Scottish Parliament, 9 February 2012

364 contributions from 84 members. The official report.

Review of Teacher Employment

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Good morning. The first item of business is a statement by Michael Russell on the review of teacher employment. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

It is often said that the quality of a nation’s education system is matched by the quality of its teachers. Scotland has a good education system that is supported by a high-quality teaching profession. At the outset, I commend the hard work of the tens of thousands of professional and dedicated teachers across Scotland.

Last month, the Parliament discussed improving learning outcomes. We recognised that a high-performing early years and school system is the single biggest tool to improve the employability and life chances of our young people. It is therefore right that we recognise the achievements of our teachers and pupils. At the same time, we need to be constantly ambitious for our education system. There is always scope for improvement, and we face the continuing challenge of working to reduce inequalities in our society, especially given the current economic climate, and of ensuring that our children and young people gain the skills and knowledge to enable them to thrive in a rapidly changing world.

The case for driving up the quality of teaching is compelling. A study that the American National Bureau of Economic Research recently published highlighted the fact that there is a clear relationship between the quality of teaching that a child receives and how much they earn and how well they get on socially in later life. The study, which was undertaken by leading educationists from Harvard and Columbia Universities, concluded that every parent should

“place great value on having their child in the classroom of a high value-added teacher”.

In his report, “Teaching Scotland’s Future”, which was published in January 2011, Graham Donaldson said that

“the foundations of successful education lie in the quality of teachers and their leadership. High quality people achieve high quality outcomes”.

I share his belief in the fundamental role of teachers in shaping and delivering the learning outcomes that we all want to see. That is why I commissioned his groundbreaking report, which has challenged us to examine the way in which we train, develop and support our teachers.

“Teaching Scotland’s Future” offers us the opportunity to reinvigorate the concept of teacher professionalism. That opportunity was welcomed across the Parliament. In response, I established the national partnership group, which brings together the Government, universities, local authorities, the General Teaching Council for Scotland, teachers and other stakeholders to deliver the positive changes that we all want to see.

However, driving up the quality of teaching through improved training and development is only one part of the equation. Highly trained, highly skilled professionals require modern, flexible terms and conditions that will allow them to deliver the best possible education for our children. That is why I commissioned the independent review of teacher employment, which Professor Gerry McCormac led. I thank him and the six members of his review team for the work that they undertook in completing the important and unanimously agreed report, “Advancing Professionalism in Teaching: The Report of the Review of Teacher Employment in Scotland”, which was published in September last year.

Since the report’s publication, I have been considering its messages and I have taken time to discuss the recommendations with education partners. Teachers, employers, trade unions and parents hold strong views about the issues that the review raised. It is right that, like Graham Donaldson’s review, Professor McCormac’s review acknowledges the strengths of Scotland’s education system but also highlights the challenges that we face. They are not challenges that we can ignore—that would not deliver the Parliament’s aspirations for improved outcomes.

The review builds on our current system’s strengths, including the arrangements that we have in place for negotiating changes to teachers’ terms and conditions. The review endorsed the Scottish negotiating committee for teachers and the local negotiating committees for teachers. The recommendations that relate to teachers’ terms and conditions are therefore rightly the responsibility of the Scottish negotiating committee for teachers. I am happy that the SNCT has agreed a work plan, which includes a clear timetable, and has established working groups to consider those recommendations.

Those issues are for the SNCT to discuss. I know that some of the discussions will be challenging, but at all times we must focus on how we support our teachers to maintain and build expertise, so that our education system can continue to deliver excellent outcomes for our children and young people. I assure members that the Scottish Government will play a full part in SNCT discussions to help realise positive change.

However, there are a number of recommendations that fall outwith the SNCT’s remit and, following engagement with key education stakeholders, I want to set out how those will be taken forward. Perhaps the most challenging of them is McCormac’s clear recommendation that the chartered teacher scheme should be discontinued. This is not a debate about the importance of continuing professional development or professionalism in our teaching profession. Through the national partnership group, we are already committed to delivering an enhanced model of professionalism for all teachers. Specifically, I have tasked the partnership group with considering how to deliver opportunities for teachers to work towards masters-level qualifications.

There are many excellent chartered teachers in schools across Scotland, but I am not convinced that the chartered teacher scheme remains the best model to provide the teaching profession with opportunities to improve and develop. We must do more, not least because the aspirations that prompted the creation of the chartered teacher scheme remain and, indeed, have been reinvigorated by Graham Donaldson’s report. This is an opportunity for us to design and develop frameworks that help us to move towards highly successful models of teaching that are seen elsewhere in the world, thereby encouraging a thirst for knowledge and intellectual ambition in the profession that will deliver improved outcomes for our children and young people.

We should aspire to a vision of teaching as a masters-level profession, and we should do so, first, by building on the chartered teacher scheme. It provides us with the opportunity to make a masters profession a reality. Moreover, chartered teachers and those who are in the process of becoming chartered teachers should be, and now will be, among the first to access these opportunities. In developing a masters-level profession, we will ensure that existing chartered teachers and those who are in the process of becoming chartered teachers are given credit for relevant professional development that they have already completed or are currently undertaking, and are encouraged to be the pathfinders in that process.

Although terms and conditions are rightly the responsibility of the SNCT, I want to assure chartered teachers and those who are working towards that standard that the Scottish Government, through our role with the SNCT, will work to recognise their position and their commitment in moving towards a masters qualification.

Raising standards across the board is ambitious, and rightly so—we should be ambitious. There will be many issues to consider in developing the proposals. I am sure that they can and will be understood by moving forward in the way that I suggest. I have therefore asked Education Scotland to work closely with key education stakeholders, including the Association of Chartered Teachers Scotland, the national partnership group and the GTCS, to take the issue forward, first with existing chartered teachers and those who are working towards that status.

Teacher training and development are not just about the acquisition of qualifications. We need to embed such developments in our induction-year activities and continuing professional development. Professor McCormac recommends that a new system of professional review and personal development—PRPD—should be introduced. I welcome that approach. Although there is an existing system of professional review and development, we know from Graham Donaldson’s review of teacher education that that system is applied inconsistently across the country. I believe that all teachers should be entitled to a structured opportunity to review their work and plan their development.

The ideas behind the recommendations are not new. McCormac’s recommendations on personal development echo those that McCrone made more than 10 years ago. The McCrone inquiry recommended the creation of an effective annual review process. It is time that Scottish education took that forward.

All professionals require the opportunity to reflect on how they go about their work. Teaching is no different, and if we are to achieve a strong, confident and reflective workforce, concepts such as professional review and personal development should be embraced, not rejected. Such ideas provide an opportunity to strengthen teaching as a whole.

The national partnership group is already looking at related issues as it considers the recommendations of “Teaching Scotland’s Future”. Equally, the GTCS is developing a system of professional update to help ensure that Scotland’s teachers maintain and develop their skills. I have therefore asked the national partnership group to work with the GTCS in considering the recommendations of McCormac that relate to professional development.

Finally, I want to address the issue, as Professor McCormac did, of how we use external experts in our schools. In keeping with the principles of curriculum for excellence, I am committed to helping to ensure that our children receive a broad education that suits their needs. We know that many schools have already created partnerships with universities, colleges, local employers or third sector and community groups. Such partnerships are to be welcomed. I am convinced that if we are to build a varied, pupil-centred education for all children and young people, it will be necessary for our schools and teachers to draw on a wide range of resources, including resources that might currently not be available.

Although there is broad agreement about those positive opportunities, there are also concerns. I have listened to stakeholder opinion on the issue, and I want to move forward with a measured approach. To start the process, I have asked Education Scotland to consider the current arrangements, to identify best practice and to recommend whether further safeguards or guidance are required.

To be clear, this work is not about replacing teachers or diluting their position at the centre of learning. Teaching should be done by teachers. Nor is it about finding ways in which savings could be made from local authority budgets. Indeed, I am explicitly ruling out the model that is proposed by Renfrewshire Council, or variants of it. Instead, I want to build on existing good practice.

In taking forward the McCormac recommendations, there is a great deal of hard and detailed work to be done. I do not want to rush what will be sensitive discussions, but equally I want progress to be made by all the working groups, including the SNCT, by the autumn of this year. Ultimately, I expect a new teachers agreement by April 2013, which will allow any new arrangements to be in place for the new school session that starts in August 2013.

As ever, the stakes are high. Scotland’s young people deserve to receive the best possible education. They deserve a flexible curriculum that is responsive to their needs as learners, and curriculum for excellence is delivering that. They also deserve to be taught by skilled and motivated teachers who are supported by the right terms and conditions. Our work in taking forward the recommendations of “Teaching Scotland’s Future” and “Advancing Professionalism in Teaching” will help to deliver that aspiration.

If we are to offer the best possible educational experience, these are challenges that we must face together, and I invite all parties to play their part in this agenda for positive change.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Renfrewshire South)

I thank the cabinet secretary for the advance copy of his statement.

The McCrone review was about improving morale in Scottish education, supporting professionalism among teachers and fairly rewarding experience and expertise. The McCormac review, on the other hand, will, I fear, help to destabilise and demoralise the teaching profession. It is a charter for cost-cutting by managers and is an academic fig leaf to allow the Scottish National Party Government to facilitate budget cuts across Scotland, building on previous education betrayals by the SNP, including the pledge to cut class sizes and the pledge to maintain teacher numbers.

I disagree profoundly with the cabinet secretary’s decision to abandon the chartered teacher scheme. I believe that it can be amended and improved, but the concept—that we should find a way of supporting and rewarding excellent teachers who want to remain in the classroom—remains the right one. The cabinet secretary has said nothing about supporting teachers who see that as a preferred career option.

I welcome the cabinet secretary’s rejection of the Renfrewshire Council model of replacing teachers with unqualified staff, and I hope that any suggestion of bringing others into our schools will be based on teacher professionalism, with proper safeguards and checks built in.

I do not oppose the idea of supporting teachers to improve and develop their skills, but does the cabinet secretary recognise that there are fears that there could be an attempt to introduce reaccreditation, and will he rule that out?

The cabinet secretary has said nothing about probationary teachers. Will he rule out any attempts to move away from the current structure on class contact time, and will he guarantee that hours will not be blocked to allow schools to use probationers to cover for absence?

I regret that the cabinet secretary has glossed over the key issues around conditions. Teachers should not have to do continuing professional development during school holidays. We should not casualise promoted posts by having temporary promotions based on the lowest salary point. Will he guarantee that he will not ignore the overwhelming response to McCormac from those who want the retention of annex B, the list of teacher duties, and annex E, the list of teacher tasks?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The idea that a unanimous report from a group as distinguished as the McCormac review group was designed to destabilise and demoralise Scottish education is so ridiculous that it devalues most of the rest of Mr Henry’s contribution. However, let me be positive about what we have announced today.

The move from the chartered teacher scheme to a masters profession fits well with the McCormac report, the Donaldson recommendations and education worldwide. If Mr Henry thinks back to when he was briefly in my job, he will realise that, worldwide, the desire to ensure a masters profession is something that has driven continuous improvement in teaching. The existing chartered teachers and those who are working towards that position are being given an opportunity to enter a masters profession as pathfinders. I think that many will welcome that and that it will, in time, be seen to drive the whole profession forward.

I am happy to give a commitment to the probationary teacher scheme. The fact that I did not mention changes to the scheme means that there will not be significant changes to it. Of course, from time to time there are always changes to any scheme as education moves forward and develops, but the probationary teacher scheme, which is a very important part of our teaching profession—indeed, it is world renowned—will remain in place.

I have been very clear since McCormac reported that we should try to discuss this in a calm and constructive way with all stakeholders. It was important that we did that, and that is why it has taken me several months to get to the stage of bringing my statement to the chamber. I repeat the closing words of that statement and commend them to Mr Henry, even having heard his contribution:

“I invite all parties to play their part in this agenda for positive change.”

If there are positive suggestions about how we could improve our approach, I am happy to listen to them; if, however, suggestions are merely reactionary and backward looking, I am afraid that they will do nothing to help Scotland’s education and Scotland’s young people.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank the cabinet secretary for prior sight of statement and wish him a speedy recovery in restoring his voice to its normal tone.

I want to ask the cabinet secretary about three things. First, he is well aware that some areas of the teaching profession are concerned—whether they are chartered teachers or not—about the fact that chartered teachers do not always have enough time to read up on their subject material given all the other curriculum for excellence and CPD material that they have to get through. How does he envisage the situation improving in the context of the McCormac recommendations?

Secondly, Gerry McCormac is on record as saying that he wants Scotland to look at best practice in other countries, at home and abroad. Apart from looking at the American examples that the cabinet secretary listed, what specific plans are there to make a comprehensive analysis of best practice in other countries?

Thirdly, recommendations 17 and 34 in the McCormac review encourage greater devolution of planning and staffing decisions to head teachers instead of leaving more responsibility with local government. Does the cabinet secretary agree with those recommendations, and if so, why does he feel it appropriate to say, in the context of the section about external experts,

“I am explicitly ruling out the model that is proposed by Renfrewshire Council, or variants of it”?

Irrespective of whether we agree with Renfrewshire Council’s decision, is it the cabinet secretary’s job to make that explicit statement?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I thank Liz Smith for her kind words. I recall that only last Thursday morning she was criticising my tone, so I am glad that absence has made the heart grow fonder.

On CPD, I welcome the constructive tone that Liz Smith has taken, and I hope that she will continue to contribute in that way, because we regard CPD as a very important element. That is demonstrated in many ways in the McCormac report and in what I have said today. We should be moving towards structured CPD that is challenging and leads to a masters-level profession. In other words, we should gather up CPD in a way that leads forward in terms of capability. Of course, Graham Donaldson was a member of the McCormac review, and those ideas are carried through into it. The proposals on professional review and personal development show how seriously we take the issue.

On best practice, the masters is based on a Finnish model that has been applied very successfully. I always look to examples from elsewhere, as does everybody in education. Some we reject. For example, we rejected the Swedish free schools model—which Liz Smith came close to supporting, but which she steered away from—on the grounds that we think that it is incompatible with the Scottish model of education and would not work here. We saw free schools in operation—indeed, we saw the same school as Michael Gove—but drew different conclusions as to how they might work here. I have talked to education ministers and educational practitioners in many different countries, and I will continue to do so. Part of the work that our researchers do in education is to look at examples worldwide to make sure that we understand what is happening elsewhere.

I think that Liz Smith referred to two different things in relation to the Renfrewshire model. As regards responsibility for staffing, before Christmas the Cameron report took forward, with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the idea of devolved school management. Implementation is still being worked on, and I am sure that we will see continued progress.

I say frankly that I think that the Renfrewshire model was wrong and would not work, and that to introduce it now would be a distraction. We need to consider existing good practice. That is what I have encouraged Education Scotland to do, and that will lead us forward in the right way. I think that even in Renfrewshire some people accept that the model was perhaps not the way in which they should have been going forward. To continue to talk about the model would be a distraction.

Marco Biagi (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

The McCormac recommendations have been welcomed by a number of organisations, including the Association of Headteachers and Deputes in Scotland, which also said that time for discussion is needed, to ensure that any changes are successful. Will the cabinet secretary elaborate on the rationale behind the timeline that he briefly outlined in his statement?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Yes. The timeline declares itself, to some extent. The current teaching salary agreement concludes in April 2013. The establishment of the McCormac review was agreed while that agreement was being negotiated and the intention was that the new agreement would be able to be in place around April 2013 or, at the latest, as the school session commences in August 2013.

The timescale is challenging, because there needs to be full discussion, as the member was right to say. Discussion is taking place. There will also be local authority elections on 3 May, and COSLA will perhaps not be fully functioning for a period. I am not putting pressure on people but I think that we should have a target date that all stakeholders recognise and agree to.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

I welcome the cabinet secretary’s explicit ruling out of the model that was proposed by Renfrewshire Council, whereby teachers would be replaced with unqualified staff for 10 per cent of the school week. That is a slap in the face for Renfrewshire Council and the council leader who tried to introduce the model. Will the cabinet secretary give a guarantee to parents and teachers that there will be no dilution whatever in the teaching week in Scottish schools?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

It is not a slap in the face at all. No progress is made in life unless people come up with ideas and discuss them. The ideas either go forward or are rejected. Mr Bibby’s approach flies in the face of evolution; there would be no progress for the human race at all—I think that perhaps that turns out to be true, as I look at the Labour benches.

Of course we will carefully discuss with all stakeholders any changes that are in the McCormac report and we will reach a negotiated agreement and settlement. I have made that point again and again and I could not be clearer about it. The moment when Mr Bibby asks me to hamstring the process is the moment when I say no. We must trust the negotiating skills of the unions, the local authorities and ourselves to try to get the best not just for teachers but for Scotland’s young people.

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

What measures are being taken to ensure that support is available for supply teachers, so that they have an opportunity to continue their professional development?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I have been keen to ensure that supply teachers are in the loop on CPD. Indeed, I have visited and addressed the organisation that is involved in that. I have made it clear on every occasion that supply teachers should be part of the CPD process, and I want that to continue to be the case.

It is important that every part of the teaching profession regards itself as involved in continuing professional development and a process of learning. Leaders of learning must themselves learn all the time. That is essential, and I am sure that no one in the teaching profession doubts it. We are trying to lay down an opportunity for that to happen in a structured fashion that produces real progress. Like all other teachers, including teachers who are temporarily out of the profession, supply teachers should have the opportunity to continue to update their skills.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

Supply teachers would like a job first, before they do any CPD.

Given the uncertainty and confusion about the new curriculum, and given the absence of comment on tasks and flexibility of hours in his statement, will the cabinet secretary give teachers some idea of his thinking on those important issues? Maybe it is the man flu, but he is never usually so backward in giving his opinion.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I share Mr Findlay’s concern on the supply teacher issue, which I keep constantly under review. As Mr Findlay knows, local authorities make decisions all the time on how they should take forward those agreements. Indeed, I understand that the budget that Mr Findlay voted for, which was proposed by his council group in West Lothian, included savings on supply teachers. That perhaps indicates that, as the First Minister has pointed out, Mr Findlay has one position for Mr Findlay MSP and one for Mr Findlay as a councillor.

The issue of supply teachers continues to cause concern. We examine closely areas where there are shortages. I am waiting for information on where those shortages are and we will take the necessary action.

However, it is important that we take forward the issues in negotiation. Mr Findlay knows that payments for supply teachers were part of the negotiated settlement last year that was agreed to by the Educational Institute of Scotland and taken through the SNCT process, and therefore finalised by all parties. As it was agreed to, it can be returned to if any of the parties wish to return to it, and then there will be a formal negotiation. However, let us get the evidence first, rather than treating the issue as a campaigning cause with nothing other than political advantage in mind.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of his statement and empathise with his struggle against the man flu.

I associate myself entirely with the cabinet secretary’s comments about the importance of high-quality teaching to the success of our education system. He seems to accept that the need that gave rise to the creation of the chartered teacher scheme still exists and that such teachers add value. Why, then, is he unwilling to develop and enhance the existing scheme and would rather rip it up and start again?

The cabinet secretary has accepted the valuable contribution that external experts can and do make, but states that

“Teaching should be done by teachers.”

We know that he rejects the Renfrewshire model, but can he be a little more precise on what he presumably sees as the non-teaching role that those external experts can perform?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

On the second point, I have asked Education Scotland to look at existing best practice, and that will take us forward.

I stress that my statement was absolutely clear on the chartered teacher scheme. I am not ripping it up and starting again. I went out of my way to say how important the scheme had been for its time but that we needed to move on and do more. I said that we could add to the scheme by moving to a masters-level profession and that the people best able to take us there were existing chartered teachers and those who were training to be chartered teachers. I expressed my support for them and opened that opportunity up to them. The member’s question was based on a false premise, and I hope that he will accept that he got that part wrong.

Roderick Campbell (Scottish National Party, North East Fife)

The cabinet secretary said in his statement that chartered teachers should be among the first to access the new professional development opportunities. What specific assurances can he give teachers who invested a great deal of time and effort in achieving chartered status that they will be able to use any new arrangement to build on the recognition that they currently enjoy through the scheme? In effect, what flesh can we put on the bones of the word “credit”?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I am sure that Mr Campbell wants to rely on my word; others in the chamber apparently have difficulty in so doing.

I made it clear in my statement that those who are chartered teachers and those who are in the process of becoming chartered teachers are encouraged to be the pathfinders in the move towards masters degrees. I indicated that they would be given credit for previous work done; indeed, I have met and made that point to the Association of Chartered Teachers Scotland, and my officials will continue to have those discussions. It is my intention that chartered teachers be given every opportunity to continue their progress and be supported in the work that they have done and will continue to do in their new role.

Joan McAlpine (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

Will the approach outlined by the cabinet secretary today impact on the education of teachers at university level? If so, will he tell us what arrangements have been made to take that forward?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I indicated in my statement that universities were a key partner in every part of this. Discussions are taking place with the universities as partners—for example, in the partnership group—so that they can participate fully. The masters will have to be supervised and delivered at university level, and discussions are under way on how that might take place. I hope that the Association of Chartered Teachers Scotland will be part of that discussion, too.

Universities are deeply involved in taking forward the Donaldson proposals and they are vital in ensuring the production and supervision of our probationers.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

Last Thursday, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice abolished prison visiting committees and said that he would build on them. Today, his colleague has said that he will abolish the chartered teacher scheme and build on it. There seems to be a pattern here. Does Mr Russell not think that it would be wise to keep the chartered teacher scheme until he has developed concrete proposals to provide accessible opportunities and concrete arrangements for the masters profession that he wishes to create?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

No. The McCormac committee’s recommendation was entirely clear. It was not a great surprise, because there have been many comments that we need radical change to the chartered teacher scheme.

I believe that we are providing an opportunity for those who have shown their willingness to take forward a higher degree of professionalism to ensure that they keep moving in that way and that they contribute something new. That is a positive thing and it should be welcomed.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

Although organisations such as the Association of Headteachers and Deputes in Scotland, the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland, the National Parent Forum of Scotland, COSLA and others have welcomed much of the McCormac report, others such as the EIS and the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers have raised concerns. What work is being done with unions to reassure them that the changes will benefit teachers, particularly those at the end of their training and supply teachers?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I am happy to give the member the reassurance that lies in the full membership and involvement in the negotiating procedures of the unions. They are a critical, key part of the SNCT, which is a tripartite arrangement. The SNCT has now set up its sub-groups to take forward the terms and conditions issue. The unions are centrally involved in that process, which will be one of careful discussion and negotiation from now on. I hope that the member accepts that reassurance. I want the process of negotiation to be detailed, careful and ultimately successful.

Mary Fee (Labour, West Scotland)

How does the cabinet secretary plan to retain probationary teacher numbers while local authority budgets are being slashed? In Renfrewshire, teacher numbers have fallen by 14 per cent under the SNP and Lib Dem coalition. Does he agree that the current scheme to give new teachers a one-year probation is failing, given that very few end up in full-time teaching jobs?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The last point is not true. The figure has improved greatly over the past few years. Off the top of my head, I think that the figure in terms of jobseekers allowance is now four per 1,000, which compares favourably with the figures in the rest of these islands. The figures in Northern Ireland, south of the border and in Wales are substantially worse. We have made considerable progress on the matter and we continue to do so.

The probationary system has not failed. I think that the member, on reflection, would regret her remark. The probationary system is a highly successful system that produces excellent teachers, and the member should support it rather than trying to run it down.

The reality is that Scottish education—I have always said this—is good but could be better. We are trying to make it better through a careful process of discussion and negotiation. I welcome constructive contributions to that. What I do not welcome is the use of language that runs down the system, and to say that the probationary system has failed is such a use of language.

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

The curriculum for excellence is already transforming education throughout Scotland. How does the McCormac report support the curriculum for excellence agenda?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Everything that we do in education is designed to support the curriculum for excellence, which lies at the heart of the work that we do. Since I became Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning over two years ago, I have kept a close eye on the curriculum for excellence. Where additional support or help has been required, I have put it in place, and I will continue to do so. Indeed, I will meet the EIS later today to take these issues forward.

I want to ensure that education in Scotland is a collaborative and consensual activity. McCormac ensures that the teaching profession has the opportunity to adapt and change to reflect the way in which the curriculum for excellence works—indeed, that was part of its remit. All the McCormac proposals are in keeping with the curriculum for excellence. Now, we need to ensure that, as we negotiate our way through many of these issues, we keep in mind the importance of the curriculum for excellence in our negotiating procedures, and in the things that are undertaken by other bodies. That is definitely what we will do.

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

Chartered teachers make a positive contribution to our education system; that is what headteachers and the General Teaching Council for Scotland tell us. In fact,

“Chartered Teachers can be a valuable resource to assist and lead other teachers in improving educational outcomes.”—[Official Report, Written Answers, 22 December 2011; S4W-04603.]

Those are not my words; that is what the cabinet secretary said in December. Despite recognising again today chartered teachers’ important contribution to the education system, why has the cabinet secretary decided to accept recommendation 19 of the McCormac review and cast aside the views of 75 per cent of people, who told the Government that it would not be in the best interests of school pupils, the education profession and the whole education system to abolish the chartered teacher scheme?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I feel it necessary to repeat part of my statement.

“There are many excellent chartered teachers in schools across Scotland, but I am not convinced that the chartered teacher scheme remains the best model to provide the teaching profession with opportunities to improve and develop. We must do more, not least because the aspirations that prompted the creation of the chartered teacher scheme remain and, indeed, have been reinvigorated by Graham Donaldson’s report. This is an opportunity for us to design and develop frameworks that help us to move towards highly successful models of teaching that are seen elsewhere in the world, thereby encouraging a thirst for knowledge and intellectual ambition in the profession that will deliver improved outcomes for our children and young people.

We should aspire to a vision of teaching as a masters-level profession, and we should do so, first, by building on the chartered teacher scheme. It provides us with the opportunity to make a masters profession a reality. Moreover, chartered teachers and those who are in the process of becoming chartered teachers should be, and now will be, among the first to access these opportunities.”

If necessary, I will set that to music and sing it. I do not think that I can be any clearer.

Jean Urquhart (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

In his statement, the cabinet secretary mentioned Graham Donaldson’s report “Teaching Scotland’s Future” and in his responses to questions he has touched on that report and the McCormac review. How will those reports complement each other to make a positive contribution to the future of teaching in Scotland?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The interlinking of the two is well seen in Graham Donaldson’s involvement with the McCormac review panel. I am grateful to everyone on that panel, which comprised, among others, a former president of the EIS; a distinguished headteacher from Lanarkshire; Alf Young, the former deputy editor of The Herald; and a lawyer from Glasgow. Although the people on that panel had a range of knowledge, Graham Donaldson’s involvement was fairly crucial because we knew from the outset that his report would have to dovetail with the recommendations of a review of terms and conditions.

As a result of Graham Donaldson’s presence on the McCormac review, we were able to ensure that those two elements could come together. That approach has been very positive and in the announcements that I have made this morning we now have a way of taking forward both sets of proposals, linked together not only through the partnership group but through Education Scotland and the GTCS. This is an agenda for positive change and reform that should be welcomed and encouraged by every member and I look forward to negotiating on it constructively. After all, that is what we are talking about today: constructive negotiation.

Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order 2012 [Draft]

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-01979, in the name of John Swinney, on the Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order 2012. As the three front-bench speakers are in their places, we will begin. Mr Swinney, you have up to 13 minutes.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Today’s motion seeks agreement to the main allocation of revenue funding to local government for 2012-13 to ensure that our councils continue to deliver the vital services on which communities across Scotland depend. In 2012-13, the Scottish Government will provide councils with a total funding package of £11.5 billion, which includes total revenue funding of £10.9 billion and support for capital expenditure of almost £0.6 million—billion, I should say. The motion seeks Parliament’s approval for the distribution and payment of £9.9 billion out of the £10.9 billion total. The remainder will be paid out as specific grant funding—mainly for police funding—or will be distributed at a later date.

I will bring a second order before Parliament next month to distribute a further £70 million to compensate the councils that have frozen their council tax in 2012-13 for a fifth consecutive year. Following agreement with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the total in that further order will be subject to council leaders providing formal assurance by the end of this month that their budgets for 2012-13 include provision to deliver the full package of measures that are outlined in finance circular 11/2011, including the council tax freeze.

The Government has reached an agreement with the leadership of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on an approach to delivering joint priorities between national and local Government. That was described in my letter to COSLA of 21 September, which set out the terms of the local government settlement for 2012 to 2015.

The purpose of the approach to joint priorities has been to entrench the approach that the Government took in its first parliamentary term through the establishment of the concordat between national and local Government, which essentially established a framework of partnership working in which national and local Government would work together to deliver shared objectives and outcomes. That spreads across a range of policy interventions and approaches, but it can also include specific policy commitments. I will describe a number of those in due course.

At the heart of the thinking behind the concordat, which has developed into the joint priorities approach that the Government has progressed with local authorities, is the desire to create a common focus in the work that we undertake and the objectives that we try to secure as public authorities working together in the common interest of Scotland.

I am pleased that COSLA has confirmed that local authority leaders from all 32 councils have signalled their provisional acceptance of the package of proposals that was presented by the Government and agreed with the COSLA leadership in December, and that there has been support for that from all 32 local authorities.

As part of the settlement, local authorities will deliver certain specific commitments. Those include freezing the council tax, which is continuing to help families during very difficult economic times; passing on funding to police boards as a contribution to allow them to maintain the number of police officers on our streets; maintaining teacher numbers in line with pupil numbers and securing places for all probationers under the teacher induction scheme; and meeting the needs of our most vulnerable and elderly citizens by working with the national health service to improve adult social care. Those are some of the specific policy instruments to which I referred earlier, and they offer clear evidence that the Government and local authorities are working together in the interests of our communities.

Local government will have a key role to play in taking forward the preventative spending approach, which is a major feature of the 2011 spending review that I announced in September. Local government strongly supports that approach, and it has committed to contribute resources to the change funds, which—together with contributions from national Government and community planning partners—are expected to deliver approximately £500 million to invest in early years, older people’s services and reducing reoffending.

I should explain that the total revenue funding to be paid out to local authorities in 2012-13 includes the £502.8 million of ring-fenced grants, which is mainly the police grant; £281.9 million for police and fire pensions, which is paid to police and fire boards; £33 million for additional police officers; £86.5 million paid to criminal justice authorities; £70 million for the council tax freeze; and £37.6 million for the teacher induction scheme. The overall package further includes—although it is not part of the order before us—support for capital funding of more than £563 million.

I made a number of announcements relating to the allocation of additional resources subsequent to setting the budget in September. Those moneys will be used to further support economic recovery, and approximately £34 million will be allocated in the current financial year to spending associated with local government programmes to support our priorities. As part of those measures, local authorities will benefit directly from the cities investment fund, which the six cities in Scotland have been involved in formulating alongside the Government.

The Minister for Youth Employment, Angela Constance, will engage in further dialogue with local government on the impact that the additional £30 million that we allocated for youth employment measures will have on local authority budgets and provisions. Given the scale of the challenge of addressing youth unemployment in certain parts of Scotland, I have made it clear in my discussions with local authorities—a number of which are investing in youth employability schemes in their areas, some of which I will refer to later in my remarks if I have time—that, whatever decisions they take on youth employment measures, that will not prejudice in any way further decisions that the Government must take on youth employment resources that it could allocate to them.

On 31 January, I announced details of changes for 2011-12 that will have an effect on a range of programmes that affect local authorities. They include £10 million for affordable housing supply; £2 million for housing adaptations for older and disabled people; £4.5 million for roads maintenance and other works, which will include £2 million to help local authorities to maintain local roads; and £2.5 million for potential claims under the Bellwin scheme from local authorities arising from the recent storm damage from before and after the Christmas break.

Furthermore, as part of my opening speech on the Budget (Scotland) Bill yesterday, I was able to announce the allocation of £382 million in additional funding for 2012 to 2015. Within that total figure, I have been able to provide local government with its pro rata share of 28 per cent, which amounts to £94 million over the three years 2012 to 2015. We have agreed with our local government partners that that money will be used in infrastructure investment to support the economic recovery and that a proportion of that—£40 million—will be targeted specifically at supporting our digital action plan, particularly in rural areas. It will be for local authorities to decide how the balance of the additional funding can best be spent to support economic recovery in their localities.

In addition, local authorities will benefit from the announcement that we are investing another £45 million in the housing budget over the 2012 to 2015 period to supplement the £10 million that we have added for affordable housing in 2011-12. On top of that, the £42 million of funding that will be used for loans and shared-equity arrangements will supplement the housing provision and, in essence, free up resources to be used in wider social housing projects involving our local authorities.

The order contains a number of additional sums that relate to 2011-12. We seek approval to distribute an additional £62.3 million to allow councils to carry through a number of agreed spending commitments that have arisen since the Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order 2011 was approved last year. Those commitments include £37.5 million for the teachers induction scheme, £15.3 million for teachers pay and £7 million to help to support the cities strategy. Those resources are provided to help local authorities to address the many challenges that they face now and in the future so that they can continue to provide the vital services that our communities need and on which they rely.

In developing all those financial arrangements with local government, we must, of course, use a sustainable and agreed distribution arrangement for the resources. The distribution formula for the disbursement of the local government settlement to each individual authority was reviewed in 2009 and the conclusions of that review were agreed with local government in Scotland.

The principal drivers of the local government distribution formula are a mixture of factors, the most significant of which is the population distribution around the country. There are, however, other major factors that influence the distribution formula, including the age distribution of the population—particular account is taken of the number of younger and older people in each local authority area—the rural character of some local authority areas, the impact of deprivation factors and, for a number of authorities, the special islands needs allowance that is applied to all authorities that have island population groupings within their areas. The distribution formula drives the way in which those resources are allocated to all local authority areas.

Yesterday, I confirmed our approach on business rates. We will match the English poundage and the large company supplement. I set out revised proposals on the public health supplement, and the regulations are published today. On the general business rates issue, I appreciate that the inflation increase for 2012-13 is significant. That is why I have put in place the deferral scheme that I announced in December, which will provide flexibility to businesses by allowing them to spread the retail prices index-linked inflationary increase for 2012-13 over three years. More details on that scheme have been published today.

Also in December, I announced that we would maintain the small business bonus scheme for the lifetime of the current parliamentary session and that the thresholds for 2012-13 would be maintained at 2010-11 levels. The small business bonus scheme benefits two in every five commercial premises in Scotland and will continue to support small and medium-sized businesses across the country. The small business bonus scheme is just part of a relief package that is worth more than £500 million a year, which benefits many sectors including around 63 per cent of Scottish retail premises that currently pay zero or reduced business rates.

In summary, the total funding from the Scottish Government to local government next year will amount to £11.5 billion. The share of the budget that is allocated to local government is higher in 2012-13 than it was when this Administration came to office, despite the unprecedented pressure that the budget has been under. The Government works actively with local government to agree shared priorities, and I welcome very much the approach that local government is taking to working with the Government in our efforts to deliver economic recovery. That is evidenced by the steps that are being taken to support recovery through both capital programmes and employability programmes in the localities of Scotland. I welcome that constructive approach from local government in Scotland.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order 2012 [draft] be approved.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

This year’s local government budgets are shaping up to be bad news for thousands of families throughout Scotland. In its budget, the SNP has allocated council cuts that are twice the level of the cuts that the Scottish Government has received from the United Kingdom Tory Government. That will mean a squeeze on local services, job losses and increased charges for services, which will impact particularly hard on people on low or modest incomes. As councils throughout Scotland set their budgets and as local people look at the small print and hold them to account for their priorities, we should let them know that the squeeze on local government services was made in Scotland by the SNP. The SNP Government took a cut from the UK Tory Government, doubled it and then passed it on to councils.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

Will the member take an intervention?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

No, thank you. Let me get started.

That is on top of last year’s difficult settlement for councils, to which the cabinet secretary has referred. Last year, 13,500 jobs were lost from local government, and Unison tells me that another 13,500 will be lost this year. This is not just a technical debate, although I thank the staff of the Scottish Parliament information centre for their assistance in processing the raft of statistics that we have received from the cabinet secretary, particularly as they have been unveiled over the past few days.

This year’s SNP budget will affect councils’ capacity to use the spending power of local government to create local jobs and training opportunities—something else to which the cabinet secretary has referred. The additional money that was announced yesterday is obviously welcome, but when one looks at the detail, one sees that it is much more a triumph of expectation management than a boost to local services.

The SNP makes great play of its council tax freeze, but there is a con at the heart of that approach because the council tax freeze is not being fully funded by the Scottish Government and it will add massive pressures on top of last year’s cuts by the SNP.

Our view is that the budget settlement is a bad deal. The SNP promised to protect people from Tory cuts.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

The member talks about alleged SNP cuts. How much more money would Labour put into local government and from where would it find the money in the Scottish block?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

We are discussing the order, and I am afraid that we can only discuss what is on the table. We are criticising the settlement, because that is the issue that we are debating. Ken Macintosh addressed the member’s point in the debate yesterday.

The deal is a bad one for local government and local communities—there is no getting away from that. We are now three months away from the local government elections, during which people will be able to raise the issues in detail.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Will Sarah Boyack take an intervention?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

I would be delighted to take an intervention.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

To follow up on my colleague Mr Gibson’s point, yesterday, the Labour Party gave us not a single idea about where additional resources would come from—apart from the idea of using the £10 million for the referendum campaign—and it opposed my revenue-raising measures. Perhaps Sarah Boyack will take the opportunity to answer fully the point that Mr Gibson raised and which I reiterated. If there is to be criticism of the size of the local government settlement—as there is in the Labour Party amendment—she should say what additional resources Labour would put in and where the money would come from.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

To give just one example, the SNP and Labour groups on the council in my area have asked for flexibility and the opportunity to consider a bed tax to take the pressure off. I understand that the council will have a current debt of more than £1.5 billion, even with the additional money as a result of the 85 per cent floor. There are ideas in local communities, and the cabinet secretary would do well to listen to them. Pleas are being made locally, but they are not being listened to.

The approach is one of expectation management: make massive cuts, see which are the most popular and then put a little back into the pot. However, the local government settlement is bad news for people, whether they are the parents of children who are unhappy with class sizes and the loss of 3,000 teachers under the SNP’s watch; carers who are seeing the quality of their services undermined daily or rationed; or people who desperately want a decent home and who have been let down by the SNP’s failure to live up to its election promise on social rented housing. The cuts to the bus service operators grant will also hit local communities. Local councils are struggling to decide whether to lose local bus services or to use some of their hard-pressed budgets to fill the gaps, as the City of Edinburgh Council is considering doing.

People in every part of Scotland will be let down by the settlement. The provision of services locally, collectively provided, is why we have local government. The capacity to improve communities and make them good places to live is what drives people to stand for election as councillors. In the four years of the previous SNP Government and in the six months or so of the majority SNP Government, the capacity of local councils to set their priorities has been diminished. There is no way to get away from that. Local councils are tied into a financial straitjacket, with all the blame being passed down to them for every local cut that they make. Labour councillors across the country, whether they are in power or in opposition, have argued for protecting vital local services on which people depend and using the power of local government to help to bring the country out of recession through the power of local spending to help economic development.

The debate is needed as a reality check—it is our chance to hold the SNP Government to account for its approach to local government and for letting down people throughout Scotland by doubling the cut from the Tory Government. There is a human cost to this year’s local government financial settlement. Backroom civilian police staff will be sacked to meet the SNP’s promise on front-line police numbers. That will result in front-line police being dragged back to the bureaucratic details that the backroom staff were there to let them away from.

On education, class sizes are nowhere near the 18 that the SNP offered in 2007 and they are still not at the 25 that the SNP promised. Supply teachers are being put off because of cuts to their terms and conditions and new teachers are still finding it hard to get their first job. The school building programme, even with the changes that were announced yesterday, is being slowed and delayed across Scotland. For parents, childcare is becoming increasingly expensive, and working parents are under particular pressure because of the lack of affordable nursery provision. Our priorities must be to support people through the recession, to make the best use of local services and procurement and to stimulate local economic development.

That is why, in Falkirk, Glasgow and now North Lanarkshire, the focus is on training. Furthermore, we have to give a chance to people who are furthest from the labour market, which is why we argue for the use of article 19 of the European Union public procurement directive to let local government help factories that offer supported employment. That would give people a chance to find work. Last year, the SNP-Lib Dem council in Edinburgh allowed Blindcraft to go to the wall. That should be contrasted with the fantastic work done by Glasgow City Council to support disabled people.

The cabinet secretary’s speech referred briefly to preventative spending. However, pernicious cuts in social care are taking place at local level across Scotland. Following today’s finance order, and following the budget settlement that the SNP has chosen to offer local authorities, the cuts will be all the more challenging. A key way in which local government can help is by taking the pressure off carers and by ensuring that social care is available. However, across councils, social care is being rationed. There is also a huge squeeze on the voluntary sector. The voluntary sector brings experience to the table—experience of people who are discriminated against and are vulnerable. It also brings volunteering hours that local government gets for free through trading arrangements. The budget settlement will make it infinitely harder for local government to work with the voluntary sector. It is a bad deal.

The cabinet secretary mentioned social rented housing, money for which is incredibly cost effective, not just in helping to tackle our housing shortage but in kick-starting the construction industry. The SNP Government promised 6,000 new affordable rented homes a year, but, after yesterday’s budget, there was a 30 per cent cut in affordable housing. That is not helping communities such as those in Midlothian with a focus on new council house building.

We deeply regret the SNP Government’s choice to pass on twice the level of cuts, in real terms, that it received from the Tory Government. I hope that the rest of the chamber will agree with us that today’s local government finance order could have been better and should have been better. It will hold back local investment; it will limit the capacity of local government to do everything it can to help people and businesses to come out of recession; and it will result in cuts at local level, with the underfunded council tax freeze adding to the pressures on services. The order will affect local government’s capacity to address what motivates people to stand as councillors in the first place. I encourage colleagues to support the amendment in my name.

I move amendment S4M-01979.1, to insert at end:

“but, in so doing, regrets that the Scottish Government’s real-terms budget cut to local authorities is more than twice the cut to the overall Scottish budget.”

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

The motion seeks approval for the Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order 2012, so I will begin by confirming that Scottish Conservatives support the council tax freeze for the forthcoming financial year, and warmly welcome the fact that the small business bonus scheme—which the cabinet secretary will recall was originally a Conservative initiative—is to continue. The scheme has provided not merely tangible support but, in some cases, a lifeline for many small to medium-sized local businesses. It is an excellent example of preventative spend in action.

However, Scottish Conservatives have a number of concerns about the Scottish Government’s funding proposals. The first concern relates to the collection rate targets outlined in the business rates incentivisation scheme. In the present financial climate, we consider those targets to be too optimistic. There is little likelihood that many local authorities will achieve the targets, thereby benefiting from additional funding by retaining 50 per cent—the Scottish Government pockets the rest—of the target surplus raised. It is a great pity that the opportunity has been lost to introduce a scheme like the one that was suggested by Scottish Conservatives in 2009, whereby local authorities could keep 100 per cent of the surplus. Together with revised collection targets, that would offer a real incentive to local authorities. It would also help to create jobs and boost the economy.

The Scottish Government has not provided any funding for town centre regeneration. Instead, it is reviewing the scheme. Figures that were released this week by the Local Data Company revealed that five towns—East Kilbride, Hamilton, Coatbridge, Grangemouth and Falkirk, all of which are in Central Scotland—are in the top 10 list of the towns with most vacant shops. In some areas of Scotland, one in four shops is vacant. It is therefore especially regrettable that there is no funding for town centres.

Furthermore, despite the cabinet secretary’s adjustment to the public health levy, it remains a regressive, Scotland-only tax that will now penalise large retailers to the tune of £95 million as opposed to £110 million.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

I am interested in the fact that the member thinks that we should not target the larger stores. They seem to be doing very well compared with some of the smaller shops to which she has referred, which have had to close down. Is there not an inconsistency in the member’s approach?

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Absolutely not. Let me explain why. I will speak about the impact. Jane Bevis, who is director of communications for the Scottish Retail Consortium, has said:

“The Scottish government has a hole in its local authority budget and has chosen the retail sector to fill it, simply because supermarkets are profitable businesses. The public health justification for this levy is completely unfounded.”

Given that the retail sector is the country’s largest private employer—it employs approximately 240,000 people—the adverse consequences of that discrimination are potentially far reaching, and they put in jeopardy the 59 per cent of part-time jobs in Scotland in the retail sector that are flexible and attract young people and women in particular. In fact, 62 per cent of the Scottish retail workforce is female, and those jobs often represent second incomes that bolster household incomes and are a source of additional spending power that benefits other local business and the local economy. That fully answers John Mason’s point.

A third of retail employees are under 25. Many young people get their first employment opportunity in the retail sector. Given that more than 100,000 16 to 24-year-olds are unemployed in Scotland, the discriminatory tax that I am discussing runs the risk of adding to the depressing figures by denying young people the opportunity to gain their first foothold on the employment ladder. Perhaps it is not surprising that the sport, tourism, hospitality, food and drink, and transport industries are all mentioned as possible sources of employment for young people in the Scottish Government’s “Scotland’s Youth Employment Strategy”, but mention of the retail sector is notable by its absence.

I turn to the direct funding provision for criminal justice social work. In cash terms, the funding remains the same over the next three years but, in real terms, that represents a cut in excess of £6 million. This is a vital allocation that provides core funding to ensure that adequate resources for criminal justice social work and workers are in place to enable them to deliver pre-sentence reports to courts; provide community sentences and supervise probation orders; carry out the post-release supervision of offenders on statutory licence and voluntary throughcare; and generally assess the risks and circumstances of offenders in the community. In other words, this budget investment represents a clear and compelling example of preventative spend. It is therefore a concern that, despite the Government’s much-vaunted commitment to spend to save, the area appears to have lost out. I look forward to the minister’s comments on why he considers that to be justified.

In general terms, I accept the figures in the order, but there is no doubt that an opportunity has been lost, in light of the examples that have been highlighted, to maximise preventative spend and boost the local economy.

James Dornan (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Cathcart)

I thank the cabinet secretary for confirming once again the importance of local government to him and the rest of the Scottish Government. That is shown by the £38 million extra in funding that they have found.

As a previous leader of the opposition in Glasgow City Council and a sitting councillor, I consider local government to be critically important to our society’s wellbeing. That will hardly come as a surprise to members. We charge local government with responsibility for extremely important services, from the schooling of our children and grandchildren to the social care of our families and loved ones. We ask it to look after our roads and to regenerate areas that need a wee bit extra work to make them shine again. Its importance in the running of our communities cannot be overstated.

Local government is the best-placed level of government to determine changes at a local level and it is strongest when it works in partnership with the national Government. Given its responsibilities, it is, of course, imperative that it is funded appropriately. It is clear from the cabinet secretary’s statement that the Scottish Government also holds that view. Even working under the draconian cuts that have been imposed by successive Westminster Governments, which have seen the Scottish budget reduced year on year since 2007, the Scottish Government continues to ensure that local government settlements are fair, affordable and at a level that is, despite the aforementioned Westminster cuts, higher than it was in 2007-08 when the SNP took power.

In the coming year, Glasgow will receive per capita funding to the tune of £2,786, which is the highest of any wholly mainland local authority and £500 more than the Scottish average, although we would not believe that if we listened to the constant publicity-seeking, politically motivated greeting of the leader of Glasgow City Council. I am not the only one who thinks that Mr Matheson has got it wrong. The Edinburgh Labour Party agrees with me, as does the Edinburgh Evening News, which criticised Mr Matheson for having a go at Edinburgh when Glasgow is receiving, as Edinburgh Labour put it, £2,617 per head while Edinburgh gets £1,821. If a party is going to attack us, maybe it should speak to its colleagues before it decides to play party politics with the funding of local government.

Glasgow has done well out of the small business bonus scheme, and I am delighted that Mr Swinney has reiterated that today. It will do well out of the £30 million youth employability money, which I am sure it will get more than its fair share of. The long-term commitment to the council tax freeze has saved families hundreds of pounds in these difficult economic times. Many projects are funded in Glasgow by the Scottish Government, such as the south Glasgow hospitals, the Clyde fastlink, the City of Glasgow College, the Edinburgh to Glasgow rail improvement programme, and the recently completed M74, and tens, if not hundreds, of millions of pounds have been invested across the city in preparation for the Commonwealth games in 2014.

I am proud to be from Glasgow, which houses magnificent public buildings, including stunning art galleries and museums, and the largest number of public parks of any city in Europe. Hampden Park, in my constituency, is the home of Scottish football. Glasgow has so much to be proud of, but its local government leaves a lot to be desired. Glasgow City Council receives the highest per capita funding settlement from the Scottish Government of any wholly mainland authority, but people who live in some areas of the city have the lowest life expectancy and highest infant mortality rates in western Europe. Those problems are connected to the high levels of heart disease and alcohol-related illness, which are associated with poverty. That is why I welcome the public health levy. Despite the Tories’ claims, it can only be a good thing.

For all the investment in schools by successive Scottish Governments, some schools in Glasgow’s more deprived areas still have the lowest educational attainment rates in the country and despite, or perhaps because of, the fact that Glasgow City Council was the biggest landlord of social rented housing in western Europe until 10 years ago, far too many houses in Glasgow are still in a chronically poor condition that adversely affects the health of thousands of residents of the city.

It is clear that money alone cannot solve every problem. The Scottish Government has to play its part in providing fair resources and funding for Glasgow, and it has done so.

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

Mr Dornan is talking about fair allocations to councils. How does he feel about the fact that 89 per cent of the cuts in the budget settlement have been allocated to local government, which means that local councils will be penalised as they try to provide the vital local services that he has outlined in his speech?

James Dornan (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Cathcart)

We are facing the most difficult economic time that we have had since devolution, so local government has a responsibility to spend the money that it is given wisely and carefully.

We expect local politicians who are responsible for administering the services to be more committed to spending tens of thousands of pounds on filling potholes than to paying for medals for bailies and portraits of the lord provost. We also expect them to protect the most vulnerable in our society instead of financing huge payoffs for council officers and chief executives of arm’s-length external organisations within the so-called larger council family. Sometimes the word “family” is very appropriate.

We also expect our local and national Government to use methods of financing public projects such as schools and hospitals in a way that will not penalise our children and grandchildren for our incompetence. Shamefully, Glasgow pays in excess of £50 million per annum in repayments for the scandalous private finance initiative and public-private partnership projects that originated from the dead hand of Prudence Brown. That money could be spent on keeping additional support for learning schools open, fixing our roads and assisting those who are most in need.

Thankfully, the people of Glasgow will have the chance in May to remove the incompetent Labour administration, which continues to hold Glasgow back, and to put in place an SNP administration that is full of innovative ideas about how to use Glasgow’s funding wisely to benefit Glasgow’s citizens in an open and transparent way, in contrast to the opaque, secretive and obstructive way in which Glasgow is run at present. I look forward to the day—it is coming soon—when Glasgow is run by an administration that would rather work with the Government of the day for the benefit of Glasgow’s citizens than cry wolf at every opportunity to make cheap political points.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

I call Anne McTaggart, who has a generous six minutes.

Anne McTaggart (Labour, Glasgow)

I thank Mr Dornan for his somewhat humorous speech. I am tempted to say that I would like to take it and do the reverse of it.

I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate. Like Sarah Boyack, I aim to highlight the disproportionate budget cuts that local authorities are receiving from the Scottish Government relative to the cuts that the Scottish Government is receiving from Westminster. Even with yesterday’s welcome sweetener, the Scottish Government appears to be hammering local authorities and their approach to delivering public services. Glasgow’s cash-terms cuts mean that our city will be millions of pounds worse off.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

Given her concern about Glasgow’s funding, is the member dismayed that, when Labour was in power, it cut Glasgow’s aggregate external finance from 15.6 to 14.4 per cent of the Scottish total? That cost Glasgow in excess of £130 million in revenue support a year.

Anne McTaggart (Labour, Glasgow)

I will continue.

Glasgow City Council will be the third worst-off local authority under the spending plans, although Glasgow is the largest city in Scotland, and it will be the only local authority to have its budget cut five years in a row. Glasgow is again being penalised by the Edinburgh-based SNP Government.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Will the member give way?

Anne McTaggart (Labour, Glasgow)

No.

Protecting Glaswegians’ priorities will be a greater task this year as we struggle to balance the decreasing budget with the needs, issues and aspirations of our communities, which we strive to serve. The impact will hit the most vulnerable in our communities—those who depend on local government services—and will ultimately result in more people losing their jobs. That is the reality of bleeding Scotland’s local authorities.

The SNP will continue to assert its council tax freeze for hard-pressed households, but the reality for Glasgow City Council is that the past two years have evidenced an increase in the number of council tax exemptions, which has led to a shortfall in council tax income that is received against the council’s budget.

The casualty list from the bleeding of the local authorities includes the wider community and voluntary organisations that have benefited from local grant awards to enhance service delivery for and by communities. The rising pressure on local partnerships to increase service delivery with a decreasing budget is only too apparent in the single outcome agreement commitments. A cut of £16 million over the next three years will increase the difficulty of delivering high-quality locally accessible public services.

All that comes after the SNP tried to cut Glasgow’s housing budget by £122 million. The council forced the SNP to delay that cut for one year, but we know that it will be back with it.

Derek Mackay (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

Is the member not aware that the budget that the Labour Party failed to support yesterday assures the financial package for housing and includes a new injection of funding for housing across Scotland?

Anne McTaggart (Labour, Glasgow)

It still equates to a 30 per cent cut.

The finance secretary, John Swinney, and the SNP Government may still struggle to justify the housing budget cut to the people of Glasgow.

I know that the Labour administration in the city chambers, which is led by Gordon Matheson, will continue to struggle on the city’s behalf against the bias that I have described, in order to protect our communities from the worst of the cuts. Putting the city first is Glasgow’s priority. This SNP Government is very good at passing the buck and blaming others for the impact of its cuts.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Will the member give way?

Anne McTaggart (Labour, Glasgow)

I am just coming to my last sentence.

Here again we have the same old rhetoric: the SNP administers on local authorities real pain, and brandishes Westminster with all the blame.

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

I declare an interest as a member of Renfrewshire Council, mainly because we work in partnership with the Scottish Government to deliver despite the challenges that we face. I sometimes wonder whether I live on the same planet, let alone in the same country, as some Labour members, because they do not seem to get the idea of local authorities working together in partnership. Sarah Boyack said that the local government settlement is bad news for thousands of families throughout Scotland. I am tired of hearing such gloom and doom. I believe that there is no such thing as a problem; there are only solutions. It may be because my mother introduced me to John Lennon at an early age that I believe that it is possible to find a solution to every problem.

The position that we are in is the result of the squeeze from the Westminster Government. If we had the full economic powers of independence, we could make a difference. I know that the Labour Party has great difficulty with that, but it is quite a simple solution. Kenneth Gibson and the cabinet secretary asked Sarah Boyack what Labour had to offer the people of Scotland in the next couple of years during these difficult times. Yesterday, one Labour member said that the £10 million that is to be spent on the referendum should be redistributed throughout the country in a way that only the Lord himself could do. Today, we have been told that Labour’s other big idea is a bed tax. Is that it? Is that all that we are to get from Labour? During these difficult times, does Labour have anything else to offer? Labour members can intervene if they want. The people of Scotland are looking for ideas, leadership and a way forward, but Labour has nothing. I can tell from the silence among Labour members that they have nothing to offer.

Local government, like national Government, is about responsibility and leadership. In these challenging times, we must live in the here and now and deal with the current challenges. The cabinet secretary has supported and helped local authorities. It is up to members such as me and other councillors throughout the country to take on the responsibility of providing for people in our areas.

I listened to what my colleague James Dornan said about Glasgow City Council. Renfrewshire Council is looking for solutions for the people of Renfrewshire, whereas, 7 miles away in Glasgow, Labour Party members blame everyone else and want to stay in their city chambers like dinosaurs, locking themselves away from the real world and the issues at hand.

The leader of the Glasgow City Council administration, Gordon Matheson, has already been mentioned. Leadership is about being responsible and showing the way forward; it is also about being able to work with people. In the Evening Times of 20 September last year, Gordon Matheson said:

“not only is your council tax bailing out the Edinburgh trams”—

which I believe the Labour Party wanted—

“your city is being asked to run up debt interest payments of around £2.1 million so that Mr Swinney can build a bridge on the other side of the country”.

That is Labour’s idea. Labour in Glasgow is concerned about one wee pokey part of the country instead of the whole of the country. Glasgow is a major city and it is a major part of Scotland, but the Labour administration in Glasgow has to look at the bigger picture.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

I have in my hand a copy of the Labour Party publication The Edinburgh Voice, which castigates Glasgow for the amount of money that it gets and says that Edinburgh deserves more. Is Labour playing divide and rule across the country?

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

I agree—that is the case. It is a Labour tactic that has been used since the old days of the regional councils, when it was in charge of the regional councils and the district councils. Those bodies used to blame each other for everything that went on; it was never their fault. Luckily, the people of Scotland have seen through the sham of the way in which Labour carried on.

I would like to look at some of the positives and the responsible things that we have done in Renfrewshire—we are in an election year, after all. I am always one for positive Paisley and Renfrewshire. Some £140 million has been spent on the Scottish quality housing standard—warm homes, kitchens and bathrooms in Renfrewshire. Labour in Renfrewshire offered nothing. In fact, it threatened that either the housing stock would have to be privatised or the rents would have to be put up by 10 per cent every year in order to deliver such investment. That is one solution that the SNP administration brought in.

In Paisley, which is my area, the council is working in partnership with a private developer on the redevelopment of the Arnotts site.

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

Can Mr Adam tell us how many teaching posts have been lost in Renfrewshire and say how the council is going to be able to expand the number of teachers when £650 million-worth of cuts have been handed down to local councils by the SNP Government?

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

We were talking about the redevelopment of Paisley town centre, but the member has decided to talk about teachers. I will take him on, though. Labour wanted to cut the number of teachers in Renfrewshire. Can I—

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

Will the member give way?

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

I am sorry, but I want to make some progress and am running out of time.

The Labour group in Renfrewshire Council agreed with and voted for the SNP administration budget. I will not listen to Labour MSPs.

We have major retailer development in Paisley. Margaret Mitchell says that retailers are not investing, but I say to her that they are coming to Paisley. We have student accommodation in the town centre, which will bring in 300 or 400 students. We have also had major, large-scale events in Paisley throughout the year, including a lights-on ceremony that was attended by 37,500 people. That ensures that we can get footfall in the town.

We also have the small business bonus scheme, which has made a massive difference in all areas. It will continue to 2016, whereas the Westminster chancellor, playing catch-up, is offering it only to 2013.

There are many more positives. I could go on, but I will try to bring my speech to a close.

It is important for local government and national Government to work together. We have a joint responsibility to deliver services and provide opportunities for all the citizens of Scotland. All 32 local authorities must work together with the Government to do that. During my years as an elected member of Renfrewshire Council, I have seen at first hand the challenges that we face. However, my colleagues in Renfrewshire Council and I have accepted that responsibility. All members of the Parliament must accept the responsibility and look for solutions to the challenges that we face. We must not put our heads in the sand and hope that the problems go away. There has to be a positive vision for Scotland’s future. Working together with the Scottish Government, the 32 local authorities can deliver it.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

I think that James Kelly needs to talk to his colleagues in local government. Thirteen days ago, I met the leader of North Ayrshire Council, David O’Neill, who castigated the Scottish Government for not allowing local authorities to get rid of more teachers so that they could free up additional money. Perhaps the Labour Party should co-ordinate itself not only from east to west but from MSP level to local authority level.

If we were to listen to Labour Party representatives today—although only four were here at the beginning of the debate, which shows the party’s interest in local government—we would think that everything is so bad in local government that everyone is turning to the Labour Party. Is that right? In that case, maybe Anne McTaggart can tell us why one of her colleagues in Glasgow defected to the SNP last week, why one of them chucked the party yesterday, accusing the Labour Party of bullying and control freakery, and why another Labour councillor joined the SNP in Clackmannanshire earlier this year. The Labour Party in Glasgow is so confident of its record that, although it had 45 councillors in 2007, it is putting up only 42 candidates in 2012. Clearly, it knows that momentum for change lies with the SNP, because we have a positive vision for Scotland at all levels.

I say to Labour members—including Anne McTaggart, who did not seem to understand the point that I made about aggregate external finance—that the figures for the distribution of funds to local authorities for the period when Labour was in charge show that the safer a Labour council area was, the less additional funding it got. Glasgow got the worst settlement and Inverclyde, North Lanarkshire, South Lanarkshire and North Ayrshire all suffered because Labour put the money into winning marginal council areas and betrayed its own supporters who had traditionally voted for it over many years.

As we know, local government’s share of the Scottish budget will be 38 per cent next year. That is a higher share than in any year when Labour was in office and compares with the share of 37.1 per cent when we came to power. Thus any difficulties that are being experienced by councils can clearly be attributed to reductions in the funding of local authorities due to Westminster cuts to our budgets which, if we listen to Ed Balls and Mr Miliband, Labour bosses in London have no intention of reversing.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

Apart from the fact that that is a complete misrepresentation, does the member agree with the SNP applying 89 per cent of the cuts to local government?

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

The SNP has had to do its best with the money that has been available. Unless Labour members can come up with alternatives, they have a non-argument. They cannot just say, “Do you agree with this?” or, “Do you agree with that?” when they have put forward no proposals other than a bed tax, which I am sure Scotland’s tourism industry will be less than amused to hear about.

How dare Labour attack us on cuts? Not only did Labour wreck the economy but, as members may recall, Wendy Alexander, in her “hungry caterpillar” speech in the previous session, advocated that we at least match the 3 per cent year-on-year top-sliced efficiency savings that were then being imposed in England. Her colleagues, including Sarah Boyack, who was an MSP at the time, must have agreed with that, because Wendy Alexander was elected unopposed as Scottish Labour leader only a few weeks later.

“The hard facts are that Scottish Local Government is under-funded and the Executive is resorting to bully-boy scare tactics because it is losing the reasoned and evidenced argument.”

So said Labour councillor and COSLA president Pat Watters on 7 February 2006. Local government is better off under the SNP because we abolished ring-fencing and top-slicing of budgets. As my colleague George Adam said, we work with local government; we do not dictate to it. That is why all parties signed up to the concordat in the previous session. The order targets what can be achieved in the current economic climate, and the COSLA agreement, which is supported by all 32 local authorities, aids and supports councils in achieving their priorities and providing a quality service to communities.

I cannot let the Tories off after Margaret Mitchell’s remarks. It is laughable to say that the £30 million-odd retail levy is having a terrible impact on retail. Asda did not seem to take that view just over two weeks ago when it announced new stores and new jobs in Scotland. Are the Tories really saying that retail will be crippled by a levy of £30 million a year for the very biggest stores given that that is less than 0.1 per cent of their turnover; that the chief executives of the four biggest retailers earn £34 million a year; and that the Tories introduced a VAT increase that will cost Scottish retail £1 billion a year, which is more than 30 times the impact of this necessary retail levy?

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothian)

Is it the member’s view that extracting £95 million out of one industry over three years will have no impact on jobs?

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

Yes, that is exactly my view. I do not believe that it will have any impact and have seen no evidence to suggest otherwise. Scottish retail is healthy at that level. It is well known, for example, that the burden of rates is significantly greater on medium-sized stores than it is on the larger stores. This will help to balance retailing in Scotland, as well as providing much-needed money. Like Labour, the Tories have failed to come up with any suggestions as to where the £95 million would otherwise come from.

As we have heard, the small business bonus scheme, which Labour opposed, helps small businesses. The Federation of Small Businesses has pointed out that, without the scheme, one in eight of Scotland’s 160,000 small businesses would have gone to the wall. There would be 20,000 fewer businesses if Labour members had had their way. So much for Labour focusing on jobs and growing the Scottish economy.

Given the strictures that have been imposed on Scottish local government by the UK parties, we have done the best possible job. Scottish Government is better off under the SNP than under anyone else, and that will be proved in May when we win more councils than we have ever won before.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

Scottish Liberal Democrats will support the order. Councils throughout Scotland will meet later today to set their budgets. Democratically-elected councils deliver valued services to local communities, week in and week out.

As we heard, all councils continue to face significant pressures this year. Difficult decisions will have to be made locally to balance the books. Like the budget that we debated yesterday, the local government settlement is tight. A significant cut faces local authorities, and we cannot ignore the impact of capital allocations that have been borrowed or deferred, which creates a greater cost to councils.

As in other years, councils have had to agree to a series of Government demands, on maintaining police and teacher numbers, contributing to change funds and reprofiling capital funding. If a council agrees to the demands, the council tax freeze will be funded for another year—it will not be fully funded, though; local councils stress that the funding gap is growing.

When the SNP removed ring-fenced budgets, it said that doing so would free up councils to make local decisions—many of us said that it was actually to mask cuts to budgets. Now the SNP has replaced the constraints of ring fencing with a different straitjacket. When will Mr Swinney address that? Government ministers make much of their focus on outcomes, yet they are demanding that councils protect teacher numbers and police numbers. Those are inputs; surely we should focus on results.

It is clear that councils’ autonomy is being rapidly eroded, which is quite ironic given that the SNP Government never stops demanding to be set free from UK Government restraint. The moratorium on planned school closures and the proposals for national police and fire services are further examples of creeping centralisation. Locally-elected representatives have lost the right to determine local priorities and generate additional income to fund local services if they want to do so. Present for this debate are plenty of MSPs who have council experience, who know that that is an insult to local democracy.

For years I have argued for fair and transparent funding for all local authorities. The grant-aided expenditure process must be simplified. Currently, more than 100 indicators are used, several of which are extremely flawed. About 66 per cent of expenditure is determined by only 12 indicators. The reality is that the existing grants system, which has been in place with a few modifications since the late 1970s, was designed to meet the needs of the larger regional councils. At that time, ups and downs in relation to individual criteria could be ironed out over the piece.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Ms McInnes knows as well as I do that a reason why the formula has not been changed is intransigence in COSLA. Maybe a change in COSLA will change that. Does she agree that the 85 per cent floor, which will benefit Aberdeen City Council, is a welcome move by the cabinet secretary and the Government?

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

I will come on to that. Mr Stewart knows that I think that it is a step in the right direction—of course it is. The review that was handed to COSLA was a missed opportunity, as I said at the time. We needed leadership from Mr Swinney on the issue. Of course the status quo prevailed: he had asked people who benefit from the current system to carry out the review. We can always go back to it and I hope that we will do so.

The indicators are not fit for purpose and must be reviewed. New criteria should target the main areas of spending need in councils. We could use indicators that are intuitively as well as statistically and logically valid.

The cabinet secretary knows that for years I have campaigned for the introduction of a floor. I have backed Aberdeen city and shire’s fair funding campaign, which called for no council to receive less than 90 per cent of the Scottish average. We heard this morning that an 85 per cent floor has been put in place. If that has happened, it is a step in the right direction. Aberdeen City Council and City of Edinburgh Council, in particular, will benefit.

However, by my calculations, which used the most recent population figures, the cabinet secretary has not quite secured an 85 per cent floor. I ask the minister to explain in his closing speech how those figures were reached. It seems to me that the cabinet secretary worked out an average after removing some of the councils that get the most. The Scottish Government, in its documentation on the settlement, said:

“For similar reasons to the introduction of the 85% minimum floor, the Scottish Government has applied a notional ceiling to the formula of 115% to exclude the outlying per capita allocations which would otherwise distort the calculation”.

That seems to be a bit of smoke and mirrors.

Derek Mackay (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

I advise the member that the calculation excluded the island authorities, for clear reasons to do with comparing like with like. Is she aware that her colleague the MSP for Orkney Islands requested a specific mechanism to benefit Orkney? We looked at that, and there was a zero-sum outcome. It appears that there are two different positions from the five-member Liberal Democrat group.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

No. That is not the case. I accept that the island authorities are in a different position. We can examine the figures in greater detail but, as I understand it, it is not only the island authorities that have been excluded—some of the mainland authorities have also been excluded.

The truth is that 85 per cent does not go far enough. If Aberdeen City received 90 per cent of the national average, it would receive an extra £26 million; Aberdeenshire would get an extra £13 million. Aberdeen City, Aberdeenshire, Edinburgh, and Perth and Kinross continue to receive less than 90 per cent of the national average. The gap between the best-funded council and the poorest is still too great, given that they all have statutory services to deliver. I repeat my calls for a safety net for those poorest funded councils and ask the Government to continue to consider a 90 per cent average per head of population funding floor. The situation needs to be fairer. I urge the cabinet secretary to look at that.

The council tax freeze is not sustainable in the long term, and yet the longer it goes on, the harder it will be to return to local decision making on setting council tax. Will the cabinet secretary outline his long-term vision for returning decision making to locally elected representatives?

As Liberal Democrats, we know that responsive and effective services are best delivered when they are under local control. Central Government, with a central agenda, simply cannot do it. We have to do things differently. The evidence from around the world supports our view that if local people are given the power and control, they can bring innovation and new ideas into action and do more for less.

Richard Lyle (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I declare an interest as a member of North Lanarkshire Council. I will retire from North Lanarkshire Council this May, so I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate as this may be the last time that I can record my appreciation of the time that I have spent as a councillor. I will certainly miss it, as I was first elected in 1976 and have held my seat continually for the past 36 years.

When I joined the council I soon learned how much it cost to provide services. Local councils are at the cutting edge of services that are provided to constituents. Most electors do not realise what services are provided or the cost of those services. That is why I welcome the cabinet secretary’s proposals. Local government’s share of the Scottish budget will continue be higher than in 2007-08. The small business bonus scheme will continue and will offer a better deal to Scottish business. The new local government funding floor will ensure that all authorities in Scotland get their fair share of resources. I well remember Kevin Stewart continually bleating about that at COSLA.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Bleating?

Richard Lyle (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Bleating, yes.

I note that some councils will see a shift in resources. Some councils will lose and some will gain. Funding is available to continue the council tax freeze for a fifth year, which I am sure will be welcomed by many of my constituents as it will help them with their family budgets.

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The member knows that on previous budget days in North Lanarkshire a press release from Jim McCabe had the council tax freeze as the headline benefit of the budget.

Richard Lyle (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Yes. Mr McCabe used to describe the benefits on many occasions. I will come to Mr McCabe shortly.

The freeze will save many of my constituents more than £500. Average water charges are now 10 per cent lower than in England and Wales. Primary class sizes are now at a record low, although not all councils—particularly North Lanarkshire—have embraced the policy. We have also ended ring fencing.

During the past 36 years, I have had to deal with many Labour politicians at local and national level. I was honoured at the start of the previous SNP Government to be elected as SNP group leader in COSLA. I pay tribute to its president, Pat Watters, who I understand may retire this year.

During my time in COSLA, I was privileged to work with the cabinet secretary, John Swinney, who constantly had an open-door policy. I suggest that Mr Swinney is one of the best finance cabinet secretaries that we have had in Scotland in recent years.

I well remember when the present Labour leader of COSLA, Councillor Jim McCabe, who just happened to be the leader of my council, asked me to get him a meeting with the cabinet secretary. When I asked him what day suited him, he was astounded, as previously he had had to wait up to six weeks to meet his Labour counterpart in the Scottish Parliament. Mr Swinney gave him a meeting within two days. That shows why the Government has done so well over the past few years—it is because it cares, it listens, and it has an open-door policy.

It was interesting to be in COSLA, but if I ever needed to rattle some cages, I used to send in my Rottweiler, Derek Mackay. I congratulate the minister on his new job and wish him well. Like his friend George Adam, I will share a few stories about him in the chamber—well, only one.

Derek Mackay (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

Please do not. [Laughter.]

Richard Lyle (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

When I decided to stand down as SNP group leader in COSLA, Derek phoned me and told me that he was thinking of standing, and I told him that I would support his nomination. I was proud to nominate and support him, and I am sure that George Adam seconded me on that day. Derek Mackay did an excellent job in the previous two years as SNP group leader in COSLA.

My story was not all that bad, minister.

Councils will always suggest that they need more money, just as Governments and parties do. North Lanarkshire Council, which was Labour run for more than 60 years, always says that it needs more money. The Labour leader in the council added that he would pick out from the concordat whatever he wanted and leave the rest. Let me inform members what North Lanarkshire Council’s cumulative surpluses have been over the past five years, during the council tax freeze. The figures were supplied to me by the council’s finance department.

In 2006-07, the figure was £16.271 million. In 2007-08, it was £27.016 million. In 2008-09, it was £20.194 million. In 2009-10, it was £18.743 million, and in 2010-11 it was £20.377 million. Even after we take off the financial reserve and a variety of committed resources, recurring resources were available in three of the five years.

I am running out of time, so I will move on and end by reiterating my support for something that I have always supported—increasing councillors’ pay, which has been frozen again this year. Councillors get only just over £16,000. I point out that secretaries in councils earn £17,000 to £19,000. I believe that councillors do a good job—all councillors, from every party—and they should be better paid. I suggest that the freezing, which was done for seven years under Labour, should not continue under this Administration.

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

I draw members’ attention to my declaration in the register of interests as a member of North Lanarkshire Council.

I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate, but I certainly do not welcome the particularly poor budget settlement for local authorities in comparison with the overall budget settlement that the Scottish Government received. According to figures from SPICe, the Scottish Government budget for the next three years has been cut by 1.3 per cent, 2 per cent and 2.2 per cent respectively, in real terms, compared with the 2011-12 level. I recognise that that is a challenging environment for the Government to work in, but I am concerned by the figures that show that it has chosen to cut local authority budgets by a staggering 3.1 per cent, 5.6 per cent and 5.7 per cent over the next three years in comparison with the 2011-12 level.

How does the new local government minister feel about the fact that his department is being squeezed to such an extent at a time when the cut to the Scottish Government budget is less than half that level? The overall levels of cuts to departments, excluding local government, are 0.4 per cent, 0.1 per cent and 0.4 per cent over the next three years, compared with the cuts of 3.1 per cent, 5.6 per cent and 5.7 per cent to his department.

Derek Mackay (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

Is the member aware that the protection of health spending in the budget, which will ensure that there is real-terms growth in that area, results in the figures that he describes? Health is supposedly a priority for parties across the chamber. Is the member saying that we should not increase the health budget in real terms?

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

I am arguing for a fair share for local government, as are councils throughout the country. They want the share that has been passed on from the Westminster Government to be reflected in the budgets that are passed on to local government. That would be a fairer distribution for local authorities. The budget highlights just how little the SNP Government values local authorities, their staff and the services that they provide.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Will the member give way?

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

I want to make some progress just now.

If we look at the cumulative impact of year-on-year cuts to local government, we find that local authorities will be £1.66 billion worse off in real terms at the end of the next three years. No doubt the Scottish Government will try to blame the Westminster coalition for that reduction, but it must accept that £1 billion of those cuts are a result of this Government depriving local government and communities of much needed funds. If this Government had chosen to maintain the local government share of the overall budget at the 2011-12 level of 34.45 per cent, at the end of the spending review local councils would have had an extra £1 billion to spend on maintaining services, boosting staff levels and improving local facilities, all of which would, in turn, boost the local economy. How can the minister continue to argue that this is a good deal for his department and local authorities?

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Mr Griffin has served on the Local Government and Regeneration Committee of late and I know that he is not in any sense a silly man. However, something that has become more and more apparent over the past few days is that Labour wants to spend money galore without telling us what it will actually cut. We seem to be going back to the fantasy economics of Gordon Brown. Will Mr Griffin tell us which budget he would cut to secure the moneys for local government that he is talking about?

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

I am not asking for preferential treatment for local government; I am simply asking that it and the communities that it serves get their fair share of the Westminster cuts.

When we drill down into the figures and analyse the impact on North Lanarkshire Council, which covers a large part of my region, we see that over the next three years local services will have to be cut to the tune of £98.3 million in real terms. Of that cut, the proportion that is a result of the coalition’s cuts to the Scottish Government budget is £37.5 million. However, the Government is making a cut of over £60 million to North Lanarkshire Council. Does the minister really expect the people of North Lanarkshire to accept from the SNP a cut to their council’s budget that is almost double the cut being made by the Tories?

Moreover, local authorities will have £220 million withheld from their capital allocations over the next two years. Although that money will be paid back—but not until years 3 and 4 of the budget settlement—local authorities that cannot cover the revenue costs of borrowing will have to postpone projects of local importance such as schools, nurseries or council houses and for the next two years the local economy will be starved of investment at a very delicate time of already high unemployment. Instead of being used to meet local priorities, this £220 million is being channelled into projects of national significance such as the Forth replacement crossing, from which my Lanarkshire constituents could have benefited from an increase in employment as a result of the steel supply contract. Now they face the double whammy of a reduction in local projects and a Forth replacement crossing made in China.

For a comparison between that approach and what a Labour administration can do, we need look no further than North Lanarkshire Council, which is investing £150 million in its council stock to build over 1,000 social rented houses. That promise to the residents of North Lanarkshire will not be watered down to 1,000 affordable houses; the council will deliver 1,000 new and much-needed council houses while maintaining one of the lowest weekly rent levels in Scotland.

North Lanarkshire Council has also unveiled a £15.8 million package to help 5,000 young people back into work over the next three years through a mix of apprenticeships and entry-level private sector jobs. Again, that shows what local authorities can do if they are bold and show the

“good leadership and clear vision”

that Audit Scotland has credited North Lanarkshire with. [Interruption.] Audit Scotland said that, not me.

Local government and communities are not asking for much; they are asking only for their fair share. If this Government simply passed on the same cut that it was hit with, local authorities would be better off by over £1 billion and my area by £60 million. If we add to that constraints on local authorities with regard to maintaining police and teacher numbers and the fact that they will be unable to raise income through local taxation over the next five years, the only option is massive cuts, which will have a disproportionate effect on the families of both local authority employees who will be made redundant and those who manage to keep their jobs and end up stressed and sick because of increased workloads. Cuts will also impact on vulnerable elderly service users and children’s education.

So much more work could be done on service delivery, capital investment, employment and regeneration if only this Government valued local authorities as highly as I do. That is why I support the amendment in Sarah Boyack’s name.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

There is a lot to welcome in the settlement for local government, not least the fact that the share of the Scottish Government budget stays at 37.2 per cent, which is comparable with 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10. Once again, we all agree that we would like to give more to local government, but once again we have heard little from Opposition parties about where that money is to come from.

If Labour and others want to give more to local government, we must assume that they would cut another major part of the Scottish budget, which would presumably be the NHS. Mark Griffin says that if we just pass on all the cuts automatically, there would be £1 billion more for local government. That would therefore mean £1 billion less for the health service, so I assume that it is Labour policy to sack nurses and doctors and close Lightburn hospital, among other things.

One of the SNP’s key successes has involved the concordat, the end of ring fencing and better relationships with local authorities. The single outcome agreements have helped to move the focus from resources input to outcomes achieved. I remember from my time in Glasgow City Council and COSLA that there were endless complaints from councillors of all parties that there was far too much dictation from central Government and too much ring fencing. Local authorities often know what is best for their local areas.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

Does John Mason recall that Glasgow City Council under Labour withdrew from COSLA because it felt that the then Labour Administration in Holyrood was giving it such a bad deal?

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

Yes—when I was a councillor, the constant criticism from Labour towards COSLA and the then Scottish Government was amazing.

We welcome the fact that, in an age of seemingly inevitable cuts, when English councils are losing 18.6 per cent from 2011-12 to 2014-15, the figure for Scotland has been restricted to 6.2 per cent. It is worth remembering some of the achievements of the SNP Government past and present. I find when I meet with my constituents that the council tax freeze is one of the most popular achievements. Of course it is true that some of the very rich people could afford to pay a bit more, and that some of the poorest people are not paying any council tax at all, but we should remember the ordinary people who are in the middle, especially the pensioners. Those extra few pounds a week can make a huge difference to people’s lives.

Another achievement that I think we can say is shared between local and central Government is the living wage. Both the SNP Government and local councils have been pushing for that, and one hopes that it can be built into more contracts in the future. However, the fact remains that the living wage is voluntary for the private sector. We must move towards a higher statutory minimum wage, which is currently outwith this Government’s power and which both Labour and the coalition in London have failed to address.

Glasgow continues to have a good deal, and I welcome the fact that we are fifth on the list for funding per head after the island authorities, including Argyll and Bute. Some people might ask whether Glasgow is getting too much, to which my answer is clearly no.

One of my arguments in that regard is that funding should follow need, which is where I disagree with Alison McInnes, who was talking about moving to a floor of 90 per cent or some other—fairly arbitrary—level. I am happy with 85 per cent, and we should have a certain amount of fairness. However, we should remember the needs of not only Glasgow, but some of the other areas at the top of the list, such as West Dunbartonshire in sixth place, Inverclyde in seventh place and Dundee City in eighth place.

There is, for example, a much higher proportion of people abusing drugs in Glasgow in comparison with its population. Museums and art galleries are funded in different ways throughout Scotland: in Glasgow they are primarily under the council umbrella, but in Edinburgh a lot more are funded nationally. All those factors must be taken into account if we are looking at rearranging local government financing.

I do not always agree with Glasgow City Council’s decisions or with how it does things. I defend its right to make decisions, although it often makes the wrong ones. For example, the council was given plenty of money to implement smaller class sizes, but it absolutely refused to do that, to the detriment of the children in my constituency and a number of others. It lavished money on an iconic transport museum while primary schools continued to operate in an awful state.

I recently visited a primary school in my constituency that has huge gaps in the ceiling; the water is coming through, and the staff are really struggling. In Glasgow schools, smart boards, which should be pretty standard these days, are largely funded by parent councils, which means that the better-off areas have them while the poorer areas do not. Another major criticism is the fact that many council departments in Glasgow have been moved outwith democratic control.

Other points that I welcome include the suggestion that councils will be allowed more freedom on council tax for empty properties. We have a number of such properties in Glasgow, and I know that there are others elsewhere. If we could bring some of that revenue back in, that would be great.

I will touch on the public health levy. It is clear that some of the big supermarket chains are extremely profitable and some of the smaller shops have suffered, so moving the burden a little bit towards some of the highly profitable companies must be a good thing.

It has been suggested that those same large supermarkets will get a boost from minimum unit pricing, so it sounds like the levy will have a balancing effect. When I was elected last May, there were three large supermarkets in my constituency. Now, there are five, which suggests that the supermarkets, far from being worried, are doing extremely well.

In the long-term, we must consider other measures. We need to replace the council tax eventually, but we are where we are.

I welcome the settlement for local government and encourage the voters of Scotland to vote in May for the very best councillors that they can find for their wards and their councils.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothian)

This morning’s debate on the draft Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order 2012 has been interesting, although it has fluctuated at points between being a municipal hustings and a series of councillor retirement speeches.

I pick out Richard Lyle’s retirement speech. I hope that he gets another chance to speak in the chamber before he stands down as a councillor in May but, if he continues to demand more money for councillors, I suspect that Derek Mackay may try to block him.

Mr Swinney was not in the chamber when Richard Lyle described him as one of the best finance cabinet secretaries in recent years. I am sure that I picked the comment up correctly, but I would like to know who is ahead of Mr Swinney on the pile, if he is only one of the best.

I will pick up on some important points connected with the order and local government finance for next year and the coming years.

I turn first to the general resource grant. A number of times, SNP members made the point that, at 37.2 per cent, the local government share of spending will be higher in 2012-13 than it was when the SNP came to office. However, all parties—not only the Government—must focus on the direction of travel for local government in the spending review.

Yesterday, we voted on only the 2012-13 budget but, according to the spending review that was published in September last year, the cash that goes to local government for revenue, as opposed to capital, will decrease from £7.7 billion to £7.3 billion while, at the same time, the overall departmental expenditure limit resource budget will goes from £27.9 billion to £28.5 billion.

That, of course, could be subject to spring and autumn revisions but, in his closing speech, the minister ought to give us his analysis of the direction of travel for the local government budget over the next three or four years, given that its amount of cash is predicted to go down as the Scottish Government’s amount of cash increases. That suggests that the 37.2 per cent figure will inevitably drop. Will it, potentially, drop to below the level that it was at when the SNP came to office?

The Scottish Conservatives welcome the business rates incentivisation scheme. We had a similar policy a couple of years ago called the business dividend fund. However, my slight concern is that the targets have been set fairly high and there is a danger that, although the policy may look good on paper, only one or two—or, potentially, none—of the 32 local authorities will end up getting any money back through the scheme. I accept entirely that, if the bar is set too low, it will not incentivise people, but I am slightly concerned that it has been set particularly high, given the current climate. Is the Government willing to share its prediction for what each local authority will get through the scheme?

We have touched on the retail levy. I do not intend to dwell on it because, as the cabinet secretary said, the separate order relating to it has been laid before the Parliament today. Nevertheless, I return to Kenneth Gibson’s view that the levy will have no impact whatever on jobs. His justification for saying that was that Asda announced last week that it is creating some jobs, and he asserted that there is no evidence that the levy will have any impact. However, the Scottish Government has failed repeatedly to carry out a business impact assessment on the retail levy. That is not a difficult concept—it is Government policy to carry out such an assessment in relation to most orders and other legislation that it introduces. It has carried out impact assessments on many other orders that would have a much smaller impact on the economy. It is beyond belief that it has failed to carry out an impact assessment on the levy.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

We have information from, for example, Asda, about the impact on its profitability and so on. What information is the member looking for that he does not have?

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothian)

For just about any order that the Scottish Government makes, it produces a business and regulatory impact assessment, which determines the effect on businesses and the potential cost or gain of a particular measure in terms of jobs. When the Scottish Government announces that it has invested a couple of million pounds in a business or scheme, it is able to tell us accurately how many jobs that scheme will create. However, when it extracts £94 million it appears to be unable or unwilling to tell us how many jobs will be lost.

In closing, I request that Derek Mackay specifically address this in his winding-up speech. A number of members are worried that the assumptions about non-domestic rates collections are a little optimistic. I know that the cabinet secretary has dealt with that issue in the past, but it was a recommendation of the Local Government and Regeneration Committee—backed up entirely without division by the Finance Committee—that there ought to be regular reports on performance regarding the collection of non-domestic rates. I point out gently that Mr Mackay agreed to that when he was a member of the Finance Committee. Will he confirm to the Parliament that those regular reports will be published, and will he tell us how regularly they will be published?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

It has been an interesting debate. Across the chamber, we all agree that it is crucial that we use the power of local government spending to help local communities and businesses to weather the storm. However, one of the key ways in which we could do that would be to get a better settlement for local government. The order that we are debating does not do a good job. Even with yesterday’s last-minute changes to the budget, which the cabinet secretary has mentioned—

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Will the member give way?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

Come on—let me get started. I am not even 30 seconds into my speech.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Will the member take an intervention on a point that she has already made?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

No, I will not. I took a number of interventions in my opening speech. Let me respond to the debate, thank you.

Even with yesterday’s last-minute changes to the budget, the SNP Government is making huge cuts to housing, our colleges and the services that people rely on locally. The new money for local government is putting back some of the money that was previously cut, returning some of the capital spend money that had been delayed and reinstating some of the housing money that had been cut, but it is still nowhere near enough to deliver the 6,000 social rented houses that the SNP promised last year. I would be interested to hear from the Minister for Local Government and Planning, in his winding up speech, whether the SNP Government still stands by the promise of 6,000 social rented houses that it made in its election manifesto just a year ago, given its 30 per cent cut in the housing budget. Also, adding in money for broadband on the local government line does not save services that have already been cut in order to enable the cabinet secretary to spend the money elsewhere.

The Minister for Local Government and Planning will have to put on a brave face in handling the budget, his first order and the prelude to his own local government election campaign. He has been dealt a bad hand by John Swinney and the problem is that this is not a game of cards; it is a real debate about the future of our communities and their ability to provide local services—the whole reason for having local government.

John Mason talked about crumbling schools in Glasgow, which shows that there is a problem with capital spending. I could show John Mason a school only five minutes away from the Parliament that is equally crumbling and that has a leaky roof—that is a problem across Scotland. When local communities ask why they are losing services, we will point to the priorities that the SNP Government has adopted. In last year’s election, the SNP promised to protect people from the excesses of the Tory Government, but today the SNP is passing on cuts to local authorities that are twice the level that it received in real terms.

We know that the way in which councils spend their money can make a huge difference to the local economy. In Edinburgh, we campaigned against the wholesale privatisation in our local council that the SNP-Liberal Democrat administration proposed to save money. That process cost £4 million before it was scrapped. As I said in response to an intervention from the cabinet secretary, even with the application of the 85 per cent floor, the City of Edinburgh Council has a current debt level of more than £1.5 billion. Councils across the country, regardless of whether they are Labour controlled, SNP controlled or run by a coalition, will be taking tough decisions because of the local government finance order that will be passed today. It piles on severe pressure.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I return to the intervention that I made earlier. I ask the member to use her time to tell us how much more resource the Labour Party would allocate to local government and where the money would come from. We have not had an answer to that question throughout the debate.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

It is simply not possible for us to delve into the SNP budget on the basis of our finance spokesperson having had a half-hour meeting with John Swinney. We are not in control of the budget—the SNP has majority control of the Parliament, so it is the SNP’s budget. We cannot even propose amendments to it. John Swinney knows the answer to his question as well as I do.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Will Sarah Boyack give way?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

No, not again. The SNP is in control of the budget—it is the SNP’s budget.

We have heard that 89 per cent of the cuts in the budget are to local government. We talk about preventative spend, but the health service’s money will be used to shore up gaps in local government spending on some of the most vital social care services, which I mentioned in my opening remarks.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

That is scaremongering.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

It is not scaremongering. In Edinburgh, we had to force our local council to remove proposed cuts in its budget that would have affected the most vulnerable people in our community. Those are the people who deserve and need local government services. If those services are cut, the issues will have to be picked up through spending on the health budget line, which will make preventative spending all the tougher.

Last week, the Local Government and Regeneration Committee produced a report on the living wage, which is another interesting challenge for local government. John Mason said that we have to wait for independence before we can really discuss that, but that committee report is on the table now. Will consideration be given to enabling local authorities to make progress on the living wage for their staff and through procurement processes, or will authorities be left to find the cash without Scottish Government support, as has happened on so many issues? One of our jobs as MSPs is to ensure that we get fair deals for our constituents, and not just for those who are well organised or vocal, but for those whose daily lives are a struggle and who depend on local services to support their relatives, such as adults with learning disabilities, children with special needs or older members of the family.

The test of the local government finance order will be its impact on budget settlements across the country. We regret the fact that, far from protecting the most vulnerable people in our communities, the Government’s budget settlement will make their life harder and will result in tougher choices for every local council. Our amendment merely draws attention to the fact that the SNP Government has more than doubled the budget cut from the Tory Con-Dem Government. It will be up to SNP candidates across the country to explain that to hard-pressed constituents. We lodged our amendment so that, although the order will be passed, that point can at least be made clear to people.

The most vulnerable people in our communities will not look at the finance secretary’s detailed calculations. In Fife, they will look at the 6.6 per cent rise in council tenants’ rent this year. Preventative spending will be harder because of the budget. I hope that colleagues from all parties will support the amendment in my name. In the budget that the minister proposed yesterday, 89 per cent of the cuts were passed on to local government. How is that fair?

Derek Mackay (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

It is unfortunate that the Labour Party’s contribution to the debate has been so predictable; it has been negative, with a complete absence of ideas about how to approach the local government budget settlement. I note, too, the absence from the chamber of members who have made a number of commitments over a period of months. They have not been in attendance today to tell us how they would pay for such commitments, particularly in their local areas.

I am satisfied with the budget settlement for local government in view of the resounding mandate that the Scottish Government received at the elections, when one issue was protection of the health budget, which had a resounding endorsement from the people of Scotland. If we exclude the health figures, with the clear mandate that the Government had for that, the share of spend on local government is actually growing, contrary to what the Labour Party has said this morning.

Further, on Gavin Brown’s challenge, there is not a reduction in the cash settlement but a broad, consistent and moderate cash increase over a three-year period, so local government will experience a flat cash settlement.

What the Labour Party says on the share of local government spend is completely different from what it did when it formed an Administration with the Liberal Democrats. Under that Administration, the share of spend for local government decreased; whereas under the SNP Administration it has increased.

Members: Hear, hear.

In the financial year 2011-12, the budget protection to local government was 2.5 per cent compared with a reduction of 6.4 per cent in unprotected budgets elsewhere. We have therefore practised a methodology that protects local government finance while maintaining the commitments that we have made to the people of Scotland.

If it is such a bad deal, why is it that all 32 council leaders have written to Mr Swinney to sign up to the financial package that the Scottish Government has outlined? That is not the case in England, where one fifth of local authorities will turn down funding for a council tax freeze. They will therefore have the worst of both worlds in England, with tax rises at the same time as deep cuts. The cuts for local government in England are three times deeper under the Administration there than those that we have experienced in Scotland. So, when the Labour Party tells us to look to Westminster for the answers on local government finance, I think that we will politely decline that request, because it would mean much deeper cuts in local government and the redundancies and council tax rises that people in England will suffer.

We can consider, too, what the Labour Party has done in Wales. Its broad settlement there for local government is very similar to that of the Scottish Government in Scotland. So, the different approach that the Labour Party suggests here is not what it is doing where it is in power.

The real-terms reduction in England will be 18.6 per cent compared with 6 per cent in Scotland. They are doing there in one year what we will do over a three-year period, which shows that our settlement for local government is far more generous.

The massive investment that we will provide through the new budget finance that was approved yesterday will be welcomed across the country. However, Labour did it again today: Anne McTaggart said that Glasgow is discriminated against in favour of Edinburgh, while sitting in front of her was the Labour spokesperson, who said the opposite.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

I did not say that.

Derek Mackay (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

Okay, perhaps Sarah Boyack did not say it, but the Labour Party in Edinburgh says it pretty clearly. Labour councillor Ricky Henderson said that the SNP is funnelling money out of Edinburgh, but of course the Labour Party in Glasgow says the opposite. That inconsistency and hypocrisy is completely unacceptable. It is not that the SNP Administration has given up on Glasgow; it is that the people of Scotland have given up on Labour. That includes one of their own councillors—the defector, ex-Labour Councillor Rabbani—who pointed out that it seems that his party would rather pick fights with the SNP Government than stand up for the city of Glasgow. He is exposing the myth that Glasgow does not get a fair deal from the Scottish Government.

I will return to health. Glasgow will, of course, be one of the major beneficiaries of the real-terms increase in health spending, which will help to turn around the appalling levels of poor health in Glasgow.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I apologise for not having been present for the debate, but I heard the minister say that there is a real-terms increase in health spending. Given that there is a £319 million decrease in health spending over the spending review period, does he wish to correct that?

Derek Mackay (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

It is clear that Jackie Baillie has not been informed that the Labour Party’s position this morning has been to abandon an increase in health spending and turn to increases in local government spending.

On what the SNP has ever done for Glasgow, there is the new south Glasgow hospital, the Commonwealth games investment, Clyde fastlink, the City of Glasgow College, further rail improvements and the M8, M73 and M74 work. There has been massive investment in Glasgow, which I am sure the people of that city will continue to welcome.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Derek Mackay (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

No, thank you.

If the Labour Party continues on the current track, I am sure that it will continue to lose members from its city group.

Right across the country, the Labour Party has said that the budget is unfair and that money is going to some other part of the country. In reality, the review of local government finance distribution was led by a Labour president of COSLA and a Labour finance spokesperson, and Labour unanimously approved the review when it was presented to COSLA. In fairness, I say that only Aberdeen City Council dissented, but it is now very happy with the funding package that it will receive and the 85 per cent floor that has been presented. Even in the amendment, the Labour Party makes no reference to how it would change the distribution system.

Let us talk about the realities on the ground. More budgets will be set today, this week and over next week. The doom-and-gloom world that Sarah Boyack described is not one that local government, through its local settlements and budgets, is approving. Rather, it is approving—I checked this morning—new projects for youth employment, investment in infrastructure and housing, agreements to freeze the council tax, and more support for programmes that make differences to people’s lives. That is the reality right across the country.

I have checked a list of Labour’s spending commitments—I do not have time to turn to the Tories’ or Liberal Democrats’ spending commitments. There is a 20-page list of spending commitments from the Labour Party, which include Jackie Baillie’s on kinship care, Elaine Murray’s on bus services, Johann Lamont’s on job creation and Drew Smith’s on child care. That is just page 1. I could go on at great length and wax lyrical about the number of completely unfunded promises that the Labour Party has made. The Labour Party says that we are targeting resources at our geographical areas of support, but it is pretty hard to be in the SNP and be biased about targeting resources to areas of support, because we represent every part of the country, such was the mandate that the party was given at the previous election.

The deal is a good one for local government in the circumstances, and I think that councils will continue to be positive about the arrangements and the consensual way in which we have approached the budget discussions.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothian)

In December, Mr Mackay signed up to a report that said that non-domestic rates collection rates should be published regularly for the Local Government and Regeneration Committee. Does he stand by that?

Derek Mackay (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

Yes, I do. What is more, there is the commitment on housing investment to meet the 30,000 affordable homes target. Will that be met in this session? Yes, it will. So—yes and yes.

In summary, we have before us a budget deal that will deliver for local government and enable much progress to be made across Scotland. The Labour Party carelessly voted against it yesterday—that also goes for the Conservatives, of course. They asked about town centre support. More than £0.5 billion of rates relief in the package, which the town centres will benefit from, has been opposed by the Conservatives.

We are asking members to agree to a settlement that will take Scottish local government forward by working in partnership with others to deliver on our joint priorities: continuation of the council tax freeze, further investment in education and school building, record attainment levels, record primary 1 to P3 class sizes, maintaining police numbers, housing investment, substantial youth employment schemes across the country—before the Minister for Youth Employment, Angela Constance, makes further enhancements to the programme—a capital boost to encourage economic recovery, the tackling of the waste agenda and environment issues, investment in infrastructure, promotion of social care, and further implementation of the living wage across Scotland.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Derek Mackay (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

I have three seconds left. Further financial flexibility will allow local government to deliver on its priorities. In the circumstances of the drastic Westminster cuts, this is a good, fair and positive deal for local government.

Forth Replacement Crossing

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

1. To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will provide an update on the Forth replacement crossing project. (S4O-00659)

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

The project is making good progress since construction commenced in 2011 and it remains on budget and on time to be delivered by 2016.

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Is the minister in dialogue with Transport Scotland and the relevant contractors about the quality of employment on the bridge project? Some constituents are concerned that people will not be permanently employed for the duration of the contract, and that there will be an overreliance on agency workers and bogus self-employed people who do not pay national insurance contributions. Will the Scottish Government make a commitment to ensuring that will not happen on the new Forth road bridge project?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I will be happy to look into specific instances if John Park would like to write to me about them. However, the project has been extremely successful thus far. Perhaps some of the past week’s headlines have missed the fact that the tender came in at around £400 million below budget, so that £400 million will now be available for other things, including job creation. We have been successful in ensuring that business goes to Scottish subcontractors and suppliers, although I am more than happy to look into the issue that John Park has raised.

Transport Infrastructure (North East Scotland)

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

2. To ask the Scottish Executive what action it is taking to improve transport infrastructure in North East Scotland. (S4O-00660)

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

The Scottish Government is continuing to make record levels of investment in transport projects right across Scotland, including in Aberdeen and the north-east. We remain committed to delivering the Aberdeen western peripheral route and the Balmedie to Tipperty project, and we have recently completed the £31.5 million A96 Fochabers and Mosstodloch project. On rail, we remain committed to service improvements between Aberdeen and Inverness.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

I welcome the £5 million that has been earmarked for the design of the improvements at the Haudagain roundabout that was announced yesterday, but people in Aberdeen have waited for a long time for them. When will the work begin? Also, having rightly agreed that the Balmedie to Tipperty dualling should no longer have to wait until completion of the western peripheral route, will the minister also now agree that the works to address congestion at Haudagain should not have to wait until then, and so prevent further years of delays?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

If Richard Baker looks at the case on the Haudagain roundabout that was made by the north east of Scotland transport partnership, he will realise that the benefits from the roundabout rely on the AWPR and the Balmedie to Tipperty project being in place. He should really read that case because it explains why we have always said that we will start the improvements to the Haudagain roundabout once we have completed the AWPR. It is also true to say that the member got it wrong last week when he talked about the Balmedie to Tipperty project. Construction is not starting there, but design work is. We are doing that work in the same way as we are now doing the work on the Haudagain so that, as soon as the AWPR is finished, we can start work on those projects without further delay.

We know the reasons for the delay; Richard Baker also knows the reasons. They are not just because of the on-going court cases, but are because of the delays of previous Administrations in getting started on the project in the first place.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

Recent local press coverage has made much of the advertising of the contract for ground investigations on the Balmedie to Tipperty project. Will the minister set out his timetable for the building of that vital link? Is he saying today that the project has not been decoupled from the AWPR? He could decouple it and get it built right away.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

We have listened to representations from a number of interested parties, including Ms McInnes’s council colleagues, and we are bundling together the AWPR with the Balmedie to Tipperty project. There are good reasons for doing so. What we announced last week will ensure that we can start the design work on the Balmedie to Tipperty project in anticipation of a positive outcome for the AWPR in the courts. We will then be able to start on that with no delay. That approach has the full support of Aberdeenshire Council and Aberdeen City Council, and that is how we intend to proceed.

Higher Education (European Union Students)

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothian)

3. To ask the Scottish Executive whether it welcomes the increase in the number of students from European Union countries receiving free higher education in Scotland’s universities. (S4O-00661)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Scotland welcomes students from all over the world. I am pleased that increasing numbers of overseas students from the EU and further afield recognise the superb quality of the higher education that is available in this country.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothian)

Further to his previous parliamentary answers, will the cabinet secretary advise us of what—if any—progress he has made on introducing a management fee for students from other European Union countries, which would defray at least some of the £75 million a year that it costs us to provide them with free higher education? Does he expect to introduce that fee in the forthcoming academic year?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

My officials and I continue to have discussions with EU officials and a range of others to explore this difficult area. My view remains that we should introduce such a mechanism if possible; I wish for such a mechanism to be introduced. Whether it is possible is the subject of the discussions that are taking place.

PIP Implants (Public Inquiry)

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

4. To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will hold a public inquiry into the PIP breast implant situation. (S4O-00662)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

The regulation of medical devices is currently reserved and lies with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Authority. As a follow-up to the expert group’s interim report, which was published on 6 January, Lord Howe is leading a review of what happened with the PIP silicone breast implants and what lessons need to be learned. My officials will work closely with colleagues in the Department of Health on that review and we will consider fully any implications for the national health service in Scotland.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I thank the cabinet secretary for her helpful response. I am sure that she agrees that the women involved have had their lives turned upside down by the scandal and that they deserve answers. Will she provide us with an update on the number of women who are affected and the latest information on rupture rates? Does she believe that there is now merit in introducing a national register of surgical implants? How will we ensure that such a situation never happens to anyone ever again?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I thank Jackie Baillie for asking a number of questions. I will try to answer all of them, and I am more than happy to write to her to give further information on all the points, as well.

I fully understand the anxiety that women who have had PIP implants have suffered; what they are going through is difficult for the rest of us to imagine. The Scottish Government stands ready to do everything that we can to assist those women.

On the number of patients, we have confirmed that no women received PIP implants on the national health service. Our best estimate is that 4,000 women in Scotland might have received PIP implants from private providers. That figure is not exact, but it is our best estimate right now.

I have made it clear, and do so again today, that private providers—which, we should remember, took advantage of the business opportunities and made money from implants—have a moral obligation to do the right thing by the women involved. I expect private providers to meet that obligation. However, I have also made it clear, and do so again, that the NHS will leave no woman high and dry if a private provider is not facing up to its moral obligation. I have made clear the support that will be provided and I advise any concerned women to contact their general practitioners in the first instance.

Jackie Baillie asked about a register. As she is aware, Professor Sir Bruce Keogh is leading a further review of the regulation of cosmetic surgery, which is—critically—looking at the value and feasibility of a comprehensive register of significant surgical devices, including breast implants, and how best to put that into action. My officials will work closely with colleagues in the Department of Health on that and will consider any implications for the NHS in Scotland.

I assure Parliament that I take the issue very seriously. If any member wants to discuss it further with me or to have any of the information to which the Scottish Government has access, I am happy to have such discussions and to provide whatever information I can.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

Normally, we do everything possible to encourage breastfeeding. However, given that the French regulatory authorities have recommended that women with PIP implants should not breastfeed their children, what advice can the cabinet secretary give mothers in Scotland with PIP implants?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I know of Elaine Smith’s close interest in breastfeeding and I understand the concerns that have been raised. I am sure that she understands that it is for experts to give the best possible advice to women who have PIP implants and for me to advise women to listen to and follow that advice.

The Government’s wider efforts on breastfeeding will continue. As Elaine Smith is aware, we are doing a range of work to encourage women to breastfeed, because of the advantages and benefits that breastfeeding delivers for their children. We will continue to do that, and I am keen to work with members across the chamber to continue to get that message across.

Dyslexia

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

5. To ask the Scottish Executive what assistance it provides for the early identification of, and how it raises awareness of and supports people with, dyslexia. (S4O-00663)

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

In order to help all teachers to identify the signs of literacy difficulties and dyslexia early in a child’s school life, the Scottish Government, in partnership with Dyslexia Scotland, launched the online assessing dyslexia toolkit in June 2010. That was supported by four regional seminars, which were attended by 338 teachers.

On 17 November 2011, the Scottish Government announced an additional £40,000 grant to Dyslexia Scotland, which will be used to review and update the toolkit, to add new materials on how to support children and young people with dyslexia effectively, to make it more accessible for teachers, and to develop a section for local authorities on how best to implement it.

In addition, Education Scotland supports public and third sector organisations that support adults with dyslexia. In 2010, they delivered 45 training sessions across Scotland. The Scottish Government has also allocated £38,000 to Dyslexia Scotland for this financial year to support its headquarters running costs, and an additional £10,000 to develop an awareness-raising DVD to be used in prisons.

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I thank the minister for that comprehensive answer. Does he endorse the working definition of dyslexia that has been developed and agreed by Scottish Government officials, Dyslexia Scotland and the cross-party group on dyslexia as a good working definition? If so, what is the Government doing to promote its wider use? Will the minister consider encouraging all local authorities to introduce, as part of teachers’ continuing professional development, a mandatory session to make them aware of the working definition and the toolkit to aid the early identification of, and the provision of support for, children with dyslexia?

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

I thank Margaret Mitchell member for her question and the spirit in which it was asked. Needless to say, I know that, through her involvement in the cross-party group on dyslexia, she is very knowledgeable on the matter.

Teacher training endeavours to ensure that teachers are aware of a range of conditions, not least dyslexia, given the immense impact that it can have on people’s later lives. I mentioned prisons in my initial answer because we are acutely aware of the proportion of people in prison who have dyslexia and the role that staff in school have in ensuring that we deal with that.

As far as the working definition is concerned, the toolkit has an involvement in that, but we have not gone down the route of introducing mandatory standardised assessment tests for dyslexia because that approach was rejected by, among others, the cross-party group on dyslexia in 2009.

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

6. To ask the Scottish Executive what action it will take to improve services for children and adults with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. (S4O-00664)

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

In our consultation on a new mental health strategy for Scotland, we continue to highlight the importance of action in the early years and childhood, and the role in that of child and adolescent mental health services, through which many children with ADHD will be treated. We also identify services for adults with developmental disorders, which include ADHD, as a priority for service development. We will publish the mental health strategy later in the spring.

In addition, NHS Healthcare Improvement Scotland is supporting service providers through an exercise to follow up on areas for improvement and development that it identified during the scoping of the ADHD Scottish intercollegiate guidelines network guideline.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

I thank the minister for that response, and I certainly acknowledge the work of Healthcare Improvement Scotland on childhood ADHD.

However, at a recent meeting of the cross-party group on mental health, we were told about the lack of a strategy, guidelines, training and clinics for adult ADHD, in particular. Given that improvement challenge 2 of the draft mental health strategy refers to developmental disorders, will the minister ensure that the development of services for child and adult ADHD is given particular attention in the final strategy?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

As Malcolm Chisholm knows, we have given priority to the matter and we highlighted it in the consultation document. I hope that, in the next few weeks, we will be in a position to publish some of the detail that we have received from the more than 300 submissions to the consultation exercise. This is an area in which we want continuing progress.

I mentioned the work that Health Improvement Scotland is undertaking. Part of that work is to identify exactly where each individual health board needs to make more progress on improving and developing services around ADHD. Health Improvement Scotland will then undertake a number of regional events with individual boards in order to consider how we can improve services yet further. This is an area in which I wish further progress to be made. I intend to see something within the forthcoming mental health strategy to assist in doing that.

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Question 7, in the name of Dennis Robertson, has been withdrawn, for understandable reasons.

Home Energy Efficiency

Nigel Don (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

8. To ask the Scottish Government what support it gives to people living in homes without cavity walls to help them reduce their carbon footprint and stay warm. (S4O-00666)

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

The Scottish Government is aware of the issues affecting householders living in homes without cavity walls, and we are also conscious that that property type is more prevalent in rural parts of Scotland. Advice is provided through the energy saving Scotland advice centre network, which has advisers who are specially trained in dealing with such properties. The Scottish Government also provides an interest-free loan scheme for householders.

Local authorities can include within their bids for support under the universal home insulation scheme special programmes aimed at dealing with properties without cavity walls.

Nigel Don (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

I thank the minister for his recognition that such properties are often in rural communities. Does the minister agree that the green deal, although it is welcome in principle, is unlikely to give us a structure and a model that will help rural communities, simply because of the low density of buildings that will be appropriate?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

Nigel Don makes a valid point. We have highlighted issues relating to remote areas of Scotland to the United Kingdom Government, and we have encouraged other stakeholders to highlight such issues in their consultation responses to the Department of Energy and Climate Change. At the same time, we are investigating a number of innovative finance options that might support delivery of green deal finance in rural and urban areas of Scotland. Yesterday, we announced a fund to assist certification bodies to become accredited and pass on the benefits to installers and assessors to ensure that Scotland can provide skilled people to deliver at the time of the green deal launch, particularly in remote and rural areas.

I encourage Nigel Don to make his views known also to the UK Government.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Ensuring that the existing housing stock, particularly private homes, reaches minimum energy performance standards presents a challenge. Section 64 of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 provides for the introduction of regulations in this area. Does the Scottish Government intend to introduce those regulations and, if so, what is the timescale for introduction and delivery?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

It is fair to say that those issues have to be considered at the same time as the green deal, and how that takes things forward. As I have mentioned previously, that is still a matter of consultation with the UK Government. We will continue to examine that area and will take a decision on it at the right time.

Transport Priorities (Scottish Borders)

John Lamont (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

9. To ask the Scottish Executive what its transport priorities are for the Scottish Borders. (S4O-00667)

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

The Borders railway project remains a priority for our investment in the Scottish Borders transport infrastructure.

John Lamont (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I note that the minister did not mention Selkirk. A few weeks ago, I received a letter from a constituent. It reads:

“I voted for the SNP last year because I supported their campaign and petition to bring a bypass to Selkirk.

Can you find out for me when the bypass will be built by the SNP please?”

Does the minister still support the building of the Selkirk bypass and, if so, when will it be built?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

It is perfectly clear from the statements that were made prior to the election that the Selkirk bypass was not supported in the strategic transport projects review. We do not have plans for a bypass in Selkirk. [Interruption.]

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

We are spending several hundreds of millions of pounds on the Borders railway, which was not taken forward by previous Administrations. That underlines the commitment that we have to the Borders. Spending that amount of money on transport infrastructure in the Borders obviously takes us well past the commitment of previous Governments. Of course, we could spend even more, were it not for the fact that the Government that Mr Lamont supports has withdrawn £800 million of funding from our budget.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

The minister will be aware that, although Gorebridge residents in my constituency fully support the development of the Waverley line, they are not being given advance notice of structural works. Will the minister undertake to get in touch with the relevant agencies to ensure that they explain to people what is happening along that line with regard to tree felling and so on?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

We will do that. We have seen the letter that the member wrote, which seemed to concern one particular household being omitted. We have reiterated to the relevant agencies that they should make people aware of work in advance. That will happen in the future.

Engagements

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-00461)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Later today, I will be speaking to the chief executive officer of Scottish wind turbine manufacturer Gaia-Wind, who has today announced the signing of a £5 million contract to provide up to 200 small turbines for installation in England and Wales. I am sure that the whole chamber will wish to welcome a successful company agreeing contracts and enhancing its reputation as a leading manufacturer of small wind turbines across these islands.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Indeed we do.

The new Forth crossing is the most expensive public project in Scottish history and is central to attempts to sustain and grow Scottish businesses and to create much-needed jobs. The project should have a legacy that goes beyond a bridge; people understand that. So why did the First Minister sign away the contracts—and the Scottish jobs—to Spain, Poland and China?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

In reality, 118 out of 155 subcontracts for the project have been awarded to Scottish companies, which represents 76 per cent of the total. As for supply orders, for 870 out of 1,041—[Interruption] That is 83.5 per cent, Ms Baillie, the principal contract for which has been awarded to Scottish companies, which is a very substantial percentage. That means that the Forth replacement crossing project will support 1,200 Scottish jobs and secure an additional 3,000. Every year, construction will deliver 45 vocational training positions, 21 places on professional bodies and 46 positions for the long-term unemployed, and it will maximise the number of modern apprenticeship opportunities. All in all, it looks to me like Scotland is getting a substantially good deal from the Forth replacement crossing.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I am stunned by the limit of the ambition that the First Minister shows. This contract was to be a legacy for the people of this country and for the economy but, on his own minister’s account, it is worth £20 million out of a contract worth £1.5 billion. The First Minister has no excuses. In Wales, a Labour Government had the political will to ensure that Welsh companies had equal access to public contracts, thereby saving businesses and creating jobs, but rather than look to our neighbours, Alex Salmond went to China and pulled off a master deal—the Chinese got an £800 million steel contract and we got two pandas. If Wales can deliver for Welsh businesses, what is stopping the Scottish First Minister delivering for Scottish businesses and Scottish families?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The total value of the principal contract for the Forth replacement crossing is £790 million, of which the steel component represents 5 to 10 per cent. I am not sure whether Johann Lamont knows this, but we do not have manufacturing facilities for steel fabrication in Scotland thanks to the depredations of past Westminster Governments, and so no firms that submitted tenders for the steel fabrication subcontracts were Scottish. Perhaps a quarter to a half of the 5 to 10 per cent of the £790 million is for steel plating, which we do produce in Scotland. Johann Lamont says that there is an £800 million contract, but steel represents only 5 to 10 per cent of that, of which 25 to 50 per cent is the sort of steel that we produce in Scotland. I know that this is not the script that she wanted to hear, but having 76 per cent of all the subcontracts awarded to Scottish companies not only represents a good deal for Scottish companies but is amazingly better than anything that happened when the Labour Party was in power in Scotland. [Interruption.]

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Order. Ms Baillie, could you please keep quiet?

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

The First Minister thinks that this is a game. The script that the people of Scotland want to hear is not one in which he says, “Oh, it’s not £1.5 billion; it’s £20 million out of £790 million, so that makes it okay.” That is a tiny proportion of the money.

The reality is that the biggest contract in Scotland for a generation is creating jobs in Spain, in Poland and in China. Alex Salmond is spending £800 million on steel—[Interruption]—and from that contract not a single job is being created in Scotland, at a time when 200 people are losing their jobs every day. Even the London Olympics have benefited Scottish companies to the tune of £100 million—five times more than the benefit from the Forth replacement crossing contract.

How can it be value for money in the long term to send abroad the profits, business creation, research and development and high-quality jobs that such big contracts generate? How can that make sense?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

There is a great disadvantage in reading from a script. Occasionally a person reads a wrong line; but it also means that they do not listen to the answers.

In my previous answer, I pointed out that the total value of the contract is £790 million, of which 5 to 10 per cent is for the steel contract. We do not do fabricated steel in Scotland. Of the fabricated steel contract, perhaps a quarter to a half is steel plate, which we do in Scotland.

Now that Johann Lamont realises that the £800 million figure that she was given in her script is not the actual figure, which is a small fraction of that, will she revise her opinion of the total impact of what the Scottish Government is doing?

I agree with Johann Lamont that we must do our absolute best to ensure that contracts come to Scottish companies. Johann Lamont would have been in the chamber at the time, so I wonder if she remembers Jack McConnell, at First Minister’s question time on 16 June 2005, saying, ““restricted I am by the rules of procurement”, and having to explain why a fisheries protection vessel was going to a Polish shipyard instead of Ferguson Shipbuilders at Port Glasgow. What a contrast with Alex Neil’s announcement in November of a £20 million contract for a new ferry for Ferguson’s in Scotland.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

And he accuses me of not being able to read my script. [Laughter.] I am sure that it was well worth it for civil servants to do the research to find that quotation.

Can we deal with what people in this country are saying now? They include Community trade union workers, who are concerned about their jobs, and all the businesses and people—beyond steel—who thought that the contract would bring work to their communities.

A fortnight ago, in response to the shocking unemployment figures, the First Minister claimed that his Government puts the greatest emphasis on job creation; yet here we are in a situation in which Scottish trade unionists from the Dalzell steelworks have written to David Cameron—I cannot believe that I am saying this, but I have the letter here—to ask a Tory Prime Minister to protect them from the actions of a Scottish First Minister. [Interruption.] I know, I cannot believe it, either. The steelworkers and Community trade unionists in Scotland wrote:

“To date, First Minister, Alex Salmond MSP, has failed to give any satisfactory explanation why foreign suppliers were given preference over Scottish firms”.

Why is the First Minister not doing his job? Why is he not standing up for Scotland? Will he stand up for Scottish workers and instruct an immediate review of a disgraceful contract, which will have huge consequences in our communities?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Let us try four reasons. First, given that Johann Lamont did not return to the issue, I think that we are probably agreed that we are talking about not an £800 million contract but 5 to 10 per cent of that.

Secondly, can we agree that there is no steel fabrication proposal from Scotland? No firm that submitted a tender for the steel fabrication subcontracts was Scottish. That is because we do not have steel fabrication facilities in Scotland any more, thanks to the depredations of past United Kingdom Governments—Labour and Conservative.

Thirdly, can we agree that there is substantial evidence, from the figures on subcontracts that I put forward, that 76 per cent of subcontracts have been awarded to Scottish companies?

Fourthly, can we agree, as Johann Lamont must be aware, that contracts cannot just be directed to go to Scottish companies; they have to be competitively placed out? By establishing the portal for contracts, this Government has allowed tens of thousands of small and medium-sized businesses in Scotland to obtain the benefit of public procurement and purchasing. That has happened under this Administration. Under a past Administration, largely due to Labour’s fascination with the private finance initiative, there was no ability whatsoever to influence those things.

Given that Ms Lamont now knows the actual value of the contract, that she probably now knows that there are no steel fabricating facilities in Scotland, that she now knows that 76 per cent of the subcontracts have gone to Scottish companies, and that she is aware of the efforts that have been made through the portal, will she finally agree that the situation is hugely better now than it was under the Administration of her and her colleagues?

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

2. Now that he is finally live on the BBC, I ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S4F-00451)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I understand that, on the basis that the Secretary of State for Scotland is fully recovered, we are meeting this coming Monday.

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

After the First Minister claiming grudge and grievance for being pulled from BBC radio and television sports programmes, it has emerged that it was in fact he who asked the BBC, not once, not twice but three times if he could be a rugby pundit. On reflection, does the First Minister think that it was acceptable to use the bully pulpit of his office to liken a BBC employee to a Nazi? Will he now apologise?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Let us take those points in turn. I assume a number of things: first, that Ruth Davidson will be aware that the noun “gauleiter” is defined in “Chambers 21st Century Dictionary” as

“an overbearing wielder of petty authority”.

It has been used in public parlance a number of times. There is nothing—[Interruption.]

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

There is nothing petty about the authority that the Tory Government in London tries to exert over Scotland.

I hope that Ruth Davidson is aware that the tradition that we have come to expect in the BBC is that editorial and journalistic decisions are free to be made and not overridden by political factors. Of course my programme, including my attendance at the rugby on Saturday, was made available to news outlets of all kinds, as indeed was Ruth Davidson’s, because I saw her pre-release that very day.

I have an e-mail from Carl Hicks, the head of sport at the BBC, which I am happy to put in the Scottish Parliament information centre to correct Ruth Davidson’s misapprehensions. The proposal is:

“I’ve been having a little think and I’d like to ask if the First Minister would take part in our six nations challenge.”

He goes on to describe the nature of the programme he wants me to take part in, saying:

“I think this would be a great way of us involving the First Minister in the BBC’s TV coverage. We’d be doing this live in the west carpark, it would be live around 1.45. Happy to discuss any of this. I am currently checking this out with our editorial policy team but we don’t anticipate any problems.”

The reason why Mr Hicks did not anticipate any problems was that he did not know that there would be an instruction from the political adviser to withdraw the First Minister of Scotland from a programme. Journalists have a right to expect better from the British Broadcasting Corporation.

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

By “having a wee think” presumably he meant after the First Minister’s office had been on the phone.

With such outrage at the weekend, I thought that I would check the First Minister’s rugby qualifications. He has the build for it; surely he must have a glittering career behind him. However, in the Linlithgow academy rugby team archive, there is no mention of A Salmond, and there is no mention of him in the University of St Andrews rugby team or the Royal Bank of Scotland rugby club.

In today’s papers, the First Minister’s official spokesman says that the First Minister is so outraged that he will raise the snub with the head of the BBC trust, Lord Patten. This is all about the First Minister—his bruised ego and his injured pride. Today’s meeting was supposed to be about the future of broadcasting, people’s jobs, their careers and their livelihoods. Those are surely more important than the First Minister’s stymied ambitions. Will he confirm to the Parliament, to those who are broadcasting this exchange on the BBC and to those who are watching at home that he will not waste a second of his meeting with Lord Patten on this petty sideshow but will focus on what matters—Scottish jobs?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I am afraid that the reasons that were given for the BBC’s withdrawal of the invitation that its sports editor made are not petty and really must be confronted. There were two reasons. One was the proximity to the local government elections. We are not in the local government election period. Secondly, there was the claim of heightened tension in the political arena. Now, there might be some heightened tension on the Tory back benches, but what I detect is taking place is merely political debate.

If this period of heightened tension is to last for the next two and a quarter years, can I assume that we will not be treated to the sight of David Cameron on any Olympics coverage from London? Can I assume that, during this period of heightened tension, politicians will not be asked to take part in sports programmes? We will never get the benefit of Ruth Davidson’s opinions on rugby football or anything else—even on kick boxing, in which I understand she has substantial expertise. This is a nonsensical decision.

If the BBC is going to adopt the position that politicians are to be withdrawn from broadcasts, overriding journalistic and editorial decisions, we will go down a very difficult road indeed. It should be entirely possible to revert to a position where journalistic and editorial judgment are sacrosanct in the BBC, or is this just another reason why we must ensure that Scottish broadcasting is free from diktats from London? [Interruption.]

Finally, when I meet Chris Patten this afternoon, I will not—[Interruption.]

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I will not make the accusation this afternoon that Chris Patten’s former chairmanship of the Conservative Party has anything to do with current BBC decision making.

Drew Smith (Labour, Glasgow)

Presiding Officer, you will be aware of the uncertainty that is facing thousands of Clydesdale Bank workers. Clydesdale Bank is headquartered in Glasgow and is a major employer across Scotland. It is a strategically important company for the Scottish economy, and it is the bank of many small and medium-sized businesses.

Following the Scottish Government’s reported contact with Clydesdale Bank, what assurances can the First Minister offer its workers and their families, who face an uncertain beginning to 2012 as a result of the statements from the parent bank, National Australia Bank? Specifically, will the First Minister agree to meet Unite the Union, as representatives of the workforce, to listen to their fears and hear at first hand their suggestions on how the long-term future of the business as a Scotland-headquartered company can be secured?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I have already spoken to the chief executive of Clydesdale Bank—and I know that Mr Swinney has spoken to him as well—about the implications of the statement from the chief executive officer. I gladly agree to meet Unite the Union and workers’ representatives as well.

The statement from the chief executive officer in Australia should give us great cause for concern. He certainly cited in relation to the structural review of the Clydesdale and Yorkshire banks the underlying difficulties of the euro zone, but he also cited in the strongest terms the United Kingdom Government’s policy of retrenchment, the period of austerity and the lack of growth prospects in the United Kingdom economy.

A lot of us will find it somewhat ironic that, on the one hand, we have baseless claims from the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the impact on investment of constitutional change in Scotland while, on the other, the chief executive officer of one of the world’s major banks is pointing directly to the United Kingdom Government’s austerity programme as a reason for having a significant review of the bank and its policies. We will certainly meet the unions and workers and continue a dialogue with Clydesdale Bank and Yorkshire Bank to protect employment in Scotland, but let us hear no more of the argument that a no-growth austerity programme is good for jobs and investment in Scotland.

Nigel Don (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

As the First Minister will be aware, last week Ross and Bonnyman, which has been based in Forfar since 1973 and specialises in designing and manufacturing lifting products, went into liquidation with the loss of 80 jobs. Does the First Minister share my concern about the impact of such job losses on this small community? What support can the Scottish Government provide to ensure that some highly skilled members of that workforce find employment as swiftly as possible?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I share the member’s concern about Ross and Bonnyman’s going into administration and the impact that it will have on the affected employees, their families and indeed the whole town of Forfar. I assure the member that we are doing everything possible to minimise the time that the individuals affected by redundancy are out of work and confirm that we have already taken immediate action through partnership action for continuing employment to provide support for the affected employees. The local PACE team is also at this moment discussing arrangements for an event for employees in the Reid hall in Forfar to give people the opportunity to meet a range of partners for advice and support. I understand that interest has been expressed by an employer in the area who is seeking to recruit employees, and we will do everything we can to facilitate that and other such interest.

Cabinet (Meetings)

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

3. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-00454)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

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

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Before Scotland’s freedom of information commissioner, Kevin Dunion, stood down last week, he warned that Scotland’s freedom of information system is at risk of slipping behind that of other countries, including the rest of the United Kingdom. Surely that is a serious blow to our aims of being a beacon for progress. Why did the First Minister block the extension of information laws to cover housing associations, private finance initiative companies and other public bodies?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

There are two answers to that question. First, the freedom of information laws in Scotland are substantially better and more progressive than those elsewhere. Secondly, representations from a range of organisations explained why this time of some difficulty would not be the moment to extend freedom of information legislation. I gently point out to Willie Rennie that if the Liberal party had thought this issue to be so important, it would have used its very substantial influence in the last coalition Administration to bring forward such legislation in Scotland.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

We are very proud of the progress that we made on freedom of information when we were in government; the First Minister should reflect on the progress that he has made. I also point out that it was Kevin Dunion who said that Scotland was in danger of slipping behind the rest of the UK. The First Minister seems to have let others’ objections overrule the commissioner’s sensible proposals.

Access to information is important in a free and liberal Scotland if we are to challenge those who wield power. Why can tenants in Lanarkshire get information about their rent increases while tenants in Glasgow cannot? How can an arm’s-length company spending millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money dodge giving answers while councils cannot? It was not me but Kevin Dunion who said:

“I am not entirely clear why the Government has decided to row back”.—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 10 January 2012; c 811.]

Can the First Minister be clear? He always wants to be David but is he not now Goliath, blocking the rights of ordinary Scots?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

No—I will stick to being David, if that is all right. I remember the result of that particular contest.

The matter is under consideration and we are sympathetic to suggestions. I am particularly sympathetic to the suggestion that we examine PFI contracts in detail, although I gently point out to the member that we have not signed many such contracts as opposed to the huge volumes that were signed by the Labour and Liberal parties when they were in government in Scotland. One might argue that that is why the public procurement policy supported by this Government is proving significantly more successful than our predecessors’ private procurement policy.

Leuchars (Multirole Brigade)

Roderick Campbell (Scottish National Party, North East Fife)

4. To ask the First Minister what recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Defence regarding the establishment of a multirole brigade at Leuchars. (S4F-00460)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The impact of the United Kingdom Government’s basing review decisions on Leuchars and other affected communities throughout Scotland remains a key concern for the Scottish Government. The Cabinet Secretary for Parliamentary Business and Government Strategy wrote to the Secretary of State for Defence on Friday 3 February to request an urgent meeting to discuss progress and to seek reassurance that the commitments that were made in July 2011 will stand, including that Leuchars will become home to part of the multirole brigade.

Roderick Campbell (Scottish National Party, North East Fife)

The First Minister will be aware of press comments, saying that the Secretary of State, Philip Hammond, has cast doubt over the deployment of the multirole brigade, seven months after his predecessor confirmed that very commitment in a statement to the House of Commons. Does the First Minister agree that such fearmongering is very unsettling for my constituents? Will he join me in condemning the comments, and urge Mr Hammond to offer clarity on the situation as a matter of urgency?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Roderick Campbell makes a very good point about his constituents. When communities accept military bases—whether those are air force or army bases—they have a right to expect a long-term commitment. That is exactly the long-term commitment that the Scottish National Party proposes the Government should give.

The defence review last year took some very hard decisions for Scotland. There were hard decisions for Kinloss and for Leuchars but, following significant cross-party representations from this Parliament and others, a policy was announced that in the overall balance had some benefits for Scotland. It would be disgraceful if there was any attempt by the new defence secretary to unpick that arrangement. Of course, he has not said that that is the policy; he has hinted at it in a letter to a member of Parliament. In policy terms, the Ministry of Defence says that there is no change from last year’s commitment.

I will say two things. First, politicians—whether they are the Secretary of State for Defence or anyone else—should not use the future of bases as some sort of political weapon in arguments by hinting to MPs in letters. Secondly, the outrage in Scotland if there is any reneging on the commitments that were made last year would encompass every part of the community and every single party in Scotland.

Secondary Education (National Exams)

Hugh Henry (Labour, Renfrewshire South)

5. To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government considers that the introduction of new national exams in 2013-14 is on schedule. (S4F-00459)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The new national qualifications are on course for 2013-14. The track record of the curriculum for excellence programme shows that we have met every target and request for additional support from education authorities. In taking forward implementation of curriculum for excellence, dispensation for targeted delays of one year to new national qualifications will be available where the circumstances justify it.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Renfrewshire South)

The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning has assured Parliament that the introduction of curriculum for excellence is on track, but Scotland’s teachers are telling us that the materials—and they—are not ready. Are Scotland’s teachers wrong?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

That is not the view of stakeholders throughout Scotland. As Hugh Henry knows, East Renfrewshire Council is a very particular example, because it—uniquely—stopped using standard grades in 2005 and replaced them with the intermediate qualification.

The view of stakeholders is not as Hugh Henry has presented it. For example, Glenn Rodger, the president of the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland, says that ADES

“has been fully involved in, and remains committed to, the ... implementation of ... curriculum for excellence, including the broad general phase through to S3; an exciting and challenging senior phase; and the new qualifications framework. There has been strong consensus about this approach”.

That consensus includes teachers in Scotland, the vast majority of whom are enthusiastic about the opportunities that curriculum for excellence involves.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning said on “Good Morning Scotland” last Friday that

“East Renfrewshire is in a very special position”

and that he was not surprised that it wanted to do things differently. Why, then, should all other local authorities be told that it would be tremendously disruptive if they were to do things differently?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

As I have already mentioned, East Renfrewshire Council’s unique position is that it stopped using standard grades in 2005 and replaced them with the intermediate qualification. The other 31 local authorities all still use standard grades, and have all confirmed that they will move to the new national qualifications within their current secondary 2 cohort in 2013-14. The unique position of East Renfrewshire explains the difference in its decision making.

In fairness to East Renfrewshire, I point out that it has said that it is fully and absolutely committed to the implementation of curriculum for excellence, stating as it did on 31 January:

“Our staff have engaged fully in the implementation of Curriculum for Excellence and the introduction of the new Nationals and will continue to do so.”

There is a huge fund of goodwill and optimism about the new qualifications in Scotland. The curriculum for excellence has wide and broad-based support. I hope that, at some point, that broad-based support across the educational community in Scotland will be reflected across the political parties in this Parliament.

Renewables Targets (Offshore Opportunities)

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West Scotland)

6. To ask the First Minister how important offshore opportunities in the west of Scotland are in helping to meet the Scottish Government’s renewables targets. (S4F-00463)