage. That is why it is important that, in the interests of community empowerment if not community ownership, the GHA makes proposals that will deliver such empowerment. That is what I have asked the GHA to do and it is what the GHA will do. I am sure that all members will take the opportunity to scrutinise those proposals and comment on them in due course.

David Whitton (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab): The cabinet secretary says that she wants to secure the maximum number of homes for the minimum outlay per house. I understand that the new housing association grant level for new house building will be set at around £75,000 per unit. In my constituency, the housing association in Hillhead in Kirkintilloch has just completed phase 1 of a four-stage development. The unit cost for that first phase was £127,000, as a result of preparatory works, demolition and so on. The unit cost for phase 4 is projected to be £78,000.

The Presiding Officer: Question, please.

David Whitton: How is the housing association to find the difference, when money that is held in reserve is for planned maintenance of the older housing stock that it took over?

Nicola Sturgeon: I am sure that David Whitton knows that grants for new builds by housing associations have never equalled the total unit cost of building those houses. That has never been the intention. The subsidy that is paid in Scotland is considerably higher than it is elsewhere in the UK. There are some legitimate reasons for that—in some cases, for example, one would expect the subsidy to be higher because of differentials in rent levels—which must be factored into the equation. Nevertheless, there is a disparity. If the Parliament is serious—the Government certainly is—about ensuring that we get maximum benefit from the taxpayers' money that we spend on affordable housing, we need to tackle those inefficiencies. We are trying to do that without threatening the ability of housing associations to continue to build houses.

Members of all parties rightly talk about the need to increase the rate of building of affordable housing but, frankly, I have more respect for those members who do so while not simultaneously undermining our attempts to achieve that. Labour members cannot have it both ways—they cannot say that they want more houses but be unprepared to take the hard decisions that will allow us to deliver those additional houses in a tough financial climate. They should decide which side of the fence they are on because, frankly, it is not possible to straddle it.

Patrick Harvie (Glasgow) (Green): I am grateful for the advance copy of the statement, elements of which I welcome.

The cabinet secretary mentioned the Government's vision of building more houses of all tenures to higher environmental and design standards. Does she recall the existing commitment to consult on measures to improve the environmental performance of existing housing across all tenures? The timescale for that consultation appears to be in some doubt. When will it be published?

Nicola Sturgeon: The framework document for the Scottish sustainable communities initiative—which was also mentioned in "Firm Foundations"—will be published later this week. Patrick Harvie's point about the need to ensure the environmental quality of both new and existing stock is well made. With his permission, I will be more than happy to come back to him in writing with detailed timescale information on the work on existing stock.

Margo MacDonald: In her statement, the cabinet secretary said that she intends to introduce legislation that will ensure that lenders who intend to repossess properties notify local authorities. Why? Is it an attempt to ensure that local authorities have enough houses to give to homeless people? What is the reason for that proposal? Perhaps the home owners support fund that the cabinet secretary mentioned is meant to be an advocacy service, because her statement made no reference to how people who are threatened with homelessness and who obviously do not have the money to pay a mortgage could find the money for an advocate.

Finally—

The Presiding Officer: Very briefly, please.

Margo MacDonald: The cabinet sectary made conflicting statements. As has been mentioned, she said that the Government would focus investment on meeting need, but—

The Presiding Officer: Could you come to a question, please, Ms MacDonald?

Margo MacDonald: She also said that the Government would concentrate resources where they would have the greatest impact. Those appear to be contradictory statements, certainly in relation to Edinburgh. Will she explain that apparent contradiction?

Nicola Sturgeon: I have already indicated our keenness to continue to work with councils such as the City of Edinburgh Council to assist them in addressing the challenges that I recognise they face.

On Margo MacDonald's earlier questions, the reason why we want to change the law to place an obligation on lenders to notify local authorities if they are considering repossession is to allow local authorities to ensure that the person who is facing repossession has access to the advice and support that they need to consider the options that they might have, which will vary depending on the circumstances.

I refer Margo MacDonald to my statement, in which, before I spoke about the home owners support fund, I said that we intend to provide specific support and training for money advisers to ensure that home owners can obtain, without charge, high-quality advice that will help them to make the best choice in their circumstances. One of the choices and options that may be open to home owners in that circumstance is to access the home owners support fund. Under the present mortgage to rent scheme, in particular circumstances, home owners who face repossession can choose to switch to rent. We want to expand the options so that, for example, consideration can be given to home owners retaining a share in their home and moving to shared equity, rather than just moving to rent. We want high-quality and free advice to be in place and to lead to some of the options that will open up for home owners who are in that position.

Sandra White (Glasgow) (SNP): I thank the cabinet secretary for her statement, particularly the points on Glasgow and the GHA. She spoke about regeneration and pilot schemes. Will the joint forum involving Glasgow City Council, the GHA and Government officials report regularly—for example, monthly—to the Parliament or to ministers? Will the minutes of the forum meetings be made available?

Nicola Sturgeon: I thank Sandra White for her support for the commitments that I made on the Glasgow Housing Association. In respect of the transformation of regeneration areas in Glasgow, just as I and other members have been rather frustrated by the lack of progress on SST, we have been frustrated by the lack of progress on the transformational areas. In recognition of the fact that the GHA cannot deliver regeneration on its own, I have asked it to work with Glasgow City Council to produce proposals for those transformational areas that are ready to go now. That is not a forum. I have asked both parties to have discussions, meetings or whatever and to come up with joint proposals. I am sure that, when those proposals are produced, the Parliament will have an opportunity to consider them properly.

Richard Baker: In light of the minister's reaffirming of the 2012 homelessness target, what dialogue has she had with Aberdeen City Council? She has assured us that the situation is being

monitored but, with added pressure on council services following cuts to homelessness charities, and with that 2012 goal in mind, can she assure me that there will not be a diminution of services in Aberdeen?

Nicola Sturgeon: As the member will perhaps be aware, the Scottish Housing Regulator will reinspect Aberdeen City Council's housing function later this year. The Government is in regular discussions with all local authorities on their progress towards the homelessness target. The target is challenging, but we are all committed to meeting it and those discussions will continue.

Alcohol Misuse

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Alasdair Morgan): The next item of business is a debate on alcohol misuse.

15:03

The Minister for Public Health (Shona Robison): The Government is ambitious for Scotland, which is why, last week, we launched "Changing Scotland's relationship with alcohol: a discussion paper on our strategic approach". The document outlines a comprehensive package of measures for tackling alcohol misuse in Scotland. The Government is not anti-alcohol, but we are anti-alcohol misuse. The stark truth is that our relationship with alcohol is holding us back, as individuals, families and communities and as a nation.

The statistics make sobering reading. More than 40,000 people are hospitalised each year with an alcohol-related illness, and Scotland has one of the fastest-growing rates of alcohol-related liver disease and cirrhosis in the world. An audit of Scottish emergency departments found that at least 70 per cent of assaults may be alcohol related.

Alcohol misuse does not affect only the misuser; it costs us all dearly. Recent figures suggest that the total cost to Scotland of alcohol misuse is a staggering £2.25 billion a year. However, the personal cost to shattered families and individuals is unquantifiable. In one in three divorces, excessive drinking by a partner is cited as a contributory factor; around 65,000 Scottish children live with a parent whose drinking is problematic; and a quarter of children on the child protection register are there because of parental drug or alcohol misuse. Many of us experience the effects of alcohol-related violence and antisocial behaviour in our communities, and almost half of prisoners report being drunk at the time of their offence.

We have to dispel the myth that alcohol-related harm affects only people with chronic alcohol dependency or so-called binge drinkers. Anyone who is regularly drinking too much can be putting their health and wellbeing at risk and affecting the lives of people around them. This is not a marginal problem. The uncomfortable truth is that many of us—and probably many of us in this chamber—fall into that category. Up to 50 per cent of men and 30 per cent of women are regularly drinking more than the amount specified in guidelines on sensible drinking. Those people place themselves at increased risk of being involved in accidents, of becoming a victim or a perpetrator of a crime, of

contributing to family break-up, and of developing cancer or liver disease.

We believe that something has to change. We want to put an end to the daily deluge of reports telling us about the negative impact of alcohol misuse on Scots and Scotland. We want to foster a self-confident Scotland where alcohol can be enjoyed sensibly as a pleasurable part of life, and we want to stimulate discussion and debate across the chamber and across Scotland about how we can best achieve that. I think it is fair to say we have already been quite successful in kick-starting the debate. I am sure that we will hear more about that today. We welcome all views on the package of measures that we have proposed, which, taken together, can begin to change our relationship with alcohol for the better.

There are those who suggest that taking action to tackle alcohol misuse is somehow at odds with support for our indigenous alcohol industry. That is certainly not the case. We will continue to champion the Scottish drinks industry and we recognise the valuable contribution that it makes to Scotland's economy. Indeed, last week we launched our national food and drink policy to champion the best of Scottish produce. Our national drink is a key element of the year of homecoming 2009 celebrations.

However, the evidence is clear: if we are to fulfil our ambitions as a country, we must rebalance our relationship with alcohol. It is clear that no single, simple solution exists. We do not believe for a moment that simply raising the purchase age is a solution to all Scotland's alcohol problems.

Murdo Fraser (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con): Will the minister take an intervention?

Shona Robison: I will in a moment.

Alcohol misuse is a complex problem, and an effective alcohol policy is one that encompasses a range of interventions designed to support a fundamental shift in culture. That idea is supported by the international evidence base. For example, the World Health Organization recommends adopting a package of measures—including policies controlling the price and availability of alcohol; drink-drive measures; and brief interventions for those who are drinking at harmful and hazardous levels.

Murdo Fraser: I want to ask about the age at which people can purchase alcohol in an off-sales. The minister will know that the Government's policy is to reduce the voting age in Scotland to 16, and I therefore presume that she supports the proposition that, at 16, children become responsible adults. Does she not see the illogicality of increasing to 21 the age at which young people can buy alcohol? It would be five

years before those supposedly responsible adults would be able to purchase alcohol in an off-sales.

Shona Robison: There are already different ages at which people can do certain things. For example, people can get married at 16 but they cannot drink alcohol or buy cigarettes at 16. I believe that people should have the vote at 16, as that would allow them a say in what their Government decides to do on these or any other measures. That is democracy. We believe that 16-year-olds should have the right to have a role in deciding the Government of their choice.

Our package on alcohol misuse is bold, and we make no apology for that. The response must be proportionate to the scale of the problem.

Patrick Harvie (Glasgow) (Green): Will the minister take an intervention?

Shona Robison: Not just now.

Our consultation paper seeks views on whether the minimum legal age for off-sales purchases should be raised to 21. We accept that, for many people, that is a controversial issue, but we are asking an open question and we will listen to all views. In Scotland, the short-term harms associated with alcohol misuse are higher among young people and the impact of their drinking in public is felt by the communities in which they live. International evidence shows that raising the minimum age can reduce alcohol sales and problems among young drinkers. Alcohol is much cheaper and more widely accessible in off-sales. Raising the age in relation to off-sales should reduce the amount of alcohol being purchased by young people and should act as a particular deterrent for those under 18 who are more likely to purchase their alcohol from off-sales.

I commend the responsible attitude of local retailers in Armadale, West Lothian, who—recognising the problems of alcohol-fuelled antisocial behaviour in their community—agreed to take part in a trial to limit the sale of alcohol at weekends to those aged over 21. The success of the pilot in reducing antisocial behaviour, youth drinking and vandalism is encouraging and cannot be ignored by any member.

We strongly believe that the scale of the problem is such that we need to have a mature and constructive debate about the age at which alcohol can be purchased. We are seeking views and we are prepared to listen, but we must not forget that alcohol is an age-restricted product with the potential to cause great harm.

We are, of course, doing all we can to ensure that the existing licensing laws are more effectively enforced. For example, we are already reaping the benefits of the roll-out of alcohol test purchasing. Figures obtained from the Crown Office suggest

that the number of reports has increased significantly since October 2007, which we can safely assume is the result of the roll-out of alcohol test purchasing. That may lead to an increased number of prosecutions, but, more important, it is already resulting in licences being suspended, which, as we know from the pilot evaluation, is a much greater deterrent for licence holders than prosecution. Here in Lothian, for example, where the first phase of alcohol test purchasing began in West Lothian in December, 71 premises have been tested to date, of which 17 failed the first test. Three of those failed for a second time, resulting in all three having their licences suspended. Moreover, we are considering giving local authority trading standards officers an enforcement role in relation to off-sales and, more specifically, allowing them to assist the police in the conduct of test purchasing operations. That will greatly increase enforcement capacity.

The evidence base tells us that levels of alcohol consumption are closely linked to the retail price of alcoholic drinks. As alcohol becomes more affordable, consumption increases, and as it becomes less affordable, consumption decreases. When Finland cut tax on alcohol by a third, in one year alcohol consumption increased by 10 per cent, and liver cirrhosis deaths were found to have risen by 30 per cent. Alcohol is 62 per cent more affordable today than it was in 1980, which is why we have included further proposals to take action to end three-for-the-price-of-two type promotions, which encourage impulse buying of extra alcohol that consumers were not intending to buy. If we buy more drink, the consequences are there for all to see.

We are consulting on the principles of a minimum pricing scheme for alcohol products. We believe that it is unacceptable that alcohol is often sold more cheaply than water. I ask members to consider whether they believe that the price at which some alcohol is sold is acceptable. In some cases, cut-price selling means that strong cider can cost 16p per unit and vodka can cost as little as 24p per unit. Any system of minimum pricing that is introduced needs to be clear, fair and transparent. We believe that a system that relates the price of an alcoholic drink to its relative alcohol content is the best way to achieve that. Any such system would have the benefit of encouraging the greater promotion of low-alcohol products.

I will leave Kenny MacAskill to deal with other elements of the plan. In addition to our record £85 million increase in funding for alcohol prevention, treatment and support services, ours is a package that is designed to begin to turn around our unhealthy relationship with alcohol. As I said, there is not one magic bullet; this is a package of measures on which we want to consult. We hope

that we will hear constructive proposals from members.

15:15

Pauline McNeill (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab): In government, the Labour Party helped to change the country's mood by asserting that too many Scots had an unhealthy relationship with alcohol. We also helped to change the terms of the debate by identifying the fact that our culture is too tolerant of excessive drinking. As we know, alcohol misuse is an issue of the greatest magnitude; it is a social ill that cuts across all ages and classes.

Labour brought in the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 and started down the road of taking tough measures. We took a tough stance on changing attitudes to alcohol misuse. Now, in 2008, it is time to review the act to determine which measures in it are working and which are not working. The Parliament must decide whether it is necessary to toughen up further, and the Labour Party is up for that. We will participate fully and constructively in the consultation and will give the Government a serious debate about alcohol misuse. We will support action that can be shown to work and which is truly evidence based, workable and practical.

However, we note that there have been no pre-consultation discussions with the Opposition parties and no attempts to achieve consensus on the subject beforehand, as happened in the drugs debate. We can live with that, but we ask that the Government climb down from the crusade mode that some ministers were in at the weekend. It does not help the tone of the debate; neither do analogies with child pornography. We ask that the Government get down to the serious business of convincing the country on its proposals for changing attitudes to alcohol misuse and demonstrating why they will make a difference. The tone of the debate matters; we want to be part of a debate that has the proper tone, not a crusade against alcohol. Some of the Government's proposals are in danger of being seen as extreme and not evidence based; one or two of them are considered a bit of a gimmick. We want to hear what the Government thinks of its suggestions. Will it defend them? Is its strategy to throw out every available idea simply to get a reaction? We hope not.

Alcohol consumption is linked to harm—not only individual harm, but harm that has an impact on communities. We know that it affects levels of violence, crime, antisocial behaviour and illness, to mention a few of the things about which the minister talked. We agree that there is no single solution, and it goes without saying that we must

change attitudes with a comprehensive and coherent strategy.

However, we must make a concerted effort to tackle underage drinking and, indeed, problem drinking in every other age group. We need to enforce existing laws before we make new ones. I am interested in the figures that the minister announced today. Young people under 18 are a key target group and we support alternatives to alcohol, but the Government promised and voted for a summit on underage drinking, and we want to know when that will happen.

Labour members are concerned about the lack of emphasis on enforcement in the discussion paper. We draw attention to page 21, which seems to say that the enforcement role in relation to off-sales licences will switch to trading standards officers. In our opinion, that would take us in the wrong direction. Government backtracking from a strong enforcement agenda on antisocial behaviour is a recurring theme. Labour believes that, if we are serious about stopping underage drinking, we must be tougher on people who knowingly sell to, or purchase alcohol for, under-18s. Labour is concerned about the poor levels of prosecution and proposes that, if licensees break the law, they should risk losing their licences for up to three months in the first instance, for up to six in the second and possibly for life thereafter.

Bill Aitken (Glasgow) (Con): If Ms McNeill is looking for a fight with me on that issue, she will not get it, because I largely agree and, as she will confirm, I suggested similar measures some time ago. However, under the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 and the 2005 act—which, in part, has not yet been implemented—there is a facility for permanently withdrawing the licence of a licensee who has sold drink to an underage person for the first time. Therefore, her proposal does not toughen the law but, arguably, dilutes it.

Pauline McNeill: We think that the 2005 act needs to be reviewed. We want to toughen the law. There are indeed measures in the act that still need to be implemented, but the low level of prosecutions suggests that the law is not being taken seriously. If, as ministers say, the Government wants to have a constructive debate, I hope that it will consider our proposals for tougher measures involving the removal of licences from people who sell to underage drinkers.

Before we create another set of underage drinkers, new offences and new offenders, an effective critique of the proposal to raise the purchase age for off-sales to 21 as a public health message is that it does not pass the test of being evidence based. The general restriction of a minimum drinking age of 21 in the United States

does not provide a direct comparison for Scotland. Other countries that are used for the purposes of comparison in the consultation document have completely different cultures from that of Scotland, and such comparisons do not inform us—that is not an evidence-based approach.

If the public health message is that Scots of all ages misuse alcohol, targeting only the 18 to 21 age group sends out the wrong message. There is no evidence that that age group presents the most significant problem. Most of the references in the consultation document concern 15-year-olds. It strikes me that, although there are problems with younger people drinking to excess, that is not confined to the 18 to 21 age group. There is a danger that, if we bring in new laws to control the drinking environment for people aged 18 to 21, that might send the wrong public health message, given that we are trying to promote such a message to people of all ages.

Shona Robison: I am a little confused: Pauline McNeill's initial comments seemed to be fairly supportive of the proposal, but she seems to have changed her mind. More specifically, what does she have to say about the evidence from Armadale that has been brought to light?

Pauline McNeill: We have had a chance to examine the detail of the consultation, and I have said where our concerns lie. I will come on to the Armadale project.

A bad law will be ignored if people think that it is unfair, and they might feel justified in getting round it. There are serious questions to be asked about the proposal.

Given that the minister asked, I advise her that we are keen to examine in detail the pilot project in Armadale in West Lothian. The Government is selling that project as part of a different message about antisocial behaviour. We want to hear what lessons can be learned by giving local licensing boards more control in the context of antisocial behaviour. It must be borne in mind, however, that the six-week pilot project had significant resources to help bring about the results that were achieved. We do not think that a blanket approach will work. We would like the Government to come back to us when it has assessed the pilot project.

We should of course consider pricing policies, although there are real inconsistencies in the arguments that have been voiced so far. Alcopops and Buckfast would not be covered by the proposals, yet those products play a significant role—they are the drink of choice for many young people. That could drag down a pricing policy, and ministers will have to think about that. We need to ensure that the measures that we finally adopt provide the right balance. If we do not carry the support of the people whom we represent, the

message will be lost. There are detailed questions to be asked about whether the right message is being given out on pricing policy.

I do not have enough time to discuss the question of separate alcohol checkouts, but the idea seems a bit of a gimmick. I would like to hear more about the Northern Ireland experience. It seems that shoppers could end up queuing three times, if they are also asked to queue up for tobacco. There needs to be credibility around the proposals, or the message simply will not get across.

Finally, we seek clarity on the Government's legal advice on pricing policy, before it takes us down that road.

15:24

Mary Scanlon (Highlands and Islands) (Con): I am pleased to discuss Scotland's relationship with alcohol. The Scottish Conservatives have no doubt that the issue should be a priority on the political agenda. Some months ago, we addressed the drugs issue in Scotland. That debate was broader than the norm, leading to Audit Scotland's investigation into what works and the drugs strategy "The Road to Recovery". We seek an evidence base to support the proposals for the alcohol plan, following the present consultation.

Alcohol is, of course, a legal substance for people over the age of 18, which often means that the intervention points become quite blurred.

There is an important factor that is rarely highlighted when we consider alcohol misuse. It was brought to my attention this week that there are huge costs to the fire service, both in lives and in financial terms. Those are, of course, included in the criminal justice costs, but I was told at a meeting in Tain on Monday night that alcohol is a large contributory factor in up to 90 per cent of deaths from house fires. We think about alcohol misuse in connection with health and justice, but we should also focus attention on the fire service and what can be done there.

The majority of people in Scotland drink responsibly. It should not be assumed that, if three bottles of wine are sold for the price of two, people will drink three times as much. The truth is that, for most people, the wine purchase will simply last three times longer.

I highlight some of the mixed messages that were raised by children in Scotland earlier this week. One of them is the advice to pregnant women. The Government advice from Health Scotland is that drinking one or two units once or twice a week is unlikely to do any harm. I welcome the survey of the incidence of foetal alcohol syndrome, but we have to be clear about the

matter. Some will think, "If people are saying one or two units once or twice a week for nine months, well, that's probably the minimum. I can probably take a bit more." I ask the minister, in developing the strategy, to look at the websites and the advice that is given.

We are told that red wine is good for the circulation, and on a recent visit to the University of Stirling, Jackson Carlaw and I were told that red wine can prevent and delay dementia as well. There are a lot of mixed messages out there.

Shona Robison: The important point is that the discussion paper is about the misuse of alcohol. We are not saying that alcohol is dangerous in itself. It is the misuse that is dangerous. I do not think that there is any contradiction in that.

Mary Scanlon: Either we say to people, "Alcohol is dangerous, and this is the minimum amount," or we do not. Especially in the case of pregnant women, we have to be careful. That is what I was referring to.

Rather than just noting the 1.5 million accident and emergency attendances, we could take advantage of people's presentation at A and E to give brief interventions of advice. That idea is mentioned in the discussion paper, and we support it. We should make such interventions available systematically and routinely throughout the national health service, with possible support and follow-up advice through NHS 24. That is one of the most sensible proposals because it addresses the issue at the time of the problem.

Paragraphs 112 to 115 of the discussion paper mention designated places of safety for people who are in a drunken state. Such places have been tried and tested and there is an excellent evidence base for them. Beechwood house in Inverness and Albyn house in Aberdeen, which are run by the Church of Scotland, provide exactly the brief interventions that are needed. Any repeat visits from clients give staff the opportunity to address the persistent drinking of people who are becoming a risk to themselves and others.

Annabel Goldie has raised the issue of parental support, which is much needed, particularly given that more than 19,000 referrals to the children's hearings system last year were due to a lack of parental care, and more than 4,500 of those were partly or mainly due to alcohol abuse. Investment in that area would benefit not only the current generation but future generations and the wider community. Again, we would like to know what works and we would like to see the evidence base, but we are certainly committed to progress in that area.

The Deputy Presiding Officer: One minute.

Mary Scanlon: Gosh. I wanted to say a few words about people of different ages. The discussion paper seems to be about targeting young people, as Pauline McNeill said, but the statistics show that six times as many 40-year-olds visit their general practitioner compared with under-40s, and that nine times as many women in their early 40s visit their GP compared with younger women. In communities in the Highlands where there is a problem with drink, it tends to affect 12 to 15-year-olds and not 18 to 21-year-olds.

Finally, the group I met in Tain raised what it considered to be the main issue: why people drink to excess. It had its own answers from years of experience, but one that ranked highly was the low self-esteem of many people—low confidence and a low feeling of self-worth. As that was being discussed, one lady described how she had been told at her grandson's school that he was hopeless and would not go far in life and that teachers could see no future for him. When it comes to promoting a consistent message, we need to be sure that teachers and schools are playing their part.

15:30

Ross Finnie (West of Scotland) (LD): I am pleased to take part in this debate on alcohol. We welcome the Government's taking the issue seriously.

Alcohol misuse is significant, and there are clearly different aspects to it, many of which are set out in the Government's discussion paper. Some of what the Government has included in that document is not new or original, but it has been collated in a reasonably coherent fashion and much of it is supported by the Liberal Democrats. We are very supportive of the two large sections of the report that deal with support for individuals, families and communities, and with additional investment in support for those who have become addicted to alcohol. That is all welcome.

We also welcome the sections on education. If we agree that alcohol misuse is, as is generally acknowledged, a cultural problem, then education must be at the heart of our attempts to turn the culture round. The drink-driving limit is not within the competence of the Scottish Parliament, but we support calls on the Westminster Government to change it.

In the brief time that is available to me, I want to concentrate on pricing, retailers' sales practices and underage drinking. On pricing, there is no question but that deep discounting and offers are important. We can point to who buys the alcohol and their responsibility, but medical evidence and the evidence that is adduced in the report are clear that pricing has a significant impact in terms

of increased alcohol consumption. We welcome the prospect of doing something about that, of using the existing powers in the law and, if need be in relation to off-sales, of extending those powers. I would also like longer to consider the detail of the proposals for minimum pricing, although there is some merit in that idea, especially when it relates to alcohol strength.

There are two groups that we need to bring onside. First, supermarkets are enormous organisations that by and large make great efforts to act responsibly, for example to improve the quality and nutritional value of food, but I find it disappointing that those big organisations, which claim to have corporate social responsibility, appear to ignore the fact that they sell alcohol. I hope that the Government will take more seriously the idea of trying to bring the supermarkets onside.

I have looked at supermarkets' corporate social responsibility reports over the past year or so. I found only one major supermarket that even acknowledged that it sold alcohol. That supermarket said:

"Our approach to healthy living also encompasses the responsible retailing of alcohol".

However, on reading a Daily Mail article with the headline, "When £20 buys you 60 bottles of strong lager, how can we take a crackdown on drinking seriously?", I found that the same supermarket was selling another brand of beer at 60p per pint and its own brand at 30p per pint. If any supermarket believes that that is corporate social responsibility, it is not good enough. However, we must bring the supermarkets onside—we should not simply castigate them or paint them into a corner. I urge ministers to try to bring them on board as they could play a significant role if they took their corporate social responsibility more seriously.

I turn to retailers and the sale of alcohol to under-18s. I understand perfectly the point that we must use the current legislation: Bill Aitken's intervention on Pauline McNeill was telling in that he pointed out properly that two existing provisions in the current legislation are not properly deployed. As the Cabinet Secretary for Justice is here, we hope that he will say in his closing speech that much more effort will be made to use the law as it stands. There is merit in what Liberal Democrats north and south of the border have proposed, which is to be far tougher on those who break the law on selling alcohol.

Liberal Democrats want to bring the supermarkets onside—the same applies to under-21s. To react to a problem in a progressive society by saying that we do not want to transform young people who might be part of the problem into part

of the solution is misguided. The evidence on 18 to 21-year-olds is flimsy at best. The Liberal Democrat approach is to appeal to that age group to be part of the solution rather than to castigate it as being part of the problem.

Stuart McMillan (West of Scotland) (SNP): Will the member take an intervention?

Ross Finnie: Yes.

The Deputy Presiding Officer: I ask Stuart McMillan to be quick, as Ross Finnie is in the last minute of his speech.

Stuart McMillan: Last week, pupils from St Stephen's high school in Port Glasgow visited the Parliament. When I spoke to them about the proposal to increase the purchasing age to 21, they agreed that it is good. Does Ross Finnie agree?

The Deputy Presiding Officer: Ross Finnie must wind up now.

Ross Finnie: I disagree with that proposal. I have received lots of e-mails and correspondence on the matter. I understand that some evidence was adduced from an experiment, but we have also experimented previously with curfews. The reaction of 18 to 21-year-olds as a whole was that such measures castigated them and did not address the problem. I and other Liberal Democrats appeal to 18 to 21-year-olds to improve the campaign for responsible drinking and to bring onside their peers and under-18s. The Government should not introduce legislation to raise the purchasing age.

The Deputy Presiding Officer: The member must conclude.

Ross Finnie: Presiding Officer—

The Deputy Presiding Officer: No, the member must conclude now; I am sorry.

Ross Finnie: I apologise.

15:37

Christine Grahame (South of Scotland) (SNP): The debate is important. We are aware of the shocking statistics which, as we all appreciate, severely underestimate the reality of the problem. I am pleased that the debate is open, so that free individual contributions are allowed. I have not been whipped, so members will know that the views that I express are my own.

The proposals are bold—indeed, they are controversial—but we must robustly test proposals for legislation. Many measures in the consultation paper are worthy of consideration. We all appreciate that no single simple solution exists. There is no road map, or we would use it, and we cannot simply transplant from other cultures and

countries a single solution. Scotland has different problems, of which we are aware.

Measures such as reducing consumption through tackling loss-leading prices and introducing a minimum retail price are certainly worthy of consideration. I support what Ross Finnie said: if people go home with crates of beer or many bottles of wine, many of them—but not all—will be more likely to reach for the corkscrew and take that extra drink because it happens to be to hand.

I welcome the survey of the incidence of foetal alcohol syndrome. The chief medical officer has made it plain that we must start with the state of our children in the womb.

I also welcome support for some third-sector organisations. The Up2U project in Peebles is worthy of a ministerial visit. It involves fourth, fifth and sixth-year pupils at Peebles high school going into primary schools to talk about matters such as sensible drinking of alcohol and sexual activity. That project is successful. Members will all know about such initiatives in their patches.

It is high time we considered the role of trading standards officers, which I have pursued. It is illogical that it is trading standards officers who look for underage tobacco sales, but it is the police who look for underage alcohol sales. The shops are generally the same shops, so combining those activities would be a worthy use of trading standards officers' time and would release police for other duties.

So far, so good. However, I am not persuaded that we should raise to 21 the minimum age for purchasing alcohol. I ask what principle is in operation, because law should be based on principle. We propose a voting age of 16—I heard the minister's response about that—and the age for marriage is 16, which is a historic point. People must be 16 to join the armed forces, but 18 to serve in combat. We have just raised to 18 the age at which cigarettes can be purchased, and a proposal has been made to raise the age at which alcohol can be purchased to 21, but what principle is in operation? What is the age of civic responsibility? I would like members to think more widely in this debate—which should be open—than about alcohol misuse only, and to consider the age of civic responsibility. I think that I am correct in saying that, in criminal law, there is a presumption that a person can be criminally responsible at the age of eight. We have accepted that presumption, so perhaps we should consider an age of civic responsibility.

People may say that the end of reducing underage drinking justifies the means—I expect that response—but that is not happening now. Half of all 15-year-olds who have been drinking in the

past week have deliberately tried to get drunk, as has already been mentioned. I can merely suspect, so I may be wrong, that raising the age at which alcohol can be purchased will not change the attitudes of 15 and 16-year-olds. There is something else going on out there in this complex issue.

There are practical issues. If there is only one sales point, I presume that some people could not be employed to serve there because one must be over 21 to serve alcohol in a supermarket. I agree with Pauline McNeill that there might have to be three tills in some places.

I have not been won over by the broad-bush approach that has been taken. There are rural areas in my constituency that have only one shop attached to a post office, 20 or 30 miles away from a supermarket. Such shops sell cat meat, wee bottles of wine and so on. A couple aged 20 with children would not be able to buy a bottle of wine from such shops to sit down with after their kids have at last gone to bed and the last whimper has been heard from upstairs. They would not be able to share in a glass of wine. Such issues exist in rural areas.

Evidence exists, but it is in bits. The West Lothian experiment was grand, but short lived. One thing that the Health and Sport Committee has learned from various witnesses is the need for extensive and robust research before social legislation is proposed. Anyone who tries to engineer social change should do their research first.

I hope that other members will be as open in their speeches as I have been, as I suspect that there is a diversity of views across the parties in the chamber. The issue is not party political and deserves robust consideration.

15:43

Mr Frank McAveety (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab): I thank Christine Grahame for her honest appraisal of the issues that we are discussing.

I am known as someone who does not normally take a drink, but the debate might eventually drive me to it. I was frustrated by some of the language that was used in last week's debate, particularly about the concern that members of all political parties and none have about antisocial behaviour. We need first to address fundamental questions about the terms and tone of the debate before we go into the details, which members have rightly said we need to do.

I am concerned about the right of 18 to 21-year-olds to make informed health choices. Rhetoric has been utilised in the chamber on the subject of men and women choosing whom to have on

health boards, for example. Lowering the age at which people can participate in direct elections to health boards has been recommended. If young people are informed, articulate and able enough to choose who should sit on a health board, I would like to think that they are informed, articulate and able enough to make choices that relate to their health.

I read that the minister said at the weekend that

"Sometimes you have to take actions that do impact upon people who have not done anything untoward."

I do not think that such action necessarily has to be taken. The minister will have a chance to respond to what I am saying. There are fundamental issues to do with tackling alcohol misuse. I represent an area that is well up there in statistical terms with respect to foetal alcohol syndrome problems, underage teenagers consuming alcohol and violent incidents resulting from that consumption. Members might, therefore, have thought that I would say that what is proposed is the right course of action.

I also have personal experience of alcohol misuse in my family and know the challenges that it presents to people's development and life experiences. However, even with all that knowledge of alcohol as a brutalising influence in people's lives, I am not persuaded of the approach that the minister has articulated over the past week. The minister tried to qualify that approach in an interview in one of the Sunday papers. However, if he is going to compare the consumption of alcohol to access to porn—involving children or whoever—at home and say that the two might be equivalent, he needs to think carefully about the language that he uses.

We should examine the evidence base for the group that could be most affected by the proposals—the 18 to 21-year-olds. The American evidence from Wechsler seems to indicate that binge drinking is not predictable on the basis of access to alcohol at a certain age. We need to interrogate the evidence base rigorously, as members have said. If we do that, we might begin to address the fundamental issue in Armadale, the east end of Glasgow and other parts of small-town Scotland, of the excessive misuse of alcohol by a small minority of people. Interestingly, recently published statistics from Dumfries and Galloway show that people who leave hospitals with alcohol-related problems are mostly over the age of 21.

Let us also talk about another issue, which I know affects Glasgow—city centre drinking. That is not about off-sales or alcohol that is bought from the supermarkets on Saturday evenings; it is about licensees, pubs and clubs engaging with young people and making alcohol available to them through promotional offers. I welcome the

debate about how we can tackle such promotions, but I regret that that is being conflated with arguments against the legitimate choices that should be available to individuals in an open and pluralist society.

I will conclude with two points that Pauline McNeill, among other members, touched on. First, we already have powers to tackle some of the problems that we face. I have listened carefully to what Kenny MacAskill has said over the past week and all the issues about which he has expressed concern—about which I have similar concerns—can be addressed under existing legislation through more effective enforcement and policing. That has been proven through the example of what has happened in Armadale. By using the police more effectively, targeting individuals more effectively and working with retailers more constructively, we can address the issues. However, can the cabinet secretary give us a guarantee that the same level of resource will be made available throughout Scotland? I would like that to be part of the debate, as well.

The debate is not about saying that everyone over the age of 18 and under the age of 21 is likely to exhibit the behaviours that we all know are problematic in our communities. In fact, the evidence suggests that it is people under the age of 18 and adults over 21 who engage in excessive and persistent daily misuse of alcohol.

I hope that the debate is an open and honest one, and I hope that the door is not closed on any constructive proposals that are made in the Parliament. I remind the cabinet secretary that there is a minority Government, and that Parliament is made up of 129 members who have the chance to scrutinise that Government's proposals. I hope that the eventual proposals will be markedly different from what is being put to us at the moment.

15:49

Michael Matheson (Falkirk West) (SNP): So far in the debate, there is consensus that Scotland needs to change its relationship with alcohol. As Shona Robison said in her opening speech, that relationship with alcohol is holding back our country. It will probably take at least a generation to change Scotland's cultural associations with alcohol—it takes a considerable time effectively to change a society's culture. We have to ask whether we are the generation that is prepared to take the action that will start that culture change and allow it to take place. The consultation document has certainly stimulated the debate that is necessary for engagement in that process.

I turn to the issue that has drawn most of the media attention and has caused quite a bit of

today's debate: increase of the minimum age for purchasing alcohol from an off-licence. The cabinet secretary is aware that I raised that issue with him almost a year ago, because I support increasing the minimum age for the purchase of alcohol from an off-licence from 18 to 21. I recognise that some members oppose that idea as a matter of principle because they believe that there should be an age of civic responsibility.

I can see where Christine Grahame is coming from, along with others who argue that the minimum age should not change because there should be a single universal age of civic responsibility. That would mean that we would have to consider whether we should raise the age of consent for sexual activity, to drive a car and so on. I am comfortable with the idea that we accept that people are given different responsibilities at different ages.

Mike Rumbles (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD): Will the member take an intervention?

Michael Matheson: Mike Rumbles did not bother to come in for the earlier part of the debate, so I am certainly not going to take his intervention.

Mike Rumbles: I missed one speech.

Michael Matheson: He missed three speeches, actually.

I do not accept that there being different minimum ages for different responsibilities creates confusion. We have always had different ages for different things. We should also acknowledge that a number of supermarkets currently have a minimum age for purchase of 21; some in my constituency have a minimum age of 25. Those who are protesting about the possible change should be protesting outside the supermarkets, where they will see a very different reaction from the communities that support the initiatives that I am talking about and that are now being taken in my constituency. We must change the minimum age because we must tackle the antisocial behaviour that is fuelled by alcohol. We must ensure that where people are consuming alcohol, they have that experience in a supervised setting in a pub, as they can do at the age of 18, before they can do so outwith the pub.

Mr McAveety: Could you elaborate on why there is a difference between being able to purchase alcohol at a local supermarket and being able to consume it at the age of 18 or 19 in a city centre?

Michael Matheson: I fully accept that point. The best bar none initiative in my constituency has several bar owners using a minimum purchasing age of 21 because of the problems that they have

experienced. We need to look at more such initiatives for tackling the problem in town centres.

We have heard a lot about the Armadale experience. The public relations machine for Lothian and Borders Police must be given some credit for the way in which it has gone about pushing that pilot. The first pilot was in Larbert and Stenhousemuir in my constituency. It has been running for three months and will run for a further three months.

Today, I got an e-mail from the sergeant who is running that initiative for Central Scotland Police, and he said:

"I can say that there has been a reduction in Antisocial behaviour crime types and calls received concerning such matters over the 3 month period so far. Vandalism occurring between the specified times has also reduced."

One of the most interesting things that he said was that none of the participating off-licences has said that it has experienced any loss of income, but they are advocating that the initiative be rolled out in other parts of the area. That evidence demonstrates that progress has already been made through that initiative. We have a responsibility to listen and act upon that evidence, rather than to ignore it, as some individuals would like to do.

During the course of the consultation exercise, we must ensure that the voices of those who suffer from the problems that are associated with antisocial behaviour fuelled by alcohol are not drowned out by sophisticated campaigns that are organised by interest groups and other organisations who want their views to be heard and carried. Communities' views must be heard during the consultation.

On enforcement, members will recognise the frustrations that are caused by the problems that we have with our licensing boards accepting that they have a role to play in taking robust action against those who breach the terms of their licences. It is an issue that causes frustration in communities and in the police, who, when they take complaints to the licensing boards, find that the boards are not prepared to take action. They must recognise that they have a clear responsibility to take action where it is merited.

15:55

Mary Mulligan (Linlithgow) (Lab): Like other members, I welcome today's debate. From all the statistics that we have heard, it is quite clear that misuse of alcohol is causing problems not only in our families and communities but to people's health. The problem concerns not only those whose health suffers because of such misuse: as I will discuss, children and young people, even including unborn babies, are affected.

A key issue that is not suitably covered by the strategy on alcohol is the effect of alcohol abuse on children who grow up in households where it is an issue—children's charities are concerned at their lack of their involvement in drafting the strategy. Government reports estimate that about 65,000 children are in that position, but many children's organisations put the number between 80,000 and 100,000. Whatever the number, such figures are shocking, given that the effect on each young life can be devastating. When children and young people live in households in which alcohol is misused, their education can be affected, their social and emotional development may be hindered and their life chances and experiences can be seriously diminished.

Much is said about how we should support the alcohol abuser, but we must also identify children who are affected and support them. I accept that that is not as easy as it might sound, because we do not have good data on where those children and young people are. Health professionals may