Belysbeth y bydd y cwrdd gyrfa iawn iawn i gyllidau i drwngennau i gael i'w ddechrau i 2013-14. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement, and there should therefore be no interventions or interruptions. Cabinet secretary, if you are ready, ten minutes please. I am grateful for the opportunity to inform the Parliament of the Scottish Government's the financial out turn for 2013-14. The government attaches the greatest priority to the effective management of the public finances and the information that I set out to Parliament today is for the demonstration of the Government fulfilling this commitment. It is essential that we maximise the value of every public pound as we take forward programmes to support economic recovery and deliver high-quality, efficient public services. Today's out turn figures must also be set in the context of continued UK government reductions to this Scottish budget, Maes eich bydd pwyllfa blomwr ar gyfnodol arweithio gennymau gwyllwyr ddechrau, mewn gwirionedd sydd yn gwneud iawn i gynnwys iawn i gwyllwyr gweithio. Diolch yn ffarnanol. Felly, mae nhw'n gwneud eu parwmyn fydd yn yr hlynng diffartmentaeth yng nghymru, maes â'r Ffysgo Del. Mae'r rhywf wedi gwirionedd iddyn nhw. Ar gweithio llwyntau mewn 121314 yn ei alluhawn, is expenditure of £28,238 million against a limit of £28,383 million delivering an overall cash underspend of £145 million. That reflects an underspend of £144 million on resource and £1 million on capital budgets. There is also a provisional underspend of £31 million in respect of financial transactions. As I confirmed in the draft budget 2014-15 last September, those resources will be carried forward to support help to buy in 2014-15, reflecting the fact that the scheme commenced partway through financial year 2013-14. Finally, in respect of non-cash still, there is a provisional outturn underspend of £111 million after taking account of the pre-planned budget exchange carried forward of £42 million to support our plans in 2014-15. That non-cash underspend reflects differences between expected accounting adjustments and actual amounts. For example, £56 million of that total relates to less than anticipated write-down of the carrying value of the income-contingent repayment student loan book. The non-cash underspend does not reflect resources that could be spent on public services. To summarise, by using the budget exchange mechanism to carry forward £218 million, the overall underspend based on the provisional outturn for 2013-14 is £111 million of non-cash resources, which represents less than 0.4 per cent of the total 2013-14 Her Majesty's Treasury budgets. None of that underspend represents any loss of spending power on behalf of the Scottish Government. At the time of the spending review in 2011, I made clear to Parliament that I would plan our public expenditure using budget exchange facilities over a three-year period to level out fluctuations in the resources that are available to us. I estimated that that would require me having to find £57 million to support our plans in 2014-15, and I confirm that that has been achieved as part of the £145 million fiscal dell underspend. As the spending review has progressed, other financial commitments have emerged that Parliament has agreed that we must try to address. One of the most significant has been the mitigation of welfare reform measures. In 2013-14 and 2014-15, those measures include funding for the council tax reduction scheme, which is benefiting over 500,000 people, support for the Scottish welfare fund and the increased funding of discretionary housing payments, and we will use resources carried forward in the budget exchange mechanism to fulfil our commitment to mitigate the effects of welfare reform where we are able to do so. Our financial commitment to welfare mitigation is now £260 million over the period 2013-14 to 2015-16, and I welcome the broad support that Parliament has shown in this area of our activity. Our choices about public spending continue to be focused on the economy. We have seen continual growth for almost two years and rising confidence across both households and the private sector. The economy is growing, employment is rising and business confidence continues to increase. We are continuing to support employment, including by maintaining our record commitment to modern apprenticeships and working with our local authority partners to take forward our commitment to early learning and childcare. Going forward, a priority will be to work with our delivery partners in following up the report of the wood review. I have already confirmed additional resources of £12 million will be available in 2014-15 to support initial work in this area. While the outlook remains positive, Scotland's economy will face headwinds such as the relatively subdued recovery in key export markets like the European Union, as well as legacy effects on the financial crisis that continue to take time to unwind. In response to continuing challenges in the housing market, we confirmed in April and May further allocations amounting to £50.3 million in financial transactions funding for the help-to-buy scheme in 2014-15. That brings overall investment in help-to-buy Scotland to £275 million, bringing substantial support to the construction sector in Scotland. At the same time, the Scottish Government has continued to provide support to Scottish businesses and households through the small business bonus scheme and our support for a social wage and a council tax freeze. Throughout the recession and the recovery, the Government has taken the firm view that infrastructure investment has a central part to play in boosting the economy. Today's outturn figures demonstrate how we are maximising the impact of our capital budget each year in the face of the real-terms reduction of 26 per cent that the chancellor has made to our capital budget over the current spending review period. In 2013-14, we expanded the infrastructure programme by switching from resource budgets to capital budgets. I will write to the finance committee setting out the final details of the 2013-14 resource to capital switches. We also remain fully committed to the NPD pipeline of infrastructure projects. The first revenue-funded finance project, the Aberyne health village, was opened in 2013-14. £750 million worth of projects are currently in construction and another £1.35 billion of projects are currently in procurement. We expect all major NPD projects to begin construction in the coming financial year. For example, the 46 million acute mental health and North Ayrshire community hospital project will start construction on the site of the Ayrshire central hospital in Irvine shortly. I announced to Parliament in April that we will continue with this approach with a £1 billion increase in the NPD pipeline extending it to 2019-20. That will provide the construction sector with the long-term certainty of a future pipeline of work. That expansion takes place within the framework that we have established that future revenue payments and support of NPD should not exceed 5 per cent of revenue budgets, ensuring that we can deliver now for the economy without over-constraining future budget choices. The Scottish Futures Trust is currently considering a range of infrastructure investments, and I will confirm in the draft budget in the autumn the full detail of the planned extension, building on the successes of our current programmes, delivering colleges, schools, roads, hospitals and community health facilities across Scotland. However, where we are able to make progress now, I am clear that we should do so. I am pleased to confirm today two significant decisions about this additional investment, first to Aberdeen Royal Infirmary and then in our schools programme. We will allocate £120 million in NPD investment to fund two developments at the Aberdeen Royal Infirmary campus. We will fund a new maternity hospital on the ARI site. NHS Grampian has identified in their maternity services strategy that Aberdeen maternity hospital will continue to provide a specialist obstetrics and neonatal service, accommodate a community maternity unit for Aberdeen in the surrounding area and provide support for maternity services across Grampian. A new hospital will provide high-quality new facilities, as well as removing £4.2 million worth of backlog maintenance and reducing estates in facilities costs. NHS Grampian plans that the new hospital would be designated a women's hospital and would include accommodation for all services, as well as the neonatal unit, theatres and gynaecology inpatient and outpatient services. The new maternity hospital will be followed by the development of a cancer centre, which is another important element of the development of the campus. The centre will enable the near co-location of our cancer services, which are currently spread across the Aberdeen Royal Infirmary site, and enable delivery of care that is patient-centred, safe and effective in the face of increases in population and forecast demands. The development would complement existing investment pursued through national radiotherapy programme funding. That has provided replacement linear accelerators and bunkers in a new radiotherapy department, which has been cited so as to be consistent with the future development of the cancer centre. The second major decision that I am also pleased to announce is the immediate release of a further £100 million of NPD investment in school infrastructure through the Government's school building programme, Scotland's Schools for the Future. The Government and our local authority partner share an objective of working to improve the quality of the school estate and to ensure that young people are educated in appropriate conditions in the 21st century. We are making progress in that objective, and I saw that at first hand when I opened at Invergawrry primary school in my constituency earlier this week. The Cabinet Secretary for Education, Life Law and Learning and I will work with local authorities over the coming weeks to agree the most effective use of the additional investment of £100 million and agree precise funding allocations. I know that Parliament will welcome those announcements in the quality of our health and education infrastructure. Today's outturn figures and the extension of our NPD programme demonstrate once again the firm grip that the Government has on Scotland's public finances, our focus on supporting Scotland's economy, our approach to investing in our public services and our determination to deliver on the priorities that we share with the people of Scotland. The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues raised in his statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for the questions, after which we will move on to the next item of business. It would be helpful if members who wish to ask a question were to press their request-to-speak buttons now. Iain Gray, to ask the first question, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and thank you to the cabinet secretary for his statement and for early sight of it. As always, he makes a polished presentation of his provisional outturn figures, and I would expect no less. However, there is a gap here. Mr Swinney mentioned towards the end of his statement his determination to deliver on his priorities. However, for all of 2013-14, his Government had no other priority but the promotion of its independence prospectus. However, the resource devoted to that is hidden in these high-level figures. Can he tell us exactly how much the Scottish Government spent in 2013-14 on the independence referendum and making the Government's case for separation? That is the cost of preparing, publishing, producing and promoting their white paper, and the consequent documents on pensions, the economy, welfare, etc., to try and cover up that white paper's flaws. The billboards, the mailings, which went out to every unsuspecting household in the country, the First Ministerial trips to America and Europe to preach the independence gospel, the cabinet's endless rolling referendum roadshows, and above all, the civil service staff and resources diverted to making the case for separation. How much was spent on all of this in 2013-14, or is this like set-up costs for a new country? One of those inconvenient figures that seems to have escaped the firm grip on finances, Mr Swinney was boasting of a moment ago. That will be a very interesting question for the people of Aberdeen to study, as a consequence of what Mr Gray has said. Not a single word of welcome from Mr Gray of the Government's commitment to invest in healthcare facilities in the city of Aberdeen, not a word of welcome for the fact that the Government has just committed more resources to improve the infrastructure of our schools in Scotland. I think that that tells us all we need to know about the lack of connection of the Labour party to the real priorities of the people of Scotland in the issues that Ian Gray has set out. I know that Ian Gray does not bother himself to participate in the affairs of the parliamentary committees, but if he did, he would show that he would say that I have set out to the finance committee in the course of the autumn budget revision and the spring budget revision the allocations of resources that are made to support the costs of setting out the marketing costs of the white paper. That information has been shared with Parliament, and of course we have committed ourselves to updating that information when all of this activity is completed and the Government will do exactly that. As for the accusation that we sent unsuspected mailings to the householders of Scotland, I got home last night to the shocking delivery of a booklet from Her Majesty's Government to direct to my house in Perthshire, setting out the arguments of the United Kingdom Government. Before Ian Gray starts questioning the Scottish Government about what we are undertaking to legitimately pursue, the policy agenda of this Government is to ask Downing Street what it is up to into the bargain. I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of his statement. Comparing this year's table to last year's, there would appear to be significant increases in the cash underspends for education, justice, rural affairs and infrastructure. I wonder if he can give the chamber greater details on why those underspends came about for those portfolios. Secondly, on NPD, we welcome the announcements in relation to Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, both projects in that announcement, and we welcome to the school's infrastructure announcement for NPD 2. The cabinet secretary said that NPD is about ensuring that we can deliver now for the economy with an emphasis on the word now. With that in mind, can he tell us what was the value that was delivered on the ground via NPD in the last financial year? I ask that because, at the half-way stage, only 46 million out of 185 million had been delivered on the ground. Can he at least pledge to tell us very soon what was delivered on the ground in 2013-14 via NPD? I hope that he has sight of the note for MSPs that should have accompanied it, indicating that he has it, which was circulated to opposition parties and is available in the chamber. In that note, I indicate that the Government will provide further detail on the significant variances at a portfolio level once the consolidated accounts are produced, which will be towards the end of September. We will report in fuller detail as part of the consolidated accounts on the variances that are involved. On the second question that he raised about NPD, I answered either an oral or written question from Mr Brown, which indicated that the Scottish Futures Trust was updating the data that is available on the level of activity during 2013-14, and that would be available by the time of the draft budget in October. I reiterate to Mr Brown that, in my statement, I indicated that there are now 750 million pounds worth of projects that are currently in construction, which will obviously span over the financial years 2013-14-15, and some of them may even go into 2015-16 into the bargain. I think that that gives a flavour of the fact that the NPD programme, despite the fact that, and I have conceded this to Parliament on many occasions before, it has taken us longer to mobilise the NPD programme than we would have liked, is now making a very substantial contribution to construction activity in Scotland today. As a consequence of the statement that I have made today, it will continue that process for a period longer, which will give greater clarity to the construction industry about the opportunities that exist to participate in the programme. I very much welcome the statement, in particular the investment of £46 million in acute mental services through provision of a North Ayrshire community hospital. The Scottish Government has prioritised affordable housing by, for example, investing in the social rented sector and abolishing the right to buy in sharp contrast with Westminster's approach. However, does the cabinet secretary share my concerns that the Scottish Government is being penalised for investing more in social housing, whereas HM Treasury reaps the reward of lower housing benefit payments that should accrue to Scotland as detailed by the work of the Institute of Fiscal Studies? Mr Gibson clearly explains the difficulty that arises out of the fact that the Government does not, under the current arrangements, have control of both sides of the balance sheet, so we are unable to reap the rewards and benefits of some of the other policies that we take forward, which are policies that we take forward for exactly the right reasons about the provision of affordable social housing for citizens within Scotland. Mr Gibson makes a strong point about the opportunities that would exist to the Government if we had wider control of a range of financial levers on both sides of the balance sheet in an independent country. The cabinet secretary told us that he has budgeted for mitigation of the bedroom tax. We knew that and we welcomed it. However, he promised to have a system to use it to make sure that no one in Scotland had to pay the bedroom tax by April 1, irrespective of the DWP's position. It is nearly July now and no such system is in place. He may have the money, but hasn't he betrayed Scottish families who are still paying the tax three months after he promised to have this system in place and have it sorted? I have heard this one a number of times in the Labour Party. Let's have a period of quiet for me to explain carefully to the Labour front bench who need to hear it loud and clear. The total cost of mitigating the cost of the bedroom tax in Scotland is £50 million. Under the existing statutory arrangements, it is possible for us to spend about £38 million on mitigating the bedroom tax over the course of the whole financial year, which Ms Marra has conveniently and helpfully explained to me has only run for about three months. We are one quarter of the way through the financial year, and there is £38 million that can legitimately and fully be deployed to deal with the bedroom tax in Scotland. There is £12 million that will be required to be applied, which the Government has provided for, once we reach the necessary statutory agreements with the United Kingdom Government, which I have no reason to say are being in any way held up or anything. I have no complaint about that at all. That is all going in a perfectly agreeable fashion with the UK Government. I simply make the very basic fundamental arithmetic point to the Labour Party in Scotland, that if we have £38 million legally available in Scotland today and we are a quarter through the year and the total liability is £50 million, if we divide £50 million by £4 million, we will get to a number that is lower than £38 million. Is that simple enough for even the dynamic trio on the front bench of the Labour Party to understand for the second and bluntest time that I can express to you? I very much welcome the cabinet secretary's announcement of £100 million for school infrastructure. That is incredibly encouraging, especially as schools in Glasgow and beyond have been in a poor state for some time. Can the cabinet secretary give us any idea about timescales as to how that would be moved forward? That would be the subject of the discussions that the education secretary and I will take forward with our local authority partners. The objective that we share with our local authority partners is very clear. That is to ensure that we make as swift progress as we can in ensuring the improvement in the quality of the school estate and the school infrastructure. Our local authority partners are at one with us on that priority and it will be in that spirit that we take forward the discussions to ensure that we deploy that resource in an effective and swift way. I thank the finance secretary for an advanced copy of the statement. Just in this very seat here at lunchtime, Alison McInnes asked for more NHS investment in Grampian. I am sure that there must be a connection with the announcement this afternoon. However, I welcome the investment in Aberdeen and also in the schools, especially considering the short-changing that Aberdeen and the North East have received from this Government in recent years to introduce a discordant note. It is important that, considering the contribution that the North East makes to our economy, it gets a return from this Government. I appreciate his frankness on the delays on the NPD programme in response to Gavin Brown. Can he guarantee that the significant problems that we faced in the early days of the NPD programme have been fully overcome? I thought for one moment that Mr Rennie was on the right lines. When he started off, I saw Alison McInnes' point and it is a point well made. I am glad that the Government at the health secretary's instigation has been able to take the step that we have taken in relation to the Aberdeen-Rawr and the Firmry site. On Mr Rennie's wider point about the infrastructure of the North East of Scotland, obviously the development of the new Her Majesty's Prison Grampian has been a significant investment in recent months and years. We are now at a very advanced stage in being able to deploy the expenditure on the Aberdeen western peripheral route, which is a project that I know that his party has supported in its Government. That is now a very advanced stage of procurement, and we expect construction to start on that in Q4 2014, which will be a very welcome contribution to improving the infrastructure of the North East of Scotland. In relation to the general point that he made about the NPD, I do not think that I could have been more open with Parliament about the fact that we estimated that it would take a shorter time to get NPD projects up and running. I think that what is clear from the data that I shared in response to Mr Brown's question that that is now a programme that has real momentum, that the procurement activity is now being undertaken very swiftly. Indeed, one of the most recent projects that have got to financial close has got to financial close in a much shorter period than we would ordinarily have imagined. I think that we have some significant progress on the NPD programme, and that will continue in the period ahead. Many thanks. For short questions and answers will allow us to endeavour to get everyone in. I can now call on Mr McMillan, Stuart McMillan. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I too welcome the statement, cabinet secretary. The cabinet secretary has had to deal with the declining settlements on Westminster once again and has done so within budget. Does the cabinet secretary agree that changing from a austerity approach to using the powers of independence to invest in the economy could actually increase revenues for Scotland and support further investment in public services? Clearly, Presiding Officer, the ability to take decisions that create stronger and more effective economic infrastructure in Scotland will help the long-term progress of the Scottish economy, and having a wider range of powers available to do so will enable us to fulfil that objective. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The cabinet secretary will be aware that there are 150,000 fewer students studying at Scottish colleges as a direct result of the decisions that he has taken since 2007 as cabinet secretary for finance. In recent years, he has tried to use some of the consequentials or out-turn monies to revisit or try to unpick or mitigate some of the damage that he has wrought on Scotland's colleges, but budgets continue to fall. I note today that education is one of the biggest contributors to his underspend. Can I ask him why he has not offered anything in today's announcement for Scotland's colleges? First of all, on Mr McIntosh's point, the Government committed itself to maintaining the number of full-time equivalent places in Scotland's colleges, and that is exactly what we have done. We have focused the college sector on. It is independently verified by the Wood Commission in its analysis, in which it highlighted a strengthened college sector in Scotland as a consequence of the Government's reforms. We have focused the college sector more and more on supporting the journey that individuals make into employment. That is the right approach to take so that individuals can acquire the more detailed skills that will enable them to participate in the labour market and to fulfil their own potential. When we have independent exercises such as the Wood review, highlighting the strengthening of the college sector that has taken place as a consequence of the Government's reform programme, I think that members such as Mr McIntosh should take reassurance that the reform programme has been effective and that we now need to sustain, as the Government is committed to doing, our investment to ensure that we reap the rewards of that reform programme that we have undertaken. The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport is aware that this week's research by Sheffield Hallam University was published and indicated that, as a consequence of the Scottish Government's investments in welfare reform mitigation, the impact of UK Government's welfare reforms is some £35 less per working-age adult here in Scotland. He also tells what assessment the Scottish Government has made of the impact of its £260 million investment in welfare reform mitigation. Clearly, the investment that the Government has made has been designed to support individuals in financial vulnerability. It will assist individuals in contributing to the Scottish economy by sustaining their livelihoods and their own circumstances. The Government continues to review the challenge of welfare reform and the effect that welfare reform has on the population in Scotland, and we will continue to do that during the spending and review period. A week or two ago, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport allocated an additional £31 million for the capital implications of expanding early education and childcare for two-year-olds, but I think that the Scottish Government has estimated that it will cost £61 million. In fact, COSLA believes that it will be significantly more, so has any of the underspend money been allocated for that purpose? The Government has committed itself to £61 million worth of expenditure to support the early years commitments. That is an increase on what we originally set out would be our estimate, and there is a reason now to further design what we have undertaken with our local authority partners. Our discussions with COSLA continue in that respect. Supporting that £61 million is provided for in the Government's capital programme. It may not all fall within the 2014-15 financial year, but that will be a subject that I will continue to discuss with our local authority partners. Unlike the Labour front bench, we never care for the needs of the people of the North East when Labour was in power. I welcome this investment that is announced by the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport facilities in Aberdeen, which will be of great benefits of all my constituents across the North East. What timescales are in place for the delivery of the project? What I can say to Mr Alard is that the project forms part of the capital programme of NHS Grampian. The Government will work with NHS Grampian to put in place the steps that are necessary to apply this project. The typical lead-in time to a project reaching financial close can be off the order of about two years. We try to accelerate that timescale if it is at all possible. I can assure Mr Alard that the health secretary will be taking steps to ensure that the project is delivered as swiftly as it possibly can. I welcome very much the comments of Mr Alard in representing the North East of Scotland for the important investment that has been made in the Aberdeen rolling family campus. That ends that particular statement. The next item of business is a statement by Cabinet Secretary Alex Neil on an update on polypropylene mesh devices. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement, and there should therefore be no interventions or interruptions. It would be helpful for members who are wish to ask a question to the cabinet secretary if they were to press a request to speak but now, and I call on the cabinet secretary. Cabinet secretary, you have got around 20 minutes or so. No, 10 minutes. 20 minutes for questions. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I thought you were being unduly generous there. Presiding Officer, thank you for the opportunity to make a statement regarding mesh implant procedures. I was deeply troubled when I first met some of the women adversely affected by these implants and heard of the horrendous complications that they have suffered in some cases, altering their lives forever. They have shown considerable courage, raising the profile of this issue, discussing publicly these very personal sensitive issues, especially when we consider that they will not now personally benefit from any changes. Mesh implants for pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence are classified as medical devices and governed by EU regulations. As soon as I became aware of the language experienced by these women, I asked the deputy chief medical officer, Dr Francis Elliott, to investigate and recommend action to address these issues. We estimate that around 1,500 women suffering from stress urinary incontinence and 350 suffering from pelvic organ prolapse have synthetic mesh implant surgery each year in Scotland. Those conditions result in a reduced quality of life, and I understand that traditional surgery techniques have a high failure rate of 20 to 30 per cent for primary pelvic organ prolapse surgery, for example. The 2012 YORC report, a study commissioned by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, estimates that around 1 to 3 per cent of women experience complications following stress urinary incontinence surgery, and for pelvic organ prolapse surgery, the percentage experience and complications according to the MHRE is slightly higher, around 2 to 6 per cent. That contrasts with a failure rate of 20 to 30 per cent for traditional surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. That research indicated that a majority of women around 1,450 annually in Scotland appear to benefit from mesh-tape surgery for stress urinary incontinence without complications. However, there is growing public concern about the number of women experiencing complications linked with underreporting adverse events and a poor understanding as to why those complications have occurred. I do not believe that we know the real incidence of adverse events in relation to those procedures, and we are not yet able to trace implants to individuals. The Scottish Government therefore considers the following action as being necessary to address the issue. As I outlined to the Public Petition Committee meeting last week, I have asked the acting chief medical officer to request all NHS boards in Scotland to consider suspending routine mesh implant procedures for pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence, and I can confirm that the acting CMA has now written to all health boards. NHS Inform has provided an information page on their website, and, crucially, all boards are currently contacting patients listed for surgery and where necessary, putting in place alternative pathways for those women. Members will know that the Scottish Government does not have the authority to withdraw those products as this is a reserved matter. However, I am aware that two health boards have stopped mesh implant procedures for treatment of pelvic organ prolapse prior to my announcement last week, due to changes in staff and the small numbers of procedures being carried out. Those changes will support the development of any new specialised pathways. The decision to request that boards suspend the routine use of synthetic mesh for those procedures does not prevent individual women and their clinicians agreeing on the need for a particular service that will still be available. In addition, I have endorsed the position that, for the improvement of our future evidence, if women are being considered for entry into clinical trials, the use of mesh for the conditions affected can be approved for those entered into the arms of the trial using this option provided the risks associated with this procedure are fully explained. I have also asked for an independent review to be set up urgently to report on the issues raised such as complication rates and underreporting, which will become a growing concern. The review will establish the facts and report at the beginning of 2015, taking account of the European Commission study on these devices due in January. The review will look at synthetic implant procedures for both stress urinary incontinence and for pelvic organ prolapse. I fully understand that those are two very different procedures, and the review will take account of that. I can announce today that Dr Leslie Wilkie, a retired director of public health, will lead the independent review. The review will start next month and report, as I said, early in 2015. The key priority for this review is to establish the facts concerning the number of women experiencing complications and the issue of underreporting for adverse events. I will ask Dr Wilkie to consult with the women's group and, indeed, with clinicians in the NHS board prior to finalising the specific detailed remit for her review. I gave an undertaking that the women would be consulted and I intend to keep to that undertaking. In addition, the deputy CMO is chairing a working group that includes clinicians and patient representatives to consider the issues in more detail. The group has now met twice, and I would like to thank the patient representatives and the clinicians for their on-going contribution. The group has produced a new patient information and consent booklet for stress urinary incontinence, which was published yesterday on the Scottish Government website. The booklet clearly demonstrates the risks associated with the procedure and the alternatives that are available before women make a decision on whether they wish to proceed. The information in the booklet will be the absolute minimum information provided to patients in the future by NHS boards. There are also two patient guidance booklets being developed that set out the pathway for the management of pelvic organ prolapse and for women who present with complications. The deputy CMO will be working with NHS colleagues and the women to develop the service as a matter of urgency. I can confirm that in the last year the CMO has written three times to all GPs through medical directors, alerting them to the possibility that women may suffer complications following insertion of these mesh implants and that all adverse events should be reported to the MHRA. I recently received correspondence from the Scottish Pelvic Floor Network proposing that MHRA reporting of complications should be made mandatory, and I have responded to say that I agree with that proposal. As you have already heard, mesh implants are classified as medical devices and are governed through the EU medical device directive. MHRA is a competent authority in the UK, and it has responsibility for the removal of any device from the market for the whole of the UK. Evidence is required in order for it to take such a step, which is why the research that we are supporting is so important. Individual medical devices follow procedures set out in the EU directives by manufacturers to gain a CA mark, a conformity market awarded by notified bodies. MHRA oversees the work of the organisations that perform regular audits. The rules for classifying medical devices are applicable across all EU member states. I have previously spoken to the MHRA chief executive and medical director, and yesterday they met the chairmen Sir Gordon Duff and the medical director and were reassured in discussions that they are taking the issue very seriously and have confirmed that they will also be happy to participate in the Scottish review in addition to the additional work that they are undertaking. I have also written to the European Commission, which is currently working towards formulating a scientific opinion on the safety of those devices and that, as I said, this work will be available in January. The chairman of the scientific committee has assured me that they are taking the issue very seriously. If there is further action that they can take, if there is further action that they can take until this research is available, they should take it. We are aware of the United States Food and Drug Administration's proposal to reclassify mesh for pelvic organ prolapse from a moderate-risk device to a high-risk device. Currently, of course, Europe has a 2B classification that is moderate to high-risk. The Scottish Government will participate in the UK working group also. Their remit includes determining the means of ensuring the clinical quality of procedures involving tapes and meshes for the treatment of stress, urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. That group will meet for the first time next month. I want to reassure members that we are taking every possible action to address those issues in respect of mesh implants and to improve the situation, and I am happy to take questions. Thank you, Cabinet Secretary Neil Findlay. Thank you, Cabinet Secretary, for the statement and welcome that he has taken to suspend the use of polypropylene mesh. However, in his year of dithering, this statement throws up many more questions than it answers. Almost a year ago, in rejecting the call for the suspension of mesh, the cabinet secretary claimed that he had no power to act and that he could not act because he feared litigation by the manufacturers. He also claimed at that time that the number of women who had experience problems with mesh was very low. How many women have had complications following mesh surgery for stress, urinary incontinence or pelvic prolapse, and how many have had to have it removed? What advice have those women been given since his announcement? Given the limited number of consultants available in Scotland to deal with mesh complications and that some patients are waiting five months for a review appointment, will the cabinet secretary agree to fund health boards to allow patients to be seen elsewhere in the United Kingdom? It is my understanding that at present some health boards have advised mesh victims that they will not fund out-of-area consultations. Why is it that, a year ago, did the cabinet secretary claim that he had no powers to act when clearly he did? Who gave him that advice and will he publish it? When did the cabinet secretary become aware of the fact that NHS Dumfries and Galloway had acted last year to suspend mesh despite his protestations that he did not have the powers to act? How many more women have been treated with mesh during his year of dithering? And why did the cabinet secretary fear litigation by the manufacturers a year ago but apparently does not fear it now? Finally, Presiding Officer, I want to pay tribute to each and every one of the mesh victims. They were doubted by some in the medical profession and let down by the cabinet secretary. They deserved better and they deserve answers now. Presiding Officer, it is a great pity that the opposition spokesman for the Labour Party can never rise to the occasion. I would have hoped that we would get a united chamber on this matter, just for the facts, because I know that sometimes the facts confuse the argument with Mr Finlay. In terms of the latest year available, full year 2011-12, there were 313 pop mesh procedures and 1,436 SUI tape procedures. That was the same year that there was the Yacht report showing that estimated complication rates for pop procedures were between 2 and 6 per cent and for SUI tape procedures between 1 and 3 per cent. That was the evidence available to me last year. I should also point out that it is a very serious matter to suspend any procedure, particularly when a total of 17 to 1800 people are going through those procedures and the official figures show that 95 per cent of them have a successful procedure. What has convinced me is that, after discussion with the MHRA, it became very clear to me that the scale of underreporting of adverse events was far higher—I would get it from the scientist, Mr Finlay—not from you. The rate of adverse events was far higher than anyone had officially estimated. If I can just give some figures to show some of my concerns, if you take the SUI tape procedure alone, the estimated annual number of complications in Scotland based on the Yacht report is up to 45 women. However, the total number reported to the MHRA by healthcare professions for that year was four, but the total number reported to the MHRA by the public was 110. Clearly, there is a problem in there, and it is that kind of evidence. If you are in this job, you have to base decisions on evidence. That evidence is what led me to take the decision to request health boards, because I do not have the power to tell health boards willy nilly to suspend any operation, nor do I have the power over the product itself. As I explained in detail in my statement, that power resides with the MHRA, it is a reserved matter, and it works within the overall EU directive. Jackson Carlaw Can I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of his statement? I also pay tribute to my constituent, Elaine Holmes, who, together with others, I helped to support in the presentation of her petition to the petitions committee. Her evidence was highly emotional, compelling and brave. If I may say so, I believe that the cabinet secretary's response is equally brave too. There are a number of questions that I would like to put. Has he had conversations with the Department of Health since his announcement? Has any health departments from other countries been in touch with him? There will be a tremendous number of women who believe that they have had a successful implant, who may now be reading that there can be late complications that arise. I wonder what reassurance or guidance he is making available to women who perhaps have had a mesh implant, who may now have a concern that they did not have a week ago before this announcement was made. Finally, given that there are a number of health issues that arise from implants in general terms, I wonder whether the Scottish Government might consider being at the forefront of leading a campaign to ensure that all implants are barcoded in future. In order that when issues like that do arise, we are able to establish, perhaps some years after the event, who has had an implant and who may therefore need to be consulted or reassured as a consequence of that. Those are very intelligent questions and very, as usual, fairly poot. I just deal with the latter point in terms of barcoding. With some of the products, there is already barcoding, but there is no database of the mesh that has been used in a particular woman at a particular time in a particular hospital. Therefore, one of the exercises that we are engaged in with the MHRA and have been since the issue was brought to our attention by the women is the creation of a database for future use, so that we will always know not only how many, but what meshes were used, procedures, women and hospitals, so that if and when anything does go wrong, it can be traced back to find out the source and the type of product that was used. Unfortunately, that has not been the case to date. Because of that, that is one of the reasons why the degree of information and intelligence available to us is so sporadic. Quite frankly, in terms of measuring adverse events, it is actually unreliable, in my view. In terms of guidance to women who have already had implants, the chief medical officer is actually instructed that guidance be issued to all women. First of all, in terms of immediate priorities, those women who were due to have a procedure in the immediate future and all of them are being contacted as we speak to invite them in for a consultation with the relevant consultant so that he or she can map out the pathways that they can follow if they need help during the period ahead. Secondly, we will be issuing advice to people who have already had implants about how they can find out if they are likely to have any problems in the future. I know myself that I have had one case in my constituency where the mesh implant only caused a problem 12 years after it had actually been implanted. That is another reason why we need much more in-depth study, because there has been no longitudinal study of the impact of mesh implants or any longitudinal analysis of the incidence of adverse events. Without a longitudinal analysis, it is obviously much more difficult to reach an evidence-based scientific objective conclusion as to what is going wrong and why, in many cases, things are going wrong. In terms of the conversations with the Department of Health, our main conversations have been with the MHRA, but, through the MHRA, all the departments of health in the UK are involved in the issue and are all represented in the working party. Of course, because it is very much guided by EU directors, through the MHRA, we are in touch with all the health departments in Europe. The MHRA is now working closely with the federal drugs and food administration in the United States. That is very much a global problem. I actually had an email last week from a lady in New Zealand who has had similar problems to the ones that the ladies who presented to the Petitions Committee outlined. It is a worldwide phenomenon. As the MHRA pointed out to me, Scotland is the most advanced in trying to get to the bottom of why the adverse events are taking place. Can I start by welcoming all the actions that the cabinet secretary has taken to address the very serious concerns raised around mesh implants? A lot of the comments from Professor Dawn Boyack, who has said previously that, thanks to the Scottish patient safety programme, Scotland is the safest nation on earth from the viewpoint of healthcare. Can I ask the cabinet secretary how that collaborative approach that has been taken in the patient safety programme is informing the Government's approach to that particular issue? The main motivation in asking the health board to suspend, of course, was in relation to patient safety, because it is not just the number of adverse events. It is the horrific impact on those women when things go wrong. It really does ruin lives. That is why it is very important that we regard patient safety and quality as absolutely top of the healthcare agenda, and it is why Scotland does have the safest health service in the world, according to Professor Dawn Berwick, who is, of course, an adviser to Prime Minister Cameron, as well as President Obama. That fits very well in terms of the overall governing philosophy of the patient safety programme, and that is that patient safety has to be absolutely a number one priority, along with the quality of care that we provide. That is why, for example, a Canadian study recently put the Scottish and indeed the UK health services as the top health services in the world. Thank you. I just give notification to members that I am going to struggle to call everybody who wishes to speak or to ask the cabinet secretary a question, but I will do my best and more press on with the grant. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I ask the cabinet secretary to clarify a statement that seems to be contrary to that of NHS Dumfries and Galloway, which states, following concerns that have been raised nationally and internationally, we have taken the local decision to suspend the use of mesh, and this has been in place since last year. What is the remit in terms of reference? How will he ensure no conflict of interest in the review, and how will he also ensure that the concerns and experience of the women affected will be at the very heart of the review, and what alternative treatments will be available to women suffering those conditions? First of all, in relation to Dumfries and Galloway, in the evidence to the Petitions Committee, the medical director in Dumfries and Galloway, and certainly it was reported in the press that Dumfries and Galloway has suspended those procedures. In actual fact, Dumfries and Galloway stopped the procedures, they did not suspend them because of no intention of reinstituting them, because one of the things that we are looking at is creating centres of excellence for those procedures, because one of the problems in Dumfries and Galloway was that the throughput of patients was inadequate to keeping up the quality required, and therefore they decided to stop those procedures. In fact, the expert that they had employed also no longer works in Dumfries and Galloway, but Dumfries and Galloway, in the way in which it was reported in the press, suggested that they had suspended and suspension suggests that they may be reintroducing them, that is not currently their intention. In terms of potential conflict of interest, as I spelt out to the Petitions Committee last week, I would be making sure that whoever was appointed to lead this review would have no potential conflict of interest, and in particular no previous or current contractual relationship with the manufacturers. I can confirm that Dr Wilkie fits the bill. She has no such and has had no such contractual relationship. In terms of the review itself, as I said in my statement, I am asking Dr Wilkie, as her first step, to sit down with the women and agree the remit for the review in detail, because I want to be absolutely sure that we satisfy those women. I think that we owe it to those women to make sure that the review is comprehensive enough to cover all aspects of their concerns. Obviously, she will consult with clinicians and with NHS boards as well, and I will confirm the detailed remit to the chamber at the appropriate time. In terms of the advice that is being given to women, there is a clear direction from the chief medical officer about the need to offer women a clear pathway in terms of their treatment. As I said earlier, particularly those women who were due to have a procedure in the immediate future. There are a number of ways in which they can be supported. For example, weight loss is one of them, and that will happen. We will make sure that all the women who are on the waiting list are contacted and offered a special session to advise on the way forward and a pathway that has worked out in co-production between the clinician and the women. John Wilson will fall by Jim Hume. I welcome the statement today and the announcement that was made by the cabinet secretary last week at the Public Petitions Committee. I also welcome the announcement about the booklet outlining the associated risks of the procedure. Could I ask the cabinet secretary whether the booklet contains information on the possibility that, following the procedure, women may not be able to have children? Could he also indicate how patients can feed back concerns about the lack of information being provided to allow them to make informed choices prior to the operation? I have the booklet here, and this is the synthetic vaginal mesh mid-urethral tape procedure for the surgical treatment of stress urinary incontinence in women. For the sake of making sure that I cover this properly, it covers an explanation of terms, a definition of what is stress urinary incontinence, alternative options of treatments, what is synthetic vaginal mesh tape procedure, possible risks of the procedure, useful resources, questions that women should ask their surgeon, and what their expectation should be from surgery, as well as the consent form. It is a detailed 18-page booklet, and I am happy to make sure that one is placed in spies so that everybody can see exactly all the issues that are covered. John Scott Thank you. Will the cabinet secretary advise campaigners in the chamber today what support will now be offered to mesh patients who have already undergone a traumatic experience and are now left with health complications? Will he also advise what discussions he will have with the EU commission on the issue of the regulatory regime when manufacturers are the ones apparently policing devices when adverse incidents are reported, and note that the MHRA, by their own admission, has no independent test facility? John Scott First of all, in terms of discussions with the manufacturers, clearly the whole purpose of what the work that is going on in Europe, in the UK and now in Scotland, is to define exactly what we need to do to guarantee future safety in terms of any of those procedures and the use of particular products. There will be very strong interface with manufacturers, obviously, as part of the work that is being done. Clearly, we want to be absolutely sure that we identify, whether in most cases or in any cases, the actual products. There are variations of products, whether the products have been the problem or whether the procedure has been the problem, or whether it is the procedure and the products that are the problem. That is clearly one of the areas that we need to focus on in trying to get to the bottom of why those implants have gone wrong in so many cases. In terms of those women who have already had an adverse event in a bad experience and whose health has been damaged as a result of those procedures, as I said right from the beginning, that we will ensure that any medical assistance, including any further procedures, that those women require and they agree with their clinician, will be provided in the national health service and will make sure that it is. I indicate to members that I intend to allow that statement to run on for a bit more time, because a number of members are still wishing to ask questions. It is important, it is sensitive and I intend to do that. The consequences of that will be that the decision time is likely to not take place until quarter to five tonight, but we will sort the procedure all bits out later on. John Scott, Fawr Bairdure Medi. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I, too, thank the Cabinet Secretary for the Advanced Copy of his statement. Sadly, we are where we are, but can I now ask the Cabinet Secretary what the pathways of care, apart from where laws will be for adversely affected women, and will a specialist centre perhaps be set up, perhaps in Glasgow, perhaps one already exists de facto, to deal with and perhaps develop removal techniques to address those problems? If so, has a budget allocation been made towards this, or will one be made? Can I deal with the latter point first? That is clearly one of the areas that we are already working on. At the moment, prior to the request for suspension, most health boards provided one or other or both of those procedures. Again, I should stress that there are two different procedures, and although there is a commonality in terms of the problem that we have had, nevertheless, we need to address both procedures as separate issues that need to be addressed. And there is undoubtedly some division in the clinical community in relation to the safety of the tapes vis-à-vis the safety of the measures. Clinicians do not entirely all agree with each other about those issues, but we are looking at the future delivery of all services related to these procedures, including dealing with, in the future, the complications and the consequences of complications. It is very clear that we need areas of expertise, rather than necessarily having those so widely available across the country, where, in some cases, as in Dumfries and Galloway, the throughput of women was such that it did not meet the new standards on patient safety more generally. Clearly, for some procedures, it is very important for the high throughput in order for the clinicians to maintain their high standards and, indeed, to upgrade the skills continually with the changes in technology. That works already under way, and I anticipate that being concluded round about the term of the year. At that time, we will allocate budgets in terms of which health boards are hosting any centres of excellence in relation to those procedures. In terms of the pathways, the chief medical officer is issuing details on the various pathways that can be offered to women, one of which is weight loss and one of which is, theoretically, a traditional operation, but the failure rate in that is such that we would certainly not recommend that at all. I think that the bores would not—one would be, if they can, wait until the results of those reports. If they are able to do that and can suffer the problems that they have long enough, that is a potential option for women to see what is safe and what is not safe, and then, on a better position, to make their judgment about what procedures they want to follow. Does the cabinet secretary agree that, while all surgical procedures in the NHS must be based on the latest clinical evidence, backed by robust data and open and transparent record-keeping, the most important factors must always be the patient experience and patient safety? Will he commit today to ensuring that the voice of patients and the Scottish Mesh Survivors Group and the Hear Our Voice campaign continues to be heard during the independent review process and at all levels of decision making? I think that I have stressed that it is very important that the patients are involved in that. In fact, the working group that is already working under the leadership of Dr Francis Elliott already contains two representatives from the women's group. I think that that is extremely important to every level, because, clearly, nobody knows better the consequences, particularly of the adverse events, than the women themselves. Richard Lyle, followed by Hugh Henry. As a member of the health committee, I wish to welcome today's statement, and I compliment the cabinet secretary on his action. The cabinet secretary has said that alternative care pathways would be developed for women who have suffered complications and women who decide to go ahead with a mess procedure. Can the cabinet secretary offer any guidance on how quickly that could be in place? The chief medical officer has already been in touch with all the health boards to make sure that the clinicians get in touch with the women who are affected and to arrange and offer early appointments with them. Each woman will go through with her clinician what is the most appropriate pathway for her. It is extremely important that we do that for every woman who is potentially affected by that. That is everybody on the waiting list, obviously. Secondly, that we do it quickly. Thirdly, that we do it in terms of the advice that is on offer. There is already fairly extensive advice and a whole range of issues relating to that from NICE and from other sources. All of that is already in the hands of the health boards and the clinicians, but the chief medical officer will be keeping a very close monitoring eye on the whole area of guidance on different pathways that are available to the women. I ask the cabinet secretary if he will now consider requests for a funded support service for those who are affected and will he ensure that patient involvement in any such group that he previously acknowledged is vital? Those women deserve our support. Cabinet secretary, I would anticipate that being one of the bits of work that would be addressed by the review but also by the work that is already going on in terms of what support is required in addition to the medical support. The medical support is obviously the immediate priority. I have made it absolutely clear that whatever medical support those women need, they will get. Any additional support that needs to be identified systematically and then we look at what then has to be provided, where it has to be provided, how much it is going to cost and how it would be funded. Mesh implants have created great personal misery for one being one too many. I ask the cabinet secretary what assurances can he give that MHRA and the relevant European authorities that issue product directives will be asked to review their practices, processes and legal responsibilities to avoid similar events in the future and to do that review quickly. Also what positive involved in direct role does he see for Scotland in the future in this process? First of all, as I said in my statement, I have already written to the European Commission and although the MHRA is a statutory body for the UK very clearly, we want to have direct dialogue ourselves with the European Commission to make sure and to satisfy ourselves that everything has been done and done objectively in terms to address all of these issues. In terms of the points raised by Mr Brody, clearly that is the subject of the discussions that we are having with the MHRA and that we would want to have with the European Commission in particular in terms of their current review, which is due to report in January 2015. Thank you. That ends the statement from the cabinet secretary. In his answer to my question, the cabinet secretary suggested that I was quoting from press reports whereas actually I was quoting from a letter from NHS Dumfries and Galloway to the Petitions Committee, which is available on the Parliament website. Can you advise how the cabinet secretary can amend his statement to give the accurate position of NHS Dumfries and Galloway? Thank you. That ends the statement from the cabinet secretary. Given that I have allowed that statement to run on a bit, I am minded to accept a motion without notice under rule 8.14.3 to extend the time for the debate. Decision time will therefore be at 4.45. Somebody would move a motion without notice. Mr Dugdale, I am obliged to you. Thank you. I now put the question to the chamber that decision time be at 4.45. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I now invite the convener of the City of Edinburgh Council, Portable and Park Bill, to lead the debate. Ms McMahon, you have 11 minutes. As convener of the City of Edinburgh Council, Portable and Park Bill Committee, I am pleased to open this final stage debate. I would like to thank all those who have assisted the committee in its scrutiny of the bill, including objectors too and the promoter of the bill. The contributions from both sides on this issue have assisted the committee in reaching decisions on what has been a complex and highly controversial bill. I would also like to thank my colleagues on the committee, James Dornan, Fiona McLeod and Alison McKinnon, for their diligence and hard work in scrutinising the bill and for their support throughout this entire process. I greatly appreciate it. I would also like to thank those Parliament staff who have assisted the committee in our deliberations, in particular Mary, Stephen, Linda and David, for their guidance and dedication throughout this entire process. Not only were they with us every step of the way, but I know that they have given up their personal time to assist us in this lengthy process, and for that I and the other members of the committee are truly grateful. Finally, I would like to thank Richard McLeod in my own office, who has had the unenviable task of putting up with me throughout the process. Today represents the culmination of over a year of hard work, since the bill was introduced on 25 April 2013. In total, the committee has undertaken around 15 hours of scrutiny and evidence-taking at consideration stage alone, which resulted in the publication of our consideration stage report on 22 May. By way of background for anyone who may not be familiar, the purpose of the bill is to remove a legal obstacle that prevents the city of Edinburgh Council from changing the use of Portobello Park so that it might become the site of the new Portobello High School. In effect, the bill would change the legal status of Portobello Park from inalienable common good land for the purpose of part 6 of the Local Government Scotland Act 1973, to allow the council to appropriate it to its education function and build the school on the park. The bill does not itself authorise the building of the school, that being subject to the local authority planning process. At preliminary stage, the promoter provided detail of the alternative legal approaches, which had been considered to achieve the promoter's objective, none of which were as attractive to the promoter as pursuing a private bill. In that context, the committee at preliminary stage was aware of the apparent legal anomaly whereby councils can dispose of local authority land to third parties with the consent of the courts but are unable to appropriate common good land for other uses and considered whether one way of addressing that might be a change to the general law that applies throughout Scotland. We therefore wrote to the Minister for Local Government Planning at that stage and were advised on 21 November 2013 that the Scottish Government had not reached any decision on that subject. The minister acknowledged the importance of the issue and referred to the consultation on the draft community empowerment bill, which would include provisions on greater transparency in the management and disposal of the common good. The committee concluded at that time that it appeared that, even if the Scottish Government did decide to legislate in this area, any such legislation was not imminent. I am aware that the Community Empowerment Scotland Bill was subsequently introduced on 11 June and the provisions of the bill placed a statutory duty on local authorities to establish or maintain a publicly available register for all property held by them for the common good and must notify and receive any representations from community bodies or other persons in respect of the list or property that they intend to include on the register. They are also under a duty to publish their proposals and consult community bodies before disposing of or changing the use of common good property. It is clear therefore that the proposals included in the Community Empowerment Scotland Bill would not address the wider specific legal anomaly that is addressed in the bill and the committee's decision at the preliminary stage that the private bill procedure was suitable for the bill remains appropriate. Turning now to our deliberations at consideration stage, the committee's task was to consider all remaining objections in phase 1 and to lodge any amendments that felt were necessary as an outcome of those deliberations phase 2. The committee was very aware that its role included acting and complying with the Parliament's obligations in terms of human rights. The procedures followed by the committee therefore ensured that the parties involved had a fair opportunity to present their respective cases. That was achieved through the extensive evidence that we had before us, the objections themselves, supplementary written submissions and the oral evidence sessions that ran from 12 March to 7 May 2014. Once we had considered all of that evidence, our task was to assess each objection and consider whether the private interests of those adversely affected by the bill outweade the wider public interest in what the bill seeks to deliver. I am sorry, I do not have time to take interventions. The committee had been had before at 59 objections to the bill. Consideration of those objections was not an easy task. We considered a diverse range of subject matters during the course of this phase from the promoters pre-introductionary consultation process to the possibility of the bill setting a precedent for other local authorities to use as a mechanism to bypass the protection of common good land, which it was argued would occur if the bill proceeds, to issues that are also subject to the planning process. In determining the approach to assessing objections, the committee was also keenly conscious, as it had been from the start of the scrutiny process, that its role was not to carry out a planning inquiry. Planning matters had already been addressed during two planning application processes. The committee's consideration of objections under the standing orders was in the context of determining the extent to which an adverse effect of the bill, which might also be a planning matter, would impact on an individual's private interests and the extent to which that would be balanced by the overall benefit to the community by the bill. In relation to the practicalities of our approach to consideration of objections, those were provisionally divided into a number of groups on a geographical basis. For example, objectors who lived adjacent to the park were identified as one group, and those who lived in the surrounding area to the north of the park as another. We put the main group opposed to the school being built in the park, Portobello Park Action Group, and known associated objectors in a group of its own, as well as golfers who we considered to be a special interest group. We consulted all objectors in each of the six groups regarding the selection of lead objectors who, when agreed, were invited to co-ordinate oral evidence on behalf of their respective groups. All 59 objectors were also given the opportunity to provide supplementary written evidence in support of the original objection. In the event, only six objectors took up that invitation. All groups of objectors were represented at oral evidence sessions to the committee. The promoter also attended these sessions. That was intended to allow each party the opportunity to present their case on specific issues and to cross-examine the other side. Before commenting on our own views on other issues related to objections, I would like to refer briefly to matters that the committee had already considered at preliminary stage. Those issues included the Parliament legislating after a quarter of session decision, the possibility of the bill setting up precedent and alternative sites for the school, and we set out our views on those issues at the preliminary stage. The committee was not convinced that there was any substantive reason to change those views as a result of the further evidence produced at consideration stage. At preliminary stage, the committee had encouraged the promoter to reflect on the lessons learned from each aspect of the process in relation to consultation. We were reassured to learn that the promoter intended to take into account a number of actions for future consultation exercises, such as ensuring that, for any public meetings that involve non-council representatives, all participants should be able to comment on the proposed format of the meeting. While we did not consider that any shortcomings identified in the consultation process were sufficient to sustain any objections regarding the consultation's adequacy, the committee noted that the continued reference by objectors to their concerns in that area illustrated the lack of trust between objectors and the promoter. We continued to be concerned about adequate protection for the site to ensure that it cannot be used for any purpose other than the proposed educational function. A consideration stage, therefore, and amendment was lodged by Alison McInnes, the intention of which was to ensure that, if the park is appropriated under the terms of the bill and then ceases to be used for educational purposes, it will revert to its legal status and be subject to the title restriction on its use at the time of cessation of use. The amendment is also allowed for circumstances where the appropriation occurs, but, for whatever reason, the park is not used for educational purposes. In such a case, if the park were not used for that purpose within a period of 10 years, if, for example, school premises were not provided, the legal and title restrictions would once again apply to the park when that period expired. The bill has now been amended to include the terms of that amendment. In terms of replacement of open space promised by the council, which will be formed from part of the existing combined site of Portobello High School and St John's Primary School, objectors' voice concerns about the site being outwith the local vicinity, being smaller than the space that would be lost, and being beside an existing park. The council's commitment to the provision of open space was also questioned, as was the protection that would be provided by fields and trust status, which the council intends to seek for the replacement site. The committee had previously urged the council to consider whether there are any other additional members that could be taken to lay concerns about the security of their replacement open space future, in response to the promoter providing details of the other possible measures that it had considered, and it concluded that none of those measures would provide additional protection at this stage. The preferred solution remained the designation of the land as fields and trust status. The council stated at the committee meeting on 7 May that, in the circumstances, fields and trust protection is the best proposal for allying any concerns that objectors might have. We are content that this designation should provide a satisfactory additional safeguard for the future of the site. On the objectives of themselves, the committee took account of each one and its own merits and circumstances. However, there were a number of clear themes that featured consistently. The many issues arising included the loss of amenity and green space, road safety, traffic and congestion issues, the visual impact of the proposed development, including loss of views, the height of the building and lighting, and a number of environmental issues such as noise pollution, operational disturbances and loss of wildlife and biodiversity. I would wish to highlight that, in relation to the mitigation measures that might be sought to alleviate concerns in connection with those issues, the promoter asked objectors, including at evidence sessions, what proposals they had that might mitigate their concerns. In the context of the bill being passed and the school being constructed on the park, objectors argued that the only mitigation measures would be for the school to be built on another site. In conclusion, the committee has spent over 12 months considering the issues pertaining to the device of the bill and is disappointed that there has not been a greater degree of constructive resolution and engagement between the parties. We acknowledge the objectors' concerns on various fronts. For example, there will inevitably be adverse impacts due to noise and operational disturbance, there will be a visual impact from the construction of the building itself and some loss of view to Arthur's seat, and there are indeed health benefits to be derived from open space that the park provides. However, the committee also recognises that there will be compensatory and mitigating measures that are implemented as required by the planning process, that there are other green and open spaces in the vicinity, and there will be other benefits to the community from the new sporting facilities. Overall, we are satisfied that an appropriate balance has been struck between the private interests of those adversely affected by the proposal and its benefits to the wider community. I move that the City of Edinburgh Council's reportable park bill be passed. Many thanks. Now, Colin, Derek Mackay, Minister of Seven Minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. In opening, I would like to acknowledge the work of the bill committee in considering the bill and the efforts of those who have given written submissions for oral evidence. As I said when I spoke in the preliminary stage debate on the bill in January, as is the case with such matters, the Scottish Government has taken a neutral position on the bill. The bill does not have any direct impact on Scottish Government policy and the Government is content that the bill will not have any direct consequences for general law. Nor does this Government have a view on the merits of the proposed site, as this is a matter for the council. However, I recognise the widespread agreement that the current Portobello High School building is not fit for purpose and needs to be replaced. I also recognise that the council has identified land at Portobello Park as its preferred site for a replacement building, as well as the concerns of those who do not wish to see the park used for this purpose. None of those are issues for Scottish Government. Those are local issues that should be resolved locally. The only reason why the matter has been brought to the Parliament is that, following a decision by the Court of Session, the only way for the council to achieve its preferred option for the replacement Portobello High School is to secure passage of the private bill. An important part of the committee's consideration was around whether there has been a sufficient consultation by the council on its proposals. In its preliminary stage report, it concluded that there had been inadequate consultation, but that a number of issues had been raised about the detail of the consultation process. It therefore encouraged the City of Edinburgh Council to reflect on those issues. I share that sentiment. It is vitally important that local people should be properly consulted about and able to influence decisions that affect them. It would therefore encourage all local authorities, not just the City of Edinburgh Council, to consider those points made during consideration of the bill and to make any changes to their own procedures that may be appropriate. In that context, I will say a brief word about the Scottish Government's community empowerment bill, which was introduced earlier this month. The bill's core purpose is to help communities to achieve their own goals and aspirations through ownership of land and buildings and by having their voices heard in the decisions that affect their area. It includes a requirement for local authorities to publish their proposals and consult community bodies before disposing of or changing the use of common good assets. I do not propose a wider redefinition of common good assets. There can often be uncertainty about what constitutes common good land or the purposes for which it can be used. The community empowerment bill would therefore also place a statutory duty on local authorities to establish and maintain a register of all property held by them for the common good. Taken together, the provisions in the bill would therefore substantially improve transparency and accountability in relation to common good land. In conclusion, I think that the bill committee has given very careful consideration to these issues that have been raised during the progress of the bill. In particular, I know that the committee has sought to address concerns about the future of the site by passing an amendment aimed at securing that, if the land was used for educational purposes, it would revert to its original use and status. I think that that is to be welcomed and has been true to the core purpose of the bill. However, I look forward to hearing what other members have to say this afternoon, and I emphasise once again that the Government continues to take a neutral position on the bill. I now call on Kezia Dugdale, five minutes or thereby please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I add my thanks to the committee members and, indeed, the clerks who do the work behind the scenes. When we last met to discuss the bill, I expressed my frustration at the rules that precluded members who represent an area participating in a private bill process affecting it. I was worried that my colleagues would not understand the complex and longstanding community interest in the issue, that they would be called to the arguments from both sides and simply go through the motions without an affinity for the community in question. On reflection, that was exactly what was needed. I would like to commend the committee members and the clerks for their dedicated but dispassionate approach to the bill. They have examined the detail in great depth and have often delved into the detail beyond the strict application of the bill, producing a report that is thorough, robust and a credit to this Parliament. I have received a number of emails from people opposed to the bill questioning the committee's integrity. Each email follows the same format, highlighting the same key points. It feels co-ordinated in a way that many charity-led campaign emails do just without their paralleled numbers. That same email says that MSPs across Scotland were being told to vote in favour of the bill before any evidence was heard, and that there is clear evidence that this bill is being rushed through as a political decision and not being considered on its merits. I have to categorically refute those suggestions. There is no Labour whip in place for this afternoon's vote, and I understand that every other party represented in this chamber has taken that same decision. I say to my colleagues across the chamber, who have perhaps yet to make up their minds, that I will be voting for the City of Edinburgh Council Portable Part Bill at 4.45 this afternoon. I will do so with every confidence that it represents the majority will of the community. There is substantial evidence of community support in the preliminary report and in the consideration stage report that was published last month. Let me add to that the reality of my five years of solid campaigning in this constituency speaking to thousands and thousands of voters face to face on their doorsteps. I know the community want this school and they want it on the park. I will say a bit more about the community in my closing speech, but I would like to spend the last few moments of this opening examining the suggestion put forward by the objectors that this bill will somehow set a precedent on common good land. The email from objectors states that because there are no plans to reform common good legislation, the bill, if passed, will allow other councils to take common good land for any purpose that they wish. It is exactly because the bill is so narrowly defined that no precedent is set. The law of common good remains unchanged should Parliament vote in favour this afternoon, except for the specific instance of Portobello park. Paragraph 38 of the consideration report could not be clearer in that regard. The final point, made regularly in emails from objectors, is that the Parliament is overruling a judgment of the courts. The committee have ably addressed this point by highlighting the role of the courts as interpreting and implying the law as it stands. Parliament has the power to legislate as it considers appropriate even if the effect is to change the law as determined by a court. In the simplest terms, that is democracy. The committee has also addressed the ECHR issue and understood that objectors are considering that as their next legal move. The committee report notes that a fair balance has been struck between the competing interests of those adversely affected by the scheme and the benefits to the wider community. The principle of proportionality has been applied and I would ask the objectors to consider that concept of proportionality when considering their next attempt to block the school. To end the beginning, I reiterate my thanks to my diligent colleagues who have seen their committee since its establishment and urged my colleagues in the chamber to vote based on the strength of the consideration report and in no doubt that the vast majority of community support sees the bill progressing. Thank you very much. I now call on Gavin Brown for five minutes or so, Mr Brown, and invite all the other members who wish to speak in the debate to press the request to speak buttons now. Deputy Presiding Officer, I am grateful to the convener for her remarks and also for the tone of her remarks over the course of the debate, but also I think for the way in which the committee approached, which I think was a pretty difficult task. There was a range of evidence to look at. There were some complex issues, I think, for committee members to get their head around, and there was a great degree of contention between the promoters of the bill and those who were quite rightly in their view objecting to the bill. That process, I think, had to follow the form that it did, and I think that the committee did that quite properly and particularly well. We heard the memorandum from the promoters' bill earlier to address the legal obstacle, which is currently preventing the new Portobello High School being built on Portobello Park, with the aim of reclassifying the park as alienable common good land for the purposes of the Local Government Scotland Act 1973. Deputy Presiding Officer, there have been, I think, a couple of items of significant progress over the course of the last year, which has certainly encouraged me and made my mind up for voting in favour of the bill at a decision time today. The first one is the firm commitment that was given to designate the existing site as a new park or recreation facility and give it fields and trust status. While that is not a statutory provision, I think that it provides a degree of safeguard and weakens some of the arguments against the bill. Secondly, as was referred to already, the amendment in the name of Alison McInnes at the consideration stage restricts matters somewhat so that the bill can effectively only do what it says on the table. It does not give any wider scope to the City of Edinburgh council or any other council. Those two items are important that I think tip the balance in favour, in my view, of the bill being passed. Like many others, I think that within this chamber I have had a number of contacts from constituents and those who are not constituents criticising the bill and making challenges against it. I think that it is worth just dealing with some of those and looking at them in a bit of detail. One of the complaints is that the bill is being rushed through, and I do not think that rushing through legislation is every good thing, and that is a charge that has to be looked at seriously. However, I did compare the timescale of this bill to the timescale of several other bills that are currently going through Parliament, and I have to say that I do not think that the timescale is particularly different from those other bills. This bill was lodged on 25 April 2013, went through its first stage, the preliminary stage in January of this year, the consideration stage earlier in June, and today at its final stage, the end of June. A timescale of one year and two months approximately. If you look at something like the Housing Scotland bill, which again is a pretty complex piece of legislation that we spent a considerable time considering looking at it in the chamber yesterday, that was initially lodged on 21 November 2013. It went through its first stage at the end of April. It went through stage 2 earlier this month and, of course, it was passed yesterday. A shorter timescale for the Housing Scotland bill than we had for the Port of Bello Park bill. Compare it with another bill that is going through Parliament, again a very complex piece of legislation, the Revenue Scotland and Tax Powers bill. That was lodged just before Christmas of last year. It went through stage 1 in May and went through stage 2 a couple of weeks ago. While we do not have a final date to my knowledge, I understand that it is coming to the chamber probably in August of this year. Again, a slightly shorter timescale than we had for the Port of Bello park bill is the City of Edinburgh Council Port of Bello park bill. The argument that is rushed through is one that people can make, but when I compare it to other bills, I am not sure that one stands up. In terms of the idea of lack of scrutiny, again I did not sit through the evidence session, so I think that the objectors are quite valid to put those points forward. Again, I am looking at the official report of at least some of those evidence sessions, given the number of evidence sessions that took place over the 14 months, and indeed some of the length of those evidence sessions. Again, it does not strike me as particularly different from other bills that have gone through that have been looked at by other committees. I think that Kezia Dugdale touched on the issue, but I will close on this. In terms of setting a precedent—again, I am not convinced that it does set a precedent—it is very tightly defined in terms of the co-ordinates within Port of Bello park. I think that the idea that lots of council would be able to again bring private bills to this chamber would be unlikely. I think that you would reach capacity issues for a start within the Parliament. For those reasons, I do not think that it does set a precedent. As I said, I will be supporting the bill at come decision time. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I rise to speak as a member of the committee that looked at this private bill. I want to concentrate my remarks on reassuring MSPs in the chamber and those who are following the debate in their offices. Given the number of emails that they have received and many of their assertions that have been made in them, I would like to reassure all members that, when they come to vote this afternoon at 4.45, that the committee conducted itself in an exemplary fashion. Having been the convener of a previous private bill committee, the National Trust for Scotland private bill committee, I understand how private bill committees have to conduct themselves. The committee conducted itself in an exemplary fashion. All submissions from all parties were carefully considered by all members of the committee at length and in great detail. When the committee needed clarification, it asked for it from all parties, whether they were objectors or promoters. As some of the other members who have talked in the debate have said, we added an extra meeting in to ensure that witnesses got as much time as possible to give the evidence that they thought this committee had to hear. Indeed, one extra meeting was put in that met at half-past date in the morning to ensure that we had a timetable that should have meant that we did not have to curtail any witness giving evidence. We had the timetable and we had the time if the witnesses could have stuck to that. Also, as the convener has said, we issued two reports at the end of our deliberations at preliminary stage and at consideration stage, not something that is always done by a private bill committee. At all points, in this process and at all meetings of this committee, every member took their duties seriously and worked accordingly. The convener did not have an easy job. In her opening statement, she gave her thanks to the other committee members, to the clerks and the parliamentary officers who supported us. I am sure that I am speaking on behalf of my other committee members in thanking the convener for helping us through this long process. However, I would also like to record my thanks to the clerks and the parliamentary officers for the support that they gave us in coming to a clear understanding of the process that we were going through and the decision that we reached. One of the assertions that has been in the emails that I would particularly like to address is that, at the preliminary stage and today, there was a whip to vote on that. You know that I am a member of the Standards Procedures and Public Appointments Committee of this Parliament, and I take that role as seriously as I did my role on this private bill committee. Further to that, I am also the senior Government whip. I want to make it absolutely clear that, neither at the preliminary stage nor at the final stage today, was this party in any way quipped or influenced so that the individual members of the Scottish National Party will make their vote today based on their consideration of the reports of this committee that were done with care and with due consideration. I would like to say to my fellow MSPs that they can be confident in the reports of this committee that everything was robustly examined and that those reports will be an excellent way of supporting evidence in aiding each individual member of this Parliament to make their decision today on whether the bill should proceed to conclusion. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The very nature of the private bill process, in that it rightly gives objectors a proper process for their views to be heard, tends to emphasise the negative. After months of considering objections, members of the committee would be forgiven for thinking that no-one supported the council taking this course of action. Kezia Dugdale's speech this afternoon was very welcome in reminding those of us in the chamber of just how much support in the community there is for this course of action. All members will have received emails and some other members have already referred to that over the last week from objectors urging them to vote against the bill today. In those emails, objectors claim that the bill has not been properly scrutinised, evidence has been ignored and objections have been dismissed without even being heard. Others complain that the bill is being rushed through and some suggest that the outcome of the bill process was agreed before it even started. As a member of the committee who has invested countless hours in the process over the past 13 months, I completely refute those claims. I believe that all members of the committee carried out their duties objectively and conscientiously. We set out our views in very detailed way in two separate reports—the preliminary stage report and our consideration stage report—and it is appropriate at this point to take the opportunity to thank the clerks who have supported us in this process. The bill was introduced in April 2013 and the committee has been dealing with the consideration stage of the bill since January. That is hardly rushing at it. The procedures followed by the committee ensured that the promoter and objectors had a fair opportunity to have the respective cases presented. I think that it is worth emphasising that, because objections were not upheld by the committee, that does not in any way reflect that the committee did not take into account all of the concerns that were put forward in the objections. Indeed, the committee considered the issues raised in a number of ways, through the consideration of individual objections themselves, by giving every objector the opportunity to submit supplementary written evidence at consideration stage and by ensuring that every objector had the opportunity to be represented by a lead objector at oral evidence stage sessions. In a number of areas, the committee acknowledged or accepted that it was possible that there could be a detrimental effect on objector's private interests as a result of the construction of the school. For example, we accepted that it would inevitably be some adverse impact from operational disturbance while the school was being constructed and also thereafter. However, we were also satisfied that that had been subject to the planning process and that measures would be implemented to mitigate any such impact. Our role as a private bill committee was to reach a view on the extent to which an individual's private interests would be affected and the extent to which that was balanced by the general benefit to the wider community as a result of the school being built. We ultimately concluded, as the convener has said, that taking account of factors such as the compensatory and mitigation measures that would be implemented, the general benefits that would be brought to the community as a result of the proposal were more significant than the private interests of those who might be adversely affected. As the convener has already explained, only one amendment was lodged during phase 2 by myself and it was agreed unanimously. Clause 2A of the now revised bill ensures that, having changed the status of the park for the limited purposes in question, should that use cease, then the inalienable common good status would reapply automatically and it provides safeguards for any future use of the land and protects its inalienable common good status in circumstances where the land is no longer used for an educational purpose or indeed if it is not actually taken up for that in the first instance. In closing, it is worth remarking on the apparently polarised positions of the parties involved with this private bill. There is clearly much to be done by the council to rebuild trust within some sections of the community. There is an opportunity to do that in taking forward the replacement open space. Getting everyone involved to shape the exact nature of that provision could be a way to bring the different factions together around a positive outcome for the community. If the bill is passed today and I for one will be supporting it, I really do hope that the energy and the determination that objectors have so far spent on trying to prevent the school being built on the park perfectly legitimately is now harnessed to ensure that the community of Portobello does get the school that it so badly needs. Many thanks. I now call on Alison Johnstone, after which I will move to the closing speeches. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Firstly, I would like to note my interests as a City of Edinburgh councillor from 2007 to 2011, a current Lothians MSP and a board member of Fields and Trust. I, too, would like to thank the members of the committee and the clerks who supported them in their deliberations. As an Edinburgh councillor, I visited Portobello school and, frankly, was appalled by the condition of the building. Learning and teaching in this poorly designed and poorly maintained building is needlessly challenging. If Portobello school had been properly designed in the first place and a meaningful life cycle maintenance budget allocated, we might not be here today. I know that those who oppose building on the park also wholeheartedly agree that Portobello does need a new high school. Passions have run high in this debate because our parks and our schools are among our most precious, our most important community assets, and this is a community that cares deeply about those assets. City of Edinburgh councillor obtained advice from senior council in 2008 that advised them to seek the court's permission to appropriate Portobello park before taking any action. However, that expert advice was not made known, and it has only come to light as a result of a freedom of information request. The council should have established without a shadow of a doubt that it could build on the park. Offers to share costs to do so weren't taken up, and this on-going lack of clarity lengthened the debate around the future of the school and the park by some years. We are now years down the line, and we must ensure the best possible outcome for the entire community. My amendment committing the City of Edinburgh council to provide an area of replacement park land for that lost if the bill is enacted wasn't selected for debate this afternoon, but you can see it in Tuesday's business bulletin. The people of Portobello want and need a new high school, somewhere that their young people can flourish and learn, and the people of Portobello also need certainty that their environment and their quality of life won't be diminished. I fully understand why there are community concerns around this issue as the City of Edinburgh council has changed its mind previously regarding the provision of replacement open space and making part of the bill's provisions would provide greater protection and recognition at a national level. That said, green councillors in City of Edinburgh council, via an addendum lodged, have ensured that the council will secure the replacement park with fields and trust status. I sit on the Fields and Trust Scotland board, as I mentioned, and I am reassured that the protection is formally in process with the City of Edinburgh council, both for the golf course at Portobello park and for the new open area where the school currently stands. It's worth noting that there's been no challenge to any site protected by Fields and Trust since they were formed in the 1920s, and they have always successfully negotiated for appropriate replacement provision in cases where councils have approached them. I will be supporting the bill at this final stage. Despite not being part of the bill's provisions, there are assurances in place for the replacement park, and I also welcome the consideration stage amendment from Alison McInnes on protecting the land's legal status should it cease to be used for education. There are lessons to be learned from this experience and process, not least about how we design our schools in the first place. Are we seriously maintaining them? Are we putting funds aside to make sure that they don't deteriorate to the state that Portobello finds itself in? In closing, I look forward to the arrival of a school that pupils in Portobello deserve, a school that the community can be proud of. I look forward to the provision of quality open space that will genuinely enhance the quality of life and people in Portobello. I do hope that, in the future, the community can regain the cohesion that makes Portobello such a special place to live in. I think that this has been a pretty constructive debate, and I was struck by the contributions of a number of members throughout the course of the debate. Fiona McLeod gave her experience of previously chairing a private bill committee, so she has something, I think, directly comparable. Perhaps that bill was a little less contentious, but nonetheless, I think that she has experience in that particular part of legislation. I think that she also carefully explained the way in which the committee had worked and tried to take into account all of the competing interests, whether that be accepting all supplementary evidence in a written form, whether it is organising an extra meeting and whether it is changing the hours that are planned for meetings to try and make sure that all witnesses are able to give everything that they want to say and to put it out there on the table. I was struck also by the contribution from Alison McInnes, and one of her comments in particular, she said, just because you do not uphold a complaint does not mean that you have not taken it into account. Objectors to the bill in certainly reading the consideration stage report may well feel that the committee did not consider things because none of the complaints were upheld in their entirety. In a number of occasions, and a number of speakers have pointed out, the committee did acknowledge where there were disadvantages. The committee carefully also then laid out why it felt that the complaint should not be upheld because the disadvantages that it acknowledged were superseded by advantages that were brought forward by doing that, too. Alison McInnes also said, I think, quite rightly that the council does have a job to do here. It is not just the job of building a school, it is the job of rebuilding trust throughout the community. I think that all most contributors have acknowledged that certain parts of the process by the council, while potentially described as adequate, were not what they should have been and not to the standard that I think people were entitled to expect, and they have to learn lessons from that going forward. Alison Johnstone touched on a really important issue, too. She was appalled by the conditions at Portobello High School. This is a school that has thrived, but a school that, perhaps, the original design was flawed, perhaps, and maintenance has not been what it ought to have been. Despite all that, a school that has succeeded enormously, and that is a real tribute to the students, to the teachers and to the parents of those students, too. However, if thinking about the success of that school and the conditions in which it has had to operate, imagine what that school would be capable of achieving were it to have a building and were it to have the facilities that it deserves and merits. I think that that is one of the reasons why there is wide support for the bill. In terms of the emails that we will have had over the past week or two, we have had very few, if any, from those in support of the bill, but I think that one of the contributions made in an email made it clear that there was a deliberate attempt not to send emails to MSPs from those in favour of the bill. There was one email on behalf of everybody who was in favour of the bill, but certainly in terms of the consultation, certainly in terms of the public meetings, it is pretty clear to me that there is a majority and quite a substantial majority in favour of the bill and has more support. In closing, the committee said that it attempted to achieve a fair balance between the competing interests of those adversely affected and the benefits to the wider community. I think that it looked at it very carefully, I think that it did take complaints into account and I think that it decided on balance without division that the bill ought to be passed and the bill ought to proceed and that it felt that the benefits to the wider community were greater. On that basis, it felt that it ought to go forward. Again, as I indicated earlier, on that basis, I will be supporting the bill at come decision time. It is, of course, our last day of term. Instead of getting the board games out, we are discussing a very important issue. I think that it is worth recognising how full the gallery is and I would like to welcome a number of community councillors who are in the gallery this afternoon, the chair of the P-Fans campaign and a number of P-Fans members. My Labour colleagues Joan Griffiths and Maureen Child who are both councillors for the school catchment area and I have also seen the outstanding head teacher Peggy MacArthur in the gallery. There are many other local residents in the gallery and watching online. Perhaps they are watching the debate through the top 40 Twitter account or through the Facebook page for Portobello for a new high school on the park, which has over two and a half thousand followers. That is a real community spirit evidence and support for the school on the park. In the preliminary stage debate that I shared with the chamber, the story of Jesse, whose mum and dad I had met whilst chopping doors in the area, Jesse challenged me to take a tour of the school with her and I did that, recognising how important it was to see the school through the eyes of the child. Jesse was in primary 2 at Tower Bank Primary School when she was first promised a new school. She will most likely leave Portobello High School with a complete set of hires in the current building. She spent an educational lifetime waiting for a new school and it will likely pass her by. She has had a first-class education at Portobello High School though. Every failing of the building overcompensated by the determination of the staff to deliver that first-class education. I would like to pay tribute to the head teacher Peggy MacArthur for leading the school, a school pounding with life, culture, sport and opportunity. She has never let the achievements of the school be overshadowed by the challenges of the building and for that she must be commended. I was last in the school last week to see the school show Schools Will Rock You and I was blown away by the talent of the pupils and the dedication of the staff involved in that production. However, there was a sense of make, do and mend—lots of plugs for the equipment, all jammed into the one place, the windows blacked out. I contrasted that with another visit to a school that I had last week in Dunfermline, the new Dunfermline High School, where they have a dedicated theatre space in the school with all the rigging and all the fancy stuff that many of Edinburgh festival theatre venues would be envious of. Dunfermline High School also has dedicated 3G pitches. Of the bus trip that the schools take at Portobello High School to get to the Jack Cain Centre for PE, the provision for PE is so poor at Portobello. It has a special dispensation for the two hours of PE target and they have had it for years. I look at the bright, airy, spacious school in Dunfermline and contrast it with the stairwells at Portobello, which are so cramped and fraught. Timetabling of classes at the school are attributed around the traffic in the stairwells to minimise the amount of time the kids spend walking through the stairwells from class to class. I am not envious of Dunfermline High School or jealous. I am proud of it. I am proud that we have a school that fits the ambitions of the pupils and the teachers of that school. I want it for everyone. I want it for Portobello. I want a first-class community school despite its building, not because of it. A new school will be a community asset, and in my view—in the view of a number of members in the chamber—an enriching one. However, going back to that report, it is not a black and white report. The consultation was not perfect. The committee report recognises that, but, as it says, the committee does not consider that any shortcomings identified in the consultation process are sufficient to sustain any objection regarding the consultation's adequacy. It is back to the concept of proportionality. It is not a question of whether the consultation was flawed, but whether any flaws were considered serious enough. The same goes to the minor loss of green space, views or house prices—never a question of the validity of those arguments, but whether they constitute enough of a reason to block the school on the park. You have to look at the conclusion of the report. It is quite unusual comment for a committee to note how polarised the parties involved in this bill are, and Alison McInnes made that point. There is a strong message from the committee to the community to find a way through this. If we think that the referendum debate is fractious and divisive, it has nothing on the debate around the school and the community. I hope that the journey towards reconciliation and the future will start today with a vote of this Parliament in favour of the school on the park. With that, I understand that the shovels could be in the ground as soon as September, and a new school could be ready for the start of the 2016 term. I hope that that is an ambition that we can all realise today. Thank you very much. I now call on Minister Derek Mackay up seven minutes or thereby minister. Thank you, Presiding Officer, which is something of a challenge when you have to remain neutral throughout the debate, as is the case with those matters, but I absolutely do my best. I think that this has been a very consensual and constructive debate and focused on a number of areas. First and foremost, it surely has to be the consideration of the pupils who are being educated in the building. It is clearly no longer fit for purpose, and finding a solution for that has been central to everyone's considerations. It would be remiss of me not to remind the chamber of the new monies made available in terms of the announcement earlier today, just to make the point that further new investment will go into Scotland's school estate in partnership with local authorities. The issue was not necessarily about resourcing but options available to move forward in terms of that new site. Siobhan MacMahon's contribution was excellent in going into great depth on the factors and the issues involved and how we have to separate out all the different considerations that are relevant for a planning authority or different to how a council considers its estate management issues, as well as legal status involved. Of course, at no point dismissed objections and views, but balances them out and essentially takes a decision. In that respect, calls for enhancing the legislation around common good—I believe that we will do that—through the Community Empowerment Scotland Bill, but it will not be a wholesale revisiting of common good legislation, because that, in itself, I fear, would create so many unintended consequences. We are trying to rewrite hundreds of years of history of legislation, but absolutely greater transparency and community involvement will feature in that bill in terms of common good assets, which run to hundreds of millions of pounds across Scotland. I should say that there were those in the state, for example local authorities that say that common good funds are overly bureaucratic and that they should just be wound up and rolled into mainstream council funding. I have decided that that is not the appropriate approach to take the R community's inheritance, and there should be a degree of protection. That is also why all members have been right to point out that that does not set a legal precedent—a new way, a new channel—for adjusting common good funds. Any council would have to go through this process to achieve this outcome. I have to restate that from the point of view of the Government. Like Gavin Brown and others, I do not see a great rush from local authorities to come to the Scottish Parliament to get similar legislation, even where they have the aspiration to conduct similar exercise. In terms of Kezia Dugdale's point, I think that the quality of education being central is a thorough approach, delving into the detail, robust consideration and determined to make this work. Kezia Dugdale said that the Labour Party was not whitting the Fiona McLeod instructed and reminded us that neither a SNP member is whitting, and I do not think that any party has whitted their members. It is the same for the Liberal Democrats and the two Greens. I think that it is the case that members are free to vote with their head and their heart. Of course, on this one, without any precedent, Kezia Dugdale once again reminded us a very human story of why the new school is so necessary. Gavin Brown pointed out why it is a very difficult task. It has been a contentious issue. Just like the planning system, this is about balancing out different interests in coming to the conclusion that is right in terms of public benefit and overall benefit. I also covered the issue of timescales in the bill as well, ensuring that it has had careful consideration. Fiona McLeod pointed out again that all submissions have been very carefully considered. That is what we would expect from committee work. She reminded us that convener does not have an easy job. Will I tell you when your minister for local government and planning is responsible for all decisions? It can be difficult when balancing out all the different issues, as the member knows, but at some point we have to reach a decision and then justify those decisions. Alison McInnes reminds us of the support that exists in terms of the bill, as well as the views of the objectors and how the planning process sets into place conditions that are necessary and relevant in any planning application, specifically the bill. Of course, the clause 2A amendment provides the safeguards around future use, which was a key concern for many of the objectors and residents. Similar to a number of members' hopes, the progression of the issue, whatever the outcome from this day on, can build bridges and reconnect, including the city of Edinburgh Council and how it engages with the community going forward, whatever the outcome of today's vote. Alison Johnstone covered the condition of the building and getting the best possible outcome. I have to say that, as a sometimes critic of Edinburgh City Council, I note that you have also expressed a clear view on the outcome of the bill. With your green credentials, you will pursue the issue of open space as well, which was made loud and clear. In terms of common good, filler and enhancing of the transparency and community involvement there, general ongoing investment in the school programme, it will be for members to choose and decide on hearing the arguments, not just today but throughout the course of the last year, what they think the right thing to do is. Today is the day that we make a decision and then we move on, focusing on all the different interests that have been played out. All I can say in terms of the correspondence that I received. Sometimes very strong campaigns are delivered to us as constituency MSPs, ministers, Government and individual parties, but we have to decide on what is right, not necessarily just in a basic numerical game, but how we have considered all the different factors to come to the right conclusion. I will say that, even if it is inappropriate for me to do so, on the issue of listening to the debate, the deliberations that we have heard and the information that has been shared, whatever members choose to do today, I believe that every member who has spoken and expressed such a well-informed opinion, our collective integrity is above question in this matter, because what we have put first and foremost in our mind is a fair process, an equitable hearing, pursuing the rights and the interests of individuals, as well as general public good. In that sense, I think that it has been a very constructive debate, taking us forward to the conclusion of the bill and then the vote where members will choose what they think the right decision is for Portability High School and the bill that is being presented to us. I now call on James Dornan to wind up the debate. Mr Dornan, if you could continue to 444, I would be much obliged. I would like to start off by supporting the motion in the name of the convener and thanking my fellow committee members and those who have taken part in the debate today. As has already been mentioned, this has been a lengthy process taking over a year. We have held 14 meetings, including six or 11 sessions, to reach this point. I do not intend to rehearse everything that happened at the preliminary stage. We have already had that debate and the convener is referred to in her contribution this afternoon. Following a substantial amount of written evidence and having heard oral evidence from the promoter, supporters and objectors, the committee recommended and the Parliament subsequently agreed the general principles of the bill and that it should proceed as a private bill, which takes us to consideration stage. With 59 objections outstanding, the committee considered long and hard what might be the best approach to scrutiny at that stage. The convener has already outlined her approach to grouping objections. It may be worth noting in that respect that, given the issues raised in the majority objections were the same or similar, the committee might have divided objections into just two, perhaps three groups. We consciously avoided that in the reasonable expectation that objectors living in different parts of the area around the park might envisage different degrees of adverse effect in respect of loss of immunity or traffic concerns, for example. In order to maximise the opportunity for evidence, we agreed to six groups to ensure that all objectors had an increased opportunity to have their say. To further facilitate evidence from objectors, we also accommodated requests from objector groups to reschedule their proposed evidence sessions. Objections covered a range of issues, from loss of immunity to traffic and road safety issues and visual impact. I will touch briefly on some of the points in the time that I have available, but we will note at this point that having considered all the written and oral evidence presented to us by the objectors and their responses and commitments received from the promoter in relation to compensatory and mitigation measures, the committee reached the view that the adverse effect and private interests of individuals, i.e. the objectors, was outweighed by the benefits that the enactment of the bill and subsequent construction of the new school would bring to the local community. As has already been mentioned by others, we have discussed another concern presented by the objectors that this bill will create a precedent for other local authorities to follow suit and try to introduce bills that will have an impact in common good land in that area. That has been considered throughout the process and we are main of the view that this bill does not create a precedent as it relates solely to a particular area of land in a particular part of a particular city in Scotland. Any bills covering common good land elsewhere would of course require to be considered on their own merits and circumstances. The convener has referred to the compensatory measure of the creation of an area of replacement open space at the site of the current school. I note that an amendment was lodged by Alison Johnstone, as was discussed earlier, the effect of which would have been to bind the City of Edinburgh council to provide such replacement open space by including this in the bill. I would echo the convener's point though that the committee was also keen to ensure that the council provided such space and we are satisfied with promoter's commitment in this respect. For example, we note the full council's commitment in 2012 to make provision for replacement part land slash green space to be used for social and recreational purposes and that those purposes be safeguarded by fields and trust status. We know also in March 2013 that the council agreed to refer the question regarding the most appropriate use of that new open space within the parameters of social and recreational purposes to a local neighbourhood partnership for consultation. Finally, in written evidence to the committee on 26 March, it was stated that the promoter's letter of 31 January 2014 confirmed the commitment to securing the area of replacement open space, offered to provide a further express undertaking to the committee to that effect and summarised the intention to secure fields and trust. On 6 February 2014, the council's elected members unanimously approved giving fields and trust a written undertaking to the effects that both the replacement open space and the remaining area of open space on the park will be dedicated as fields and trust. Presiding Officer, let me now provide a flavour of some of the objector's concerns. As I mentioned previously, a number of the groups had predominantly the same or similar concerns, such as a loss of immunity and visual and environmental impact, but, as the convener noted earlier, when objectors were invited by the promoter to put forward any ideas that might mitigate their concerns in those areas, they argued only that the school should be built elsewhere. The vast majority of objectors argued that they would be losing a significant immunity, which would impact on a variety of recreational activities if the park was appropriated for the council's education functions. They supported that argument by suggesting that the loss of green space would have a negative impact on their health and wellbeing. The committee acknowledged that the loss of the park would represent a degree of loss of green space and recognised the general health benefits to be derived from such spaces. However, we noted that there were other parkland areas in Portobello. We also recognised, as we had done at preliminary stage, that, should the park be built on, there were planned compensatory measures in terms of replacement open space. We were content that issues of loss of immunity did not outweigh the benefits to the community of a new school in the park. Particularly when considering the local community will, we are appropriate to have access to the sports leisure facilities that are proposed to go with the school. Objectors expressed concerns about the visual impact of the development, including loss of views, the height of the building and ffensing. In response, the promoter argued that the visual impact had been taken into account as part of the planning process. One moment, Mr Dornan. Can members just settle down, particularly those who are just coming into the chamber and let us hear Mr Dornan to his conclusion at 4.44? Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. With, for example, the building being designed so as to retain views of Arthur Seat and the majority of ffenses being low and integrated with inboundary planning, it was confirmed that the new football pitches would be floodlit, but the lighting would be designed to not spill out to neighbouring houses and planning consent was subject to the hours of use of the pitches being restricted. Objectors maintained that the development of the park would lead to a loss of wildlife and the removal of trees, which would cause a loss of habitat for birds and wildlife. The committee recognised those and other environmental impacts, which would result from the development, but were satisfied with the promoter's references to compensation measures, which would include additional planting and a condition to the planning permission requiring a detailed landscape and habitat management plan. Objectors who did not live in the immediate vicinity of Portobello Park or who did not live in Edinburgh at all were included in one group. Their concerns related primarily to issues that were covered at preliminary stage, the role of Parliament legislating subsequent to a court of session ruling, the precedent argument and alternative sites, but they also had some concerns regarding loss of immunity. The committee took the view that, while those objectives might experience some loss of immunity, it was clearly not at the same level as that, potentially experienced by objectors in the immediate ar