Scottish Parliament, 8 March 2012

352 contributions from 79 members. The official report.

Curriculum for Excellence

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S4M-02242, in the name of Hugh Henry, on curriculum for excellence.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Renfrewshire South)

I put on record Scottish Labour’s support for curriculum for excellence. We want it to work, and to work well. We think that, once it is embedded, it will make a significant contribution to putting 21st century Scottish education right up there with the best in the world. It is because we want it to be a success that we are speaking up for the thousands of teachers and parents across Scotland who are expressing fears and concerns.

I know that this is an unusual thing for a politician to say, but I hope that I am wrong. I hope that I am wrong about the state of readiness for curriculum for excellence, and I hope that Mike Russell is right when he says that the state of preparedness is good. For the sake of all Scotland’s pupils, I genuinely hope that the cabinet secretary will be able to demonstrate that my fears and concerns are misplaced.

I support the cabinet secretary when he says that more support will be made available to the teachers and schools that need it, and I would welcome details of exactly what additional support has been given to specific schools. An audit is long overdue, and I welcome the cabinet secretary’s decision this week to conduct one, but I cannot understand why it has taken until now. I took from his comments to the Education and Culture Committee that a delay might be considered if all other efforts had failed at the end of a process of support, but the problem is that we are nearing the end of that process. At the end of April, teachers will be expected to absorb the new details and, in many schools, to start teaching the new courses at the beginning of June.

Now is the time, therefore, to listen to the professionals who will have to deliver the new exam courses and, if we truly believe that parents have a role to play in educating their children, we should listen also to the concerns of anxious parents. We need to listen to parents who cannot get answers to reasonable questions put to teachers. We cannot afford to gamble with our children’s future. Teachers across Scotland are saying that they and the materials are not ready so, today, why do we not let the voices of teachers and parents tell the story? Politicians should be listening to them.

When teachers say that they are nowhere near ready for implementation, are they wrong? What about the teacher who says,

“In my school, at least half of the teachers have had their concerns rejected out of hand by the local authority, who insist that there is no alternative”,

or the one who says,

“At a meeting of our school, several staff asked to be allowed to continue to offer intermediate courses in the best interests of our pupils. We were told that we must deliver the National 4 and National 5 courses. If only our authority had the courage of East Renfrewshire”?

What about the teacher who says

“I am a history teacher and I can say with confidence that none of my colleagues have any confidence in the new system”,

or the one who says,

“I work in a high school. We are nowhere near ready for implementation. We have had no guidelines on how we are going to assess. It will be a complete disaster”?

Other teachers say,

“I am just concerned that there is not a proper course in place. Mr Russell talks about this additional support. I’ve looked online. I don’t know where it is”,

and,

“Ask Mike Russell this: can departments be expected to deliver three courses ... for August (or even May if the timetable is changed earlier) if the final versions are only being published in April? Is it good planning to have a four-week window to write these three, two-year courses?”

Another has said:

“As a teacher, I find the workload of Curriculum for Excellence overwhelming. Unfortunately no one will speak out because, as a teacher, you are in a no win situation. If the Curriculum succeeds then it will be the Government and Education Scotland who get the credit, not the teachers who have made themselves ill to try to make it work. On the other hand, if it fails then it will be the fault of teachers for not implementing it properly. So teachers cannot speak out.”

It is not just secondary teachers who are expressing concerns. A relatively new primary teacher said:

“I was very excited to start teaching Curriculum for Excellence. After all, it is hard not to like ideas such as collaborative group work, formative assessment and making our kids responsible citizens.

We have no new materials and mostly use exactly the same 5-14 material that was in place or resources scavenged from the internet.

The National Assessment Resource is a joke—materials have been scanned from old 5-14 resources or look as though they have come from student teachers. No use to man or beast.

I am fundamentally committed to Curriculum for Excellence but I now feel that its implementation has been a disaster which really does have the possibility of wrecking the education of our kids.”

Those are her words, not mine. Another said:

“It is like the Emperor’s new clothes. There is no detail, but everyone is afraid to say so.”

It is not just teachers. Why do we not listen to parents such as the one who said:

“I have been hitting brick wall after brick wall despite writing several letters to his school. I have now attended Parents’ evening at my son’s school, and am more concerned than ever about my son’s educational future. At parents’ evening, teachers were unable to answer specific questions about the syllabus or assessments. Several teachers told me off the record that Curriculum for Excellence is in shambles, but that they are not allowed to speak out about it.

I am afraid that children like my son will be the losers if it is allowed to go ahead this year”?

What about the couple who were worried that their son and his classmates were—to use their words, not mine—“guinea pigs” for a change that was unclear to them and, indeed, to teachers? They said:

“We are worried that teachers themselves are unsure”.

One parent said:

“Right now, I have no idea when my son will make his subject choices or if he will be offered the breadth of qualifications needed to enter University. Teachers were unable to tell me much about the qualifications.”

I do not underestimate the gravity of the situation or the dilemma that the cabinet secretary faces. The motion was lodged not to try to divide support for curriculum for excellence; rather, it was lodged for a very practical reason. Too many teachers and parents remain unpersuaded that everything is on track, as the cabinet secretary has suggested, and all the teaching unions are reporting concerns from members that delivery cannot be achieved in a consistent manner across Scotland within the current timetable. Indeed, the Educational Institute of Scotland today published a survey of its members in secondary schools that showed that fewer than 5 per cent of the respondents were very confident that their department will be able to deliver the exams on time, and 82 per cent said that the quality and the level of support from the Scottish Government is unsatisfactory. Teachers are saying that they need more time as well as more resources.

Why is it acceptable to grant a delay to an authority with an outstanding record of delivery in education, but wrong to do the same for other teachers who say that they are not ready? We cannot afford to have even a small minority of pupils disadvantaged. That could live with them for a long time.

Now is the time to examine why there are complaints. Today, we must show that the Parliament is ready to do what is best for our children. We should say that we support the cabinet secretary’s offer of more support where that is required but, equally, we should listen when teachers say that they are not ready and that they need more time. Even at this late stage, I appeal to the cabinet secretary to develop a political consensus to work with teachers and parents to do the right thing. A managed delay is better than disorganised chaos.

This is not about politicians; it is not even about parents and teachers. This is about Scotland’s pupils. We should not gamble with their future.

I move,

That the Parliament reaffirms its support for the Curriculum for Excellence, which it believes can make a significant contribution to Scottish education; notes however the widespread and persistent concerns being expressed by teachers and parents across Scotland about the readiness of preparation for the new examinations associated with the Curriculum for Excellence; further notes that, despite the reassurances offered by the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, these concerns have not been allayed; believes that no pupils in Scotland should be disadvantaged if teachers in any school feel ill-equipped to prepare pupils for the new exams; further believes that the current timetable does not give teachers sufficient time to familiarise themselves with the details, and believes that calls for a delay should be heeded and urgent action taken to secure consistent implementation across Scotland of all aspects of the Curriculum for Excellence.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I am always pleased to have the opportunity in the Parliament to reinforce our long-standing vision for curriculum for excellence, and to congratulate our teachers and everyone who is committed to Scotland’s education system on the successful implementation of the curriculum for excellence.

I would be happy to receive from Mr Henry the details of every single individual whom he quoted, and I would be happy to offer additional help and support for every single individual whom he quoted and any others whom he wishes to quote, because my job is to ensure that we support every single teacher and inform every single parent. That is what we will do. If Mr Henry provides those details to me after the debate, we will take supportive action.

However, our shared purpose in the Parliament goes further: we have to ensure that our education system is the best that it can be, and we have to prepare our young people for an uncertain and challenging world.

As I said to the Education and Culture Committee on Tuesday, the timing of this Labour Party debate is not constructive. There can be only one interpretation of a decision to hold a debate during a period in which it is known that we are in the middle of negotiations with the EIS. That interpretation is that some people may wish to prevent an agreement from being reached between the Government and the EIS on all the support and help that must be made available to teachers at every stage of the programme. Providing that support is precisely what we will do. I am pleased to tell the Parliament that discussions and negotiations are going well. I am optimistic that we will be able to announce more details over the next week or so, which will address the concerns of teachers that have been expressed in the EIS survey and elsewhere.

I am also grateful to the EIS general secretary-elect for another thing: Larry Flanagan has offered to support and facilitate a restoration of the cross-party consensus on curriculum for excellence—a consensus that we need. Larry’s strong record in building and developing curriculum for excellence makes him ideally placed to do that. I said to him yesterday that I would want him to take that forward and I told him that he would have my full support. I hope that he will also get the full support of the other education spokespeople in the chamber, so that we can get back to the cross-party consensus that was essential in this process of major change.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Renfrewshire South)

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

No, I would like to make some progress before I take an intervention.

I am grateful to members of the Education and Culture Committee, whose motives have been in contrast to the motives behind today’s debate. Members of the committee have taken the time to question and inquire into the issues that face the programme. Let me put the current criticisms in context. From 2004, the building blocks for curriculum for excellence were laid down in documents establishing the key principles. As Peter Peacock said in 2004, curriculum for excellence would be

“the key liberator ... opening up choice and flexibility in learning for the first time”.

Since 2007, we have focused on key implementation issues, and detailed guidance for the curriculum from three to 18 was issued in 2009.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Renfrewshire South)

The cabinet secretary should not misinterpret expressions of concern over the state of readiness as a lack of support for curriculum for excellence. There is still cross-party consensus; we do not need Larry Flanagan or anyone else to try to re-establish it. The consensus is still there; the concerns are over the state of readiness.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I regret that Mr Henry appears unwilling to take part in the discussions with Mr Flanagan. I hope that other spokespeople will not be as unwilling to re-establish the consensus.

The programme that has been rolled out in secondary school since 2010 includes a raft of measures to support schools and teachers. It has included Education Scotland inspectors working in partnership with the Scottish Qualifications Authority and local authorities to provide direct support for capacity building in schools. More than 360 support activities took place during the 2010-11 school year alone. I set up 18 excellence groups to stimulate debate and discussion about the place of subjects. Those groups reported in May 2011. I have given particular priority to information engagement with parents and the production of written fact files, web-based information, and DVDs for parent nights.

I estimate that more than 1,500 professionals from schools, colleges and universities—plus parents, employers, stakeholders and other partners—have engaged with the SQA in the development of the new qualifications. Since I became cabinet secretary in December 2009, I have delivered on all our commitments—including new investment of £3.76 million a year to support teachers’ development of assessment. Furthermore, not one target date for the introduction of the new qualifications has been missed on my watch. In the past year alone, the full suite of draft documents for the new national qualifications—from national 1 through to higher—has been published online, to allow all teachers to feed into their development. In addition, a series of SQA and Education Scotland curriculum events, attended by more than 1,000 practitioners, was held over November and December. The final documents will be published, on schedule, in April. That will allow—and I think that I should stress this point, Presiding Officer—16 months for teachers to plan for implementation in secondary 4 in 2013-14.

Calls have been made for delay, and I treat those calls seriously. I treat seriously EIS’s survey today. It had a response rate of under 10 per cent of secondary school teachers, but I treat it seriously. However, we have to put some other things into the balance. First, the chamber should fit into the balance the 54,000 young people in the current S2 cohort. Those young people have been in the vanguard for curriculum for excellence since they were in primary school. They are the pupils we should be thinking of. To let them down, and to desert their aspirations and their education, would be wrong.

Let us also put into the balance the 31 directors of education who confirmed with their headteachers that our 360 secondary schools are on track. Let us also turn to the National Parent Forum of Scotland, which represents every parent council in Scotland, whose chair, Iain Ellis, wrote to me and all our parliamentary spokespersons on 2 March to say:

“Our view is that delay is actually unworkable”.

Last week, the head of the SQA, Janet Brown, warned the Education and Culture Committee that continuing to offer standard grades—so-called triple running—is not tenable. She said:

“the additional risk to our ability to deliver a successful diet would be over the top. The option of triple running is simply not viable.”—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 28 February 2012; c 811.]

We need to listen to those compelling voices.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

No. I want to make progress and I do not have much time.

Although those voices are indeed compelling, I am listening to every single voice. Education Scotland continues to work with local authorities and a new support package will be put in place. We will do everything we can, but we should do it within the context of ensuring that the people who need additional help and support get it. I do not believe that any teacher in Scotland who has the right support, the right help and the right leadership—which will come from the Government, from Education Scotland, from their local authority and from within their school—cannot rise to the challenge and deliver the conclusion of a programme that has been eight years in the making.

Curriculum for excellence is the most important educational reform programme in our generation. It is not a revolution but a wide-ranging process of transformational change that will make our education system fit for the 21st century and improve our children’s achievements, attainment and life chances. We are preparing young people to take on jobs and start up new businesses using technologies that have yet to be invented and brought to market; we are preparing children for an unknown world and we need to have the courage to go ahead with this long-lasting programme.

In conclusion, I quote Rod Grant, the head of Clifton Hall school in Edinburgh, who in today’s Scotsman has said:

“the time has come to stop prevaricating and instead to be getting on with the business in hand. A further delay in CfE’s introduction serves no useful purpose but simply cements current uncertainties and worries and does nothing to improve secondary education in Scotland.”

Let us finish the job that we are doing.

I move amendment S4M-02242.3, to leave out from “however” to end and insert:

“the widespread support for Curriculum for Excellence from teachers, parents and learners, including the hundreds of teachers and other professionals involved in the development of these qualifications; recognises the risks to learners that could result from a wholesale delay in implementation; further welcomes the unprecedented levels of support that are already provided by national agencies and local authorities to ensure that teachers are confident in delivering Curriculum for Excellence; recognises that additional support has been and will continue to be offered on a school by school basis as required, and remains true to the vision of empowering teachers and working with parents and learners to deliver the right education for every child in Scotland.”

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank Hugh Henry for bringing this timely debate to Parliament and for his suggestion that there are practical reasons for lodging the motion.

No matter whether we are talking about pupils, parents, teachers, education officers or politicians, there can be no doubt in anyone’s mind about the huge significance of the changes that are happening in our schools and the essential need for everyone who is involved to feel comfortable with them. Much is at stake, but I hope that none of us will forget that the ultimate criteria by which we should judge this issue are what is in the best educational interests of individual pupils and how we support their teachers and parents in meeting that objective.

We must also remember that this is not a debate about the merits or otherwise of curriculum for excellence or about building consensus—I believe that we have that already. We have had those debates and time has moved on. Nor is this a debate about whether it was wise to have such a long gap between publishing many of the course development materials and setting out the details of the exams—we have had that debate as well. We are not here to make out that our classrooms are in crisis, because they are not.

However, we need to deal with the reality in those classrooms, whether it is that as exposed in the EIS survey or by the many other teachers who are in different unions or none. Curriculum for excellence is happening and we must now ensure that schools can provide as smooth a passage as possible between the new courses and the new exams in an appropriate timescale.

As I understand it, the main message from the majority of schools—and indeed parents and pupils—is that there is no fundamental objection to the main principles of curriculum for excellence or the new exams that will accompany them. Debates are quite properly going on about whether there is enough academic rigour in curriculum for excellence, whether the articulation between schools and colleges or universities is right and about the wisdom of renaming some subjects, but the basic philosophy is not in dispute.

Let us remember why we are making these changes: we are seeking to make learning more meaningful for every pupil, to instil in them an understanding of not just what they are learning but why they are learning and to develop in them skills that are cross-curricular and more relevant to the very fast-changing world in which we live.

Cut away all the unhelpful jargon and the unwelcome political correctness, and curriculum for excellence asks all schools to think more deeply about what makes a rounded, well-educated human being who is both adaptable and responsible in modern society. Crucially, it allows schools to be more flexible, and it is on that point that I believe the Scottish Government has shown its greatest weakness.

Last week, the Education and Culture Committee was emphatically told by the director of education in East Renfrewshire that its headteachers unanimously wanted to delay implementation on account of the reports that they had received that teachers—and therefore their pupils—wanted additional security. He was not trying to score points off anybody or trying to score media points. He was merely acting in the best interests of his schools. We heard from the EIS—and it produced more evidence yesterday—that it, too, believes that many schools are not ready and that it would be better in such instances to leave things for another year.

Alternatively, we heard from the SQA and Education Scotland that many schools are ready to proceed, and they told us about the dangers of any widespread delay—aspects on which I think we can all agree. I hope that we also all agree that it is right for those schools to proceed, for reasons that I note are given in the letter from the headmaster of Clifton Hall school, which the cabinet secretary quoted. It would be ridiculous to argue otherwise. However, it is also ridiculous to argue that all schools must adhere to the same timescale, especially when the cabinet secretary has told some of them that they have special circumstances.

Frankly, I do not understand why we should be surprised about the different signals that are coming out from our schools. Curriculum for excellence is a major change. Different schools and departments are starting from different points. They have different pupil numbers and they offer different subject choices across different curriculum structures. Some are ready and some are not. It is by no means the first time that that has been the case in Scottish education. We have coped before and we will cope again without doing any damage to pupils’ education.

On top of that, parents and teachers are confused by the cabinet secretary’s public utterances. He offered the view that East Renfrewshire could be treated as a special case because it is not doing standard grades, but it turns out that that is not the whole picture.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The member knows this and I suspect that she was expecting me to say it, but I want to repeat it. The letter from the East Renfrewshire headteachers in the Times Educational Supplement Scotland of 24 February contains the phrase, at the end of the comments on the request for the delay:

“This is only possible because of our unique position.”

If the headteachers recognise that, the member should recognise it, too. They are asking for this because of their unique position. It is not possible for others.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The cabinet secretary told me that at committee as well, but the director of education said that there are two specific reasons. The second is that he feels that his schools are not ready.

I return to where I started. We must ensure that what we are doing is in the best interests of all pupils. I do not believe that any of us knows exactly what is happening on the ground in our schools. However, I believe that the schools themselves know that and, for that reason alone, they should be the ones who decide.

I move amendment S4M-02242.1, to leave out from “that, despite” to end and insert:

“the substantial concerns expressed by some teachers and professional bodies that specific schools or departments in some schools are not yet fully ready to introduce the new exams; regrets the confused messages issued by the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning about this whole issue, and calls on the Cabinet Secretary to make clear that a decision about whether or not the one year delay is in the best interests of pupils is entirely a matter for an individual school rather than for the Scottish Government.”

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West Scotland)

I begin by thanking Liz Smith. I did not necessarily agree with everything that she said, but her speech was a reasonable and reasoned argument of her point of view. I have to disagree with her opening remarks, though, about the timing of the debate. I share the cabinet secretary’s concern that the likely outcome is to stoke more anxiety among parents, pupils and teachers rather than to provide more information and reassurance. The proper place for the debate was the Education and Culture Committee. That is why I invited the various stakeholders to the committee, and I believe that that was the right thing to do.

Like Hugh Henry, let me give some quotes—I feel that it is going to be a morning of quotes, Presiding Officer. Let me start with:

“School staff at all levels are being demoralised by continual pressure for enormous change, unrealistic change, and change which is not being resourced ... There is no longer any belief among headteachers that what is demanded of schools can be achieved at any level of personal effort”.

I could go on, as I have much more in the same vein. That is not about the curriculum for excellence, though. It is about the introduction of the five-to-14 curriculum.

As we have seen over many years, every time there is change, particularly in education, there are genuine anxieties and fears at the point of change, so it is not unusual to see that this time. In fact, it would be unusual not to see anxiety and hear such comments at this time. However, let us not believe that those comments are different from what we would have heard during previous changes in the education system.

I am concerned that the motion mentions “widespread and persistent concerns”. I am not sure whether Hugh Henry has paid attention to what has happened in the Education and Culture Committee during the past two weeks, but the motion in no way reflects the reality of the oral and written evidence that the committee received. For Hugh Henry’s information, I will quote some of those who appeared.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

I am sure that Stewart Maxwell recalls that the general secretary of the EIS, who gave evidence to the committee, reflected such concerns.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West Scotland)

Let me quote what was said by the National Parent Forum, the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland, the EIS and the SQA, which also gave evidence to the committee. Mr Lanagan from ADES said:

“There is no doubt that such decisions have led the media and some political commentators to make criticisms of the system that I do not think are justified or reflect views that are as widely held as people seem to believe that they are.”

Mr Maxwell, from the EIS, said:

“a delay would mean a huge loss of momentum for the programme and, as Janet Brown has outlined, it would have a great opportunity cost in terms of not getting the benefits of curriculum for excellence for young people in Scotland.”

Dr Janet Brown, from the SQA, said:

“It is important for our young people that we implement it as soon as possible, because it will make them and Scotland successful. Any delay will also delay that success, which is a crucial point for us to remember.”—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 28 February 2012; c 786, 809.]

It is vital that we hear from the experts and from all sources, but it is particularly important that we hear from parents. The National Parent Forum has said:

“In the light of recent suggestions from some quarters that delivery of National qualifications should be delayed, we are writing to express our concern. Our view is that delay in actually unworkable ... It makes no sense to us.”

It is clear that there is a huge amount of support for curriculum for excellence among members, which is why I regret that the Labour Party has tried to cause fog and confusion in the area.

I will conclude my short four minutes by talking about the timeline. Labour members have suggested that some sort of big bang will occur with curriculum for excellence in April and May this year, and that teachers will have but a few short weeks to go from nothing to everything and provide examinations. That is not the case. It is a false premise and it is rather disgraceful of Labour to perpetuate such a myth. There will be no big bang. I could quote extensively from the SQA. Many draft documents are already online and we should commend the work that has been done to ensure, as far as possible, a smooth transition to the new qualifications. A delay would result in a patchwork education system across the country and that would be in no one’s interests.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

Labour did not bring forward the debate today because we disagree with curriculum for excellence. The opposite is true; it is because we support curriculum for excellence and the important part that it can play in improving education for all our pupils that we raise concerns on behalf of teachers and parents today. It is vital that teachers and parents are confident in the planned changes and that they feel that they are fully prepared to securely implement the new national qualifications.

Teachers are caring professionals who want to provide the best possible education for our children and we must give them the required support and time so that they can do their job to the best of their ability. We must therefore listen to what teachers and parents are saying. They are undoubtedly concerned about the lack of support that they have received to date to securely implement the new qualifications. According to one of the biggest surveys of its members that the EIS has ever conducted, 82 per cent of teachers feel that the support that has been received to date from the Scottish Government is unsatisfactory.

I acknowledge that a full Education Scotland audit of schools’ preparedness for the introduction of the new qualifications is important, but it is worrying that members of Parliament do not know right now how many schools are prepared and how many are not. I welcome the cabinet secretary’s commitment to giving schools and teachers whatever support is necessary, but the truth is that many feel that they might need more time and breathing space to securely implement the new qualifications 4 and 5.

Teachers tell us that it is all very well saying that draft materials have been published, but there is a lack of sufficient knowledge about the exams to deliver courses. Although the exams will not be until 2014, schools that have the two-plus-two structure are giving second-year pupils their choices now and will begin to deliver courses in June this year. That is what teachers tell us. Many teachers feel that four weeks is not long enough for them to read the materials, consider the implications for practice and learning, discuss with colleagues and develop teaching courses, content and materials.

We should know what evaluation has been done to identify the emerging norms across the country, given that the schools and education authorities have been deciding their own structures for curriculum for excellence. That information should be known by now—in fact, it should have been known before now.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Will the member give way?

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

I am sorry, but I do not have enough time. I hope that the cabinet secretary will listen to what we have to say.

With the summer fast approaching, we worry that time is running out. I sincerely hope that the audit and subsequent support will not be too little, too late. The cabinet secretary quoted the SQA’s comment that it is not viable to run the new national qualifications, intermediates and standard grades at the same time because the body does not have enough resources. To ensure that all children in Scotland have the same safeguards for their education and life chances, what solution will the cabinet secretary consider if a delay is necessary?

As we have heard, East Renfrewshire Council is delaying implementation. It is the best-performing education authority in Scotland, so it would be careless not to take into account what it says. Although East Renfrewshire is unique in delaying, it reached its decision because teachers and headteachers unanimously agreed that, if the new qualifications could not be securely implemented, implementation would not be in the best interests of young people in the area. East Renfrewshire is in a unique position, but if other schools or authorities cannot securely implement the new national qualifications, the cabinet secretary needs to come up with a solution to that problem.

We need to listen to what teachers and parents say. As I said, Labour brought the debate to Parliament to raise with the cabinet secretary the serious concerns of teachers and parents. We welcome his commitment to listening to those concerns, but he must now provide the necessary solutions to deal with the problems as soon as possible.

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

We have talked a lot about the reasons for introducing curriculum for excellence, which is underpinned by the four principles of producing successful learners, confident individuals, responsible citizens and effective contributors. However, have we forgotten why the curriculum for excellence was necessary? We have not talked about the problems with the existing system. Too much of the teaching material skates over the surface of issues; children are passive in their lessons; lessons are fragmented; and pupils are not rewarded for practical achievements such as the Duke of Edinburgh awards.

I should declare an interest in that I am a councillor in North Lanarkshire and I am married to a National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers representative.

The Opposition has offered anecdotal evidence, which is not the basis for good policy, but I point out that my son is just going through his standard grade English, and he is sitting it in third year, not fifth year. I mention that lest we forget that there are a variety of ways of implementing standard grade across Scotland. In fourth, fifth and sixth year, which is when pupils normally present for standard grade, there are problems with people spending too much time doing unit tests, preliminaries, coursework and exams and too little time learning new things. I have seen that in my child’s case in relation to folios. I know from living with an English teacher for many years, and from other anecdotal evidence, about the pressures in schools at folio time. The standard grade system is not ideal, so it is necessary to change it.

I am not an educationist, although I know that many of the members taking part in the debate are, but I am a mathematics and statistics graduate. Although 70 per cent of teachers saying that they are not ready for curriculum for excellence is a good headline, actually 73 per cent of EIS members did not respond to the survey asking whether they had problems with their workload or with readiness for curriculum for excellence. So 73 per cent of teachers did not feel it necessary to respond.

I am not at all complacent about those who have raised concerns, but—[Interruption.]

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The cabinet secretary could not have been clearer in his commitment to provide support for any individual teacher, department or school that experiences problems. In fact, Hanzala Malik raised the issue—he drilled down into it—during this week’s Education and Culture Committee meeting and received an assurance from Education Scotland and the cabinet secretary that individual teachers could self-refer if they had a problem.

Although I am not an educationist, I have considerable experience of project management, so I know that delay means cost. There will be cost attached to the capacity issues in those organisations that have to cope with the delay. Where will we find markers if we end up with a triple-running nightmare scenario? How will schools’ timetabling arrangements be affected if three different projects are run at once? How will that help us advance educationally? East Renfrewshire is unique. There is no impact on capacity, the SQA or timetabling arrangements, because the council does not do standard grade. To delay, even in part, and end up with a triple-running nightmare scenario in Scotland would be the worst possible outcome for our young people.

I recently visited the Scottish Poetry Library and the Scottish Book Trust, which are working incredibly hard to deliver excellent online programmes for curriculum for excellence. The whole of civic Scotland is behind curriculum for excellence and today we in this Parliament should get behind it, too.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

As Stewart Maxwell has said, this debate follows on from two detailed Education and Culture Committee meetings in the past fortnight with the cabinet secretary and a wide range of expert witnesses. That illustrates the importance that everyone in the chamber attaches to the issue.

At Tuesday’s committee meeting, Michael Russell set the scene by highlighting, quite properly, the long-standing cross-party support for curriculum for excellence, which was initiated by the previous Executive and developed—for the reasons ably outlined by Clare Adamson—by the current Administration.

I have a quibble with Michael Russell’s selective memory of the political architects of curriculum for excellence, notably his omission of my colleague Nicol Stephen’s central role in the early days. I recognise, however, that, by quoting Messrs Peacock and Macintosh, Mr Russell was more interested in making a point to Labour members.

I agreed with a great deal of the cabinet secretary’s remarks on Tuesday and this morning, not least his views on the contribution that curriculum for excellence can make to enhancing the education of all our children and young people, and on the phenomenal amount of work put in by teachers in schools throughout Scotland, supported by Education Scotland, the SQA, councils and others.

However, one of the cabinet secretary’s comments stood out. It was not his remarkable assertion that, since becoming cabinet secretary,

“I have delivered on every commitment that I have made”,

which I am fairly certain would have prompted quite a bit of coffee to hit the walls of staff rooms throughout the country, not to mention walls in the homes of newly qualified teachers who would dearly love to be sitting in staff rooms somewhere in Scotland. Neither was it the education secretary’s commendable self-effacement in declaring that

“this is not about me”.—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 6 March 2012; c 823.]

Rather, it was his statement—and he was absolutely right about this—that this is about the young people in our schools. That is what motivated the Education and Culture Committee to take evidence on the issue, just as it is the absolute priority of everyone in the chamber for this debate. Whatever our view on whether a particular school or department should be allowed to delay proceeding with the new exams, it is entirely wrong for any of us to claim a monopoly on concern for the welfare of our young people.

In the limited time available, I want to signpost elements of what I have found to be informative evidence sessions in committee over the past two weeks. The evidence has reinforced my belief that a general wholesale delay in implementing the new exams is neither necessary nor desirable—a point which, as other members have noted, the National Parent Forum has also made. The evidence has also confirmed my sense that problems remain that cannot be ignored.

I am not suggesting that Mr Russell is ignoring the problems. I welcome the audit that was announced earlier this week and the additional support being made available through Education Scotland to teachers and schools that feel that they are struggling, which mirrors a similar exercise earlier in the process. However, the fact remains that with each passing week we are getting closer to the point when individual schools will need to decide whether they are sufficiently confident in their ability to deliver the new exams to proceed.

There are risks in delay, as the SQA and the cabinet secretary have emphasised, but I do not believe that any school or department would go down that route without extensive discussions with pupils, parents, local authorities and Education Scotland. Such a decision must be based only on sound and demonstrable reasons.

I am not suggesting anything that Mr Russell himself has not already accepted. On Tuesday, despite earlier pronouncements about the need for all schools to press ahead regardless, he finally conceded that, if there is any need to delay,

“the decision will ultimately be one that schools will want to make in the best interests of their pupils and their entire school community.”—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 6 March 2012; c 825.]

Precisely.

Although I welcome that belated acknowledgement—as I welcome the extra support that is being provided for those who need it—I am concerned about Mr Russell’s view that any final decision on a school’s preparedness to present pupils for the new exams can be taken only in the summer. That may be appropriate for some schools, but it could be too late for others that feel that they need to start making alternative arrangements sooner, not least to allow course choices to be made.

When Scotland’s best-performing education authority makes it plain that every one of its secondary headteachers lacks confidence in proceeding with the new exams and that a decision to delay must be made in good time to allow alternatives to be put in place, it is unsurprising that teachers with concerns elsewhere in the country have taken note. The circumstances are different in East Renfrewshire, but it is not credible to argue that the concerns that are being expressed by headteachers there are unique, nor that a decision to delay needs to be taken early in East Renfrewshire but can be postponed until the summer in every other part of the country.

The Scottish Liberal Democrats remain entirely committed to curriculum for excellence. We believe that its roll-out in our secondary schools can have and is having a hugely positive impact in enriching the education that we provide to our young people. However, different schools and departments are at different stages of preparedness for the new exams. It would be a mistake to force teachers to proceed this year against their better judgment, as it would be to prevent people from taking sufficient time to make alternative plans.

Dennis Robertson (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire West)

Members will gather that I am not speaking in my normal voice today because of a cold—I hope that I will be able to last for four minutes.

It is gratifying to hear that there is consensus in the chamber on curriculum for excellence, that all members are supportive of it and that it is right for our pupils and young people of the future. However, it is disconcerting that we have heard only negative comments from Hugh Henry and Neil Bibby about the concerns and anxieties that exist among parents and teachers. It is not all parents and teachers, but some parents and teachers who share those anxieties and concerns, which I believe are being fuelled by Hugh Henry and the Labour Party. He said that he hopes that he is wrong; I believe that he is wrong. The majority of teachers and parents are comfortable with the programme that has been set out. The draft guidance was available in the autumn, and we are told that we will have the final guidance in April. In the interim, teachers have been able to sign up to any changes through the guidance procedure.

I understand that it is great to get up at party conferences and grandstand in front of one’s own supporters and party members, but I do not think that it was helpful of Mr Henry to accuse the cabinet secretary of being “arrogant and bull-headed”. I am sure that the cabinet secretary will be able to defend himself against those accusations; I am more concerned about Mr Henry’s subsequent comment that the cabinet secretary does not listen. The cabinet secretary has often said in the chamber that he is listening. He is willing to listen, he does listen and he takes things on board. He wants to work in co-operation with not just the teachers and parents of children in Scotland, but the parties in the chamber to proceed with a positive agenda on the important issue of our children’s future.

I agree with virtually everything that was said by Liz Smith, who made some valid comments. My friend and colleague Stewart Maxwell put the issues into context. Neil Bibby’s concerns were addressed by Bill Maxwell at the Education and Culture Committee on 6 March, when his questions were answered in detail. I hope that Labour takes cognisance of what was said at that meeting. I hope that Labour will also take some guidance from Labour member Hanzala Malik, whose approach is consensual. He seems to be more comfortable with what the cabinet secretary has said and with the answers that were given at the committee meeting.

My plea to Hugh Henry and the Labour Party is that they listen to Hanzala Malik, who has a good point. If we can move forward, that will benefit our young people, Scotland and curriculum for excellence in the future.

Margaret McDougall (Labour, West Scotland)

We have made it clear today that Scottish Labour supports the curriculum for excellence and wants it to work for our schools, teachers and children. We want it to be implemented in the smoothest manner possible. If it is implemented correctly, it will have the opportunity to deliver benefits for pupils and to offer them a more comprehensive and more broadly based education. Contrary to what the cabinet secretary seems to think, we have nothing against change.

The curriculum for excellence is our children’s future, which is why it needs to be done right—not railroaded through when schools and parents have genuine concerns about its implementation. When unions, teachers, headteachers, parents and councils are asking the Scottish National Party Government to stop and listen, the Government needs to do that. If parents and teachers do not feel confident in the new system, it will not work. If the SNP continues to refuse to listen to their growing concerns, we cannot blame them for losing trust in the SNP on the education portfolio.

The Government needs to look at the evidence across Scotland, because we can ill afford to gamble with our young people’s future. A previous EIS survey found that more than half of classroom practitioners

“do not feel confident in their own personal state of readiness”.

The results of the latest EIS survey are even more worrying—70 per cent of respondents were “barely confident” or “not confident at all” about their department’s readiness to deliver the new qualifications on the current timescale, while less than 5 per cent of respondents were confident that their department could deliver the exams on time. Those figures are hugely significant and the Government needs to listen to the concerns that our teachers have expressed.

Ann Ballinger, the Scottish Secondary Teachers Association’s general secretary, said that teachers were “in some distress” about the changes and that they were

“hugely concerned that things are not going to be ready in time”.

She repeated that concern on Tuesday night’s “Newsnight Scotland”. I am afraid that, rather than reassuring me and watching parents, the response to her from Terry Lanagan of the Association of Directors of Education served only to make me even more concerned.

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

Will the member give way?

Margaret McDougall (Labour, West Scotland)

I am sorry—I am very short of time.

Parents are making the same comments and are—rightly—concerned for their children’s future. On BBC Radio Scotland’s “Call Kaye” programme, they branded the situation farcical, a shambles, a mess and a disaster. One parent who is also a teacher said:

“My child is in S1 and I’m terrified about it. Colleagues there don’t even have the exam content yet. Farcical”.

Another person said:

“I don’t think that the teachers would be complaining like that if they didn’t have reason. There’s no smoke without fire.”

These are real fears and concerns from real people, who need assurances that the system will be implemented properly and not rushed.

We have spoken about East Renfrewshire, so I will not comment on that.

The Scottish Secondary Teachers Association found that 45 per cent of respondents to a survey said that pupils in their schools were still making their subject choices at the end of second year, while 46 per cent were making their choices at the end of third year. There is no consistency, which is creating confusion. If a pupil moved from a local authority area that had delayed implementation to an area that had not delayed it, how would that affect that child’s education?

We welcome the announcement of an Education Scotland audit and the extra support that will be offered to schools that need it. I urge the Government to act on the audit’s findings, to consider the evidence that is at hand, to listen to the concerns of parents and teachers and not to gamble with our young people’s future by railroading through the policy when schools are not ready for it.

Marco Biagi (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

“Mr Mainwaring, we’re doomed.” Yet again, that is the subtext—well, that is what my notes say, but, come to think of it, it is more like the text itself.

I have often remarked that Labour Party front-bench members seem to live in a different world when it comes to their analyses. Today, I am glad that that is the case, because that world is a very bleak place indeed. Across Scotland, there are young people in second year and their parents who are hearing nothing but messages of fear and exaggeration, which are being spread—to be blunt—for the purpose of scoring political points. However, we must remember the aim: curriculum for excellence is a reform of education that is to bring about generational change—

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

Will the member give way?

Marco Biagi (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I am 45 seconds in; I cannot have said anything that Mr Findlay particularly dislikes yet. He should sit down.

Curriculum for excellence is a wholesale change of direction and methodology. Ronnie Summers, the headteacher of Musselburgh grammar school said:

“We are in the middle of a seven-year development programme and while any change programme is demanding, a delay is not in the interest of the current S2 group. We are not hearing a clamour for delay from school staff or parents.”

We could trade quotes for the four minutes of my speech—or the two minutes and 40 seconds that I have left—and Mr Henry certainly quoted a number of teachers. He also left 50,000 more unquoted. As the cabinet secretary said, where cases of the sort that Mr Henry mentioned arise, Education Scotland and local authorities should engage them in support. As far as we can tell, that is what is happening. No department or teacher should be afraid of asking for help. Just as support was offered before, it will be offered again. As a member of the Education and Culture Committee, I look forward to finding out more details of the support that is on offer, as I am sure that that is an issue that we will continue to examine. I also welcome the deep audit that is being run by Education Scotland, which will help to identify the support needs.

What matters are the 54,000 pupils in secondary 2. They and all the cohorts that follow them deserve the chance to be assessed using the same methodologies and philosophies of curriculum for excellence through which they have been taught. What matters now is getting it right. We cannot get it right by putting it off. We are past the point when standard grades could have been extended for one last gasp, and there was never a point when it would have been reasonable to make the entire country’s schools decant to intermediates for only one year before decanting again to nationals. If we had done that, I am sure that the EIS would be getting more than a 10 per cent response rate to their survey on the issue. Doing that would have let down pupils and created even more of an administrative obstacle for teachers. Of course, that is assuming that, if there were to be such a wholesale delay, moving to nationals would still be the aim—I hope that it is the aim of everyone in this chamber who supports curriculum for excellence.

One of the core changes in curriculum for excellence is the move away from the frenetic focus on repeated assessment. The pressure that Scotland puts on its young people is intense and unnecessarily duplicating. That is why nationals are one-year courses rather than the two-year standard grade courses and why we are introducing the three plus three model.

We should not underestimate the concerns that have been expressed. They are real, but they are best responded to by support, which is in place and is moving further into place with every passing week. We should also not underestimate the prize that is on offer. Secure implementation is important, but wholesale delay is impossible. Rather than unproductive speeches, such as the one that Hugh Henry gave at the Labour conference, we should hear about the ways in which we can continue to support schools so that, together, we can provide confidence to pupils and parents and ensure the successful delivery of curriculum for excellence.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

This has been a very good debate in which the different points have reflected the differences in our schools, which is quite natural. I am grateful to Dennis Robertson for putting his finger on one of the crucial points, which is that the cabinet secretary is a bully and arrogant. Where could Mr Robertson ever have got that impression from?

I do not believe that schools should ever have been put in this predicament in the first place. I have no doubt whatever that the professionals who have been involved for the past eight years, whether SQA, Education Scotland or directors of education in our local authorities, have been working extremely hard, along with our teachers, to ensure that curriculum for excellence goes as smoothly as possible. However, with hindsight I think that the Scottish Government was ill advised to allow quite such a long time to elapse between course development and the publication of the exam details.

I understand Janet Brown’s important point that exams should not dictate everything—she is absolutely right in that—and her point that exams should reflect the course work rather than the other way round. However, I also understand the natural anxiety of parents, pupils and, of course, teachers, because pupils want to ensure that they have the widest possible knowledge available as they make their subject choices, which, whether we like it or not, are the defining element in a child’s school career and what they decide to go on to in later life.

I worry that there is a cohort of teachers out there, even if we do not know its true size or the quotes that they might give us in private, who for one reason or another feel that they do not quite have enough information on which to build their course development. I may be wrong, but I do not think that many of those teachers are scaremongering; rather, they are anxious about what will happen to them if they cannot deliver on time and if they speak out.

We have all had their e-mails, which are articulate, coherent, informed and which plead with us to help them. I have one here from a teacher in a school that the cabinet secretary visited recently—I will not embarrass him by reading it out—who said that he was utterly astonished to hear that his school was supposedly on track to deliver the new exams, when that is clearly not the case. Moreover, I understand from my good colleague Jamie McGrigor that the cabinet secretary was confronted yesterday on that very point by a teacher from Campbeltown, who said that his school was not yet ready.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

May I clarify that point? Perhaps Mr McGrigor will want to reflect on whether he should have recounted a private conversation that took place during a school visit but, that aside, I hope that Mr McGrigor will also relate to the member the conversation that I had with the teacher, in which I indicated the ways in which additional support and help could, I hoped, be provided to him. Mr McGrigor’s quoting of that conversation is extremely unhelpful, given that the individual concerned might now be identified. However, I am happy to say that help will be provided to the entire school. We look for a mechanism to encourage teachers to come forward and get the help that they need, which is not helped by the type of action that the member has just taken by reporting a private conversation.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Mr McGrigor is also on record as saying that the cabinet secretary did deal with the question, but it was in a report of a public meeting of Parliament.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

It was a private conversation.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

No, it was not. The cabinet secretary will forgive me for saying so, but many other teachers have said exactly the same thing as the teacher concerned and there is nothing wrong in doing that, nor is there anything wrong in our reporting that.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

A very serious concern is raised if when someone raises an issue, the cabinet secretary has to try to allay their fears and say that there will be some sort of protection if they approach someone in authority—their boss or whoever.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

That is entirely a matter for the cabinet secretary to address.

As I said in my opening speech, the scale of the change and the fact that schools do not and should not all offer the same examination diet is why we need to accept that the pace will be different in different schools. Of course, such differences are entirely in line with the basic principles of curriculum for excellence. We have had staged changes before and no doubt we will have them again. I do not see anything wrong in that, providing that there are sound educational reasons for doing it.

We must judge the whole debate on sound educational reasons. Those are the crucial factor. Nothing else matters.

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

I am pleased to close for the Government in this debate on curriculum for excellence. I certainly welcome the curriculum’s successful implementation across Scotland. We must not underestimate how important it is for our young people and for Scotland’s future, which is what we should all be concerned about today. I am sure that we are, despite—I regret to say—the occasional evidence of my ears to the contrary from some quarters this morning.

I welcome the reaffirmed support for curriculum for excellence that has been expressed today. Local authorities, nurseries, schools, colleges and their dedicated staff throughout Scotland have all made good progress in implementing curriculum for excellence, particularly in the past two years. Every time that I visit schools—a regular part of my job—I see that the new curriculum is already making a real improvement to learning and teaching.

As Ken Macintosh rightly stated in Parliament in March 2008,

“there has been broad political agreement on the aims and agenda of the curriculum for excellence—a move away from the dominance of exams and teaching to the test; a decluttering of the overcrowded curriculum; more room for teachers to teach”.—[Official Report, 19 March 2008; c 7063.]

We must not forget those aims.

Although formal assessment for the qualifications is not intended to begin prior to fourth year, learning during the broad general education—up to the end of S3—will contribute to learning for the qualifications in S4 and beyond. Therefore, the implementation of the new qualifications for pupils who will be in S4 in 2013-14 is a key milestone in the implementation process.

Let me be clear: we cannot countenance wholesale delay of these qualifications. To do so would undermine the learning that our young people who are currently in S2 have followed since they were in primary school—a point that Marco Biagi made.

Hugh Henry said that we should not gamble with the future of our young people and nor should we. Delay would represent such a gamble. We should not underestimate the risks to learners that are associated with asking them to change a course that they have been on since 2009. The intermediates will not build on the curriculum for excellence-based learning that pupils should have experienced in S1 to S3, and those who call for a delay must remember that.

I feel the need to reiterate the point that we cannot run three examination systems simultaneously in Scotland, which, as the SQA has pointed out, is the implication of wholesale delay. Liz Smith and Liam McArthur made reasoned and measured contributions on the whole but, in their comments about East Renfrewshire Council, they overlooked the fact that it, uniquely, would not find itself in that position and, therefore, does not have much to teach us about the national situation.

The Government is committed to providing additional support to teachers or schools over and above the unprecedented levels of support that are already being provided where it is felt that that is needed to ensure that they are prepared for the new qualifications. To respond to Neil Bibby on that point, 300 such events are planned around Scotland to help to achieve that, together with a deep audit that will involve speaking to all Scotland’s schools.

As Stewart Maxwell and Clare Adamson pointed out, we have heard, and continue to hear, many calls against any delay from parents, teachers, headteachers, directors of education and others.

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen South and North Kincardine)

Is it not also the case that the former Labour Minister for Education and Young People, Peter Peacock, believes that there should be no delay in implementing curriculum for excellence? Is it not also the case that, in 2006, when Mr Peacock unfortunately had to give up being minister because of illness, there was a delay of six months and the incoming SNP Government had to go hell for leather to get curriculum for excellence back on track? During those six months, the education minister was none other than Hugh Henry. He may have fine words now about jeopardising curriculum for excellence, but his actions speak louder than those words.

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

I am always happy to hear support from wherever it may come.

I have phoned parent council chairs in Scottish schools over recent weeks and have yet to speak to one who wants the Government to take the advice that Mr Henry offers us on delay.

I must also say that, when Margaret McDougall wondered in her speech what would happen if a child moved from an authority that had delayed to one that had not, she rather undermined the case for allowing local authorities to delay.

Hanzala Malik offered a much more measured opinion in committee this week—other members have alluded to it—when he said:

“There are still grey areas on the mechanism for support”,

but

“once those become clear … many of the concerns will evaporate quickly.”—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 6 March 2012; c 840.]

When dealing with the future of our young people, all members have a duty not to feel compelled to fuel headlines that have a less-than-simple relationship with the facts.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Will the minister give way?

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

I am afraid that I must close shortly.

We have the opportunity today to send another powerful signal to teachers, parents, employers and learners that the Scottish Parliament appreciates and continues to back all their excellent efforts to make curriculum for excellence the success that we want and need it to be. We have a chance to give young Scots an even better education and to improve their life chances.

We have a chance to make it clear that the package of support that we have developed means that schools throughout Scotland should be in a position to do what we need them to do—that is, to get on with the introduction of the new qualifications that our young people expect us to deliver.

I trust that the Parliament will endorse what has been achieved across Scotland and look forward to the next stage in the journey. I hope that the Parliament will take that chance now and without delay.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

I make it clear that curriculum for excellence was a Labour initiative, which should—and I am sure will—deliver benefits for our young people, as Hugh Henry said. It will give schools and teachers greater professional autonomy to develop exciting and innovative lessons, using a variety of new and traditional teaching methods that are tailored to meet the needs of individual pupils. It will also give pupils greater flexibility and control over their learning, so that they can study the topics that most interest them. All that is welcome and will build on the excellent work that goes on in our schools. I know about that work, because I have worked in primary and secondary schools across the central belt, many of which are grappling with the new curriculum.

I hope that we will get to the desired stage at which we will judge our schools and pupils not on crude measures of the number of highers that are achieved but on how secure and confident young people are in the broad education that they receive. However, the reality is that in secondary schools exams are, and are likely to remain, a major part of the currency. That is what is partly feeding into teachers’ concern.

It is regrettable that Mr Maxwell accused Labour of claiming that there is a big bang approach. If he reads the Official Report of the Education and Culture Committee, which he chairs, he will find that it was the general secretary of the EIS who said that.

Stewart Maxwell rose—

I will allow Mr Maxwell to intervene, so that he can apologise to Labour members.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West Scotland)

Much as it might surprise Mr Findlay, I am not about to apologise to Labour members, because it is Labour members who have continually said, in and outwith the committee, that the first information will come in April or May and schools will have only four, six or eight weeks to implement curriculum for excellence. It is Mr Findlay and his colleagues who have been saying that and who should apologise to the teachers, parents and educationists who have been working on curriculum for excellence for many years.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

It is teachers who are saying that, not Labour members.

I enjoyed—as I think all members did—Dennis Robertson’s cabaret turn in defence of the cabinet secretary’s obvious and well-known humility.

We should not have needed this debate. We should have been celebrating moving into the final implementation and exam phase of curriculum for excellence, almost a decade after introduction. Instead, there is growing concern, confusion and anxiety among parents, teachers and the wider school community. Those feelings have not been forced on people as a result of some dastardly plan that has been cooked up by the Labour Party, teaching unions or militant parents. There is no conspiracy to undermine the very curriculum that Labour is proud to have kicked off. The motion reiterates our support for the new curriculum.

However, there are many ifs and buts and there is much contradiction. Schools were initially told that they must introduce the new exams in 2014, except for single departments in “exceptional circumstances”. We then had the East Renfrewshire case, to which Liz Smith and Neil Bibby referred. The best-performing education authority in the country decided to defer implementation for a year. The head of the authority’s education department said that he had applied a three-stage test before he made his decision. He consulted parents, who agreed. He consulted teachers and heads, who agreed. He then took the decision, based on the best interests of his pupils. Those seem to me to be sound, education-based reasons for advocating a delay.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I make a quick point, which is that one of the parents—who chairs the Education and Culture Committee—said that he had not been consulted, so there are many question marks. I refer again to the letter from headteachers, which I quoted to Liz Smith. They said that delay was possible in East Renfrewshire only because of the unique circumstances there. I advise the member to read the letter, because that is what it says.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

We have demonstrated that Mr Maxwell has a selective memory, so I think that he might have forgotten that he was consulted.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

No, sorry—I want to move on.

Stewart Maxwell rose—

I have already allowed the member to intervene, so I ask him to please sit down.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

Mr Maxwell, Mr Findlay is not taking an intervention.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

Mr Bibby referred to the models in schools. We were told that schools had to move to a three plus three model of education and that those that did not would be

“supported out of that position.”

There are schools up and down the country that are not implementing the three plus three model. I have had numerous representations from people across Scotland, with some telling me that pupils will select subjects in S2, while others tell me that pupils will do so in S3. In some schools in my area, subjects are being chosen in S2, while in others a few miles away that is happening in S3, even though the schools are in the same authority area. Such cases are not, as has been claimed, isolated to East Renfrewshire.

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

No, I have to make some progress.

The recent SSTA survey estimated that in 45 per cent of schools pupils are still selecting subjects in S2—in other words, those schools are ignoring the advice that has been given. It is not difficult to see why parents are confused and worried. How many examinable subjects will pupils select? Members can pick any number they want between five and nine. Again, the position varies from school to school.

Liam McArthur mentioned the fact that Bill Maxwell, who is the head of Education Scotland, and the cabinet secretary said that there would be a deep audit of schools to gauge their readiness for the new exam. Although that is welcome—if late—I hope that they will also take account of the survey that many members have mentioned that was carried out by the EIS, which represents teachers at the chalkface. They include those whom Mr Henry referred to, who spoke out loudly, and those who were on Radio Scotland last week, who told the cabinet secretary about their concerns.

The survey received 2,700 responses, which is the biggest response that the union has ever had. In it, teachers said loud and clear, “We are not ready.” Seventy per cent of respondents said that they were “barely confident” in their department’s readiness for curriculum for excellence. An astonishing 80 per cent said that the Government’s support was “unsatisfactory”. That is extremely serious.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

For the record, I point out that, of the 2,700 respondents, 648 did not fill in an answer to a single question and 58 per cent of them lacked confidence in an organisation that no longer exists. There are many questions that need to be asked about the survey. I am taking seriously the general information and am acting on it, and I ask the member to please acknowledge that.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

There are many questions to be asked about a great many things. Unfortunately, we have not had the answers to them this morning.

I will raise the issues that the survey has raised when I meet Larry Flanagan, the general secretary of my union, this afternoon. I look forward to that meeting.

If support is to be given to help those who are not ready, how can Education Scotland provide it, given that such a large number of teachers are “barely confident” in their readiness for curriculum for excellence? In addition, I have real worries about what will be offered and how it will be offered. How will teachers be given the freedom and confidence to say without fear or managerial pressure that they, their department or their school needs help? Can the cabinet secretary—if he will listen for a second—guarantee that any teacher, department or headteacher who does not feel ready will be fully supported; that if they feel pressure from management, a system is in place that will protect them; and that the issues that they raise will be addressed? Can he make sure that any support that is offered goes directly to those who need it and is not filtered through, and potentially diluted by, their local authority?

We should remember that curriculum for excellence is being implemented against the backdrop of education cuts, decreasing opportunities for young teachers and a pensions dispute. It seems to me that teachers, new and old alike, are having to contend with various concerns all at once. Such conditions do not seem to be the best starting point for the new direction in Scottish education.

I hope that the cabinet secretary and everyone who is working in Scotland’s education system can have confidence in the new curriculum. It represents a great opportunity for our young people and we all want it to succeed, but we cannot and must not gamble with our future. If delay is the safety net, so be it. It is better to delay than to rush ahead and risk the future wellbeing of our young people. The cabinet secretary must listen to Scotland’s teachers and parents. It is rather sad that, today, he and his back benchers have repeatedly brought party politics into the debate.

Aberdeen City Council (Union Terrace Gardens)

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-02246, in the name of Sarah Boyack, on Aberdeen City Council.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

I have lodged the motion because the referendums that have been run in Aberdeen have national implications. The referendums have been on what is, at heart, a local planning issue, but it is appropriate that we debate the wider context.

The first important question to debate is about when and how referendums should be used to inform public policy choices. This is the third test of public opinion on the matter in Aberdeen. Some 14,000 people responded to the original consultation in 2010 and their views were ignored. Thousands more expressed a view on the six shortlisted designs only a few months ago, and their views were ignored too. This time, a majority of postal voters were against the scheme, and even after online and telephone votes were included, 48 per cent of people said no to the proposal. The claim that the vote reflects public opinion lacks credibility and discredits the whole referendum process.

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

If the vote had gone in the other direction, would Sarah Boyack still have brought the debate to the chamber today?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

Absolutely, because the context is that the people of Scotland are due to cast, sometime soon—date to be decided—their biggest-ever vote, so we need to ensure that the rules on referendums are fair, transparent and consistent. The matter goes to the heart of the Parliament.

I find it interesting that the Scottish National Party wants to delete from the motion the phrase “opinion remains divided”, because opinion indeed remains divided.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Will the member give way on that point?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

No, I think that we will just get on, thank you very much.

The referendum was held without the agreement of all the parties in the council, and there were no effective controls on spending on the campaign. We have profound concerns about how the proposals were communicated and how the referendum was conducted. The decision on the shape of development in Union Terrace gardens should be taken by those who were elected to run the city—its councillors—with the Scottish Government being involved as appropriate, in accordance with our planning system. I will come back to that point.

Whoever leads the city council after the elections in May will have to take responsibility for major decisions, including whether the council should borrow £92 million to take forward the scheme, and they will not be able to hide behind the votes that were cast last week if they get it wrong. Press comments from SNP councillors in Aberdeen suggest that they want to close down the debate. Voters are entitled to know what decisions councillors are likely to make if they are successful in May, whichever party those councillors represent.

There is, of course, no statutory framework for local referendums—I suspect that that is one thing on which we in this chamber can all agree. In recent years other referendums have been held, notably by Strathclyde Regional Council and the City of Edinburgh Council. In both cases, a proposition was outlined and a clear system of voting was agreed in advance. I believe that there are sufficient concerns about the robustness of the process conducted in Aberdeen to warrant all parties giving some thought to how agreement can be reached on local referendums and to establish clear principles to be followed in all cases.

In making that call, I make it absolutely clear that I do not attach blame to the independent counting officer, who has produced clear and useful recommendations regarding the lessons that need to be learned from the process. He stated:

“I had to establish the rules myself”,

and he called on the Scottish Government to establish a framework. Let us be clear: he did the best that he could, but there was no framework that he could use. Will the minister now take up that issue, and conduct a review of how referendums should operate?

There is a wider issue here, which we should all consider. The counting officer said that he

“did not have the legal clout”

that he would have had in an election, in particular to ensure that money was spent influencing voters only by those who had registered to be part of the referendum campaign.

In addition, insufficient provision was made to regulate the campaigns that were run for and against the proposals, and no effective limit was placed on spending to support either side. What registered campaign groups could spend was limited, but it is clear that money was also spent by non-registered persons, and there was absolutely nothing that the counting officer could do about that. That crucial point is why we have brought the issue to the chamber, and it must be addressed in the interests of fairness and transparency.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

If the issue is crucial and central to the debate, why is not addressed in the member’s motion?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

Actually, it is in our motion. Our concerns are central to the motion, and we are clear that we want the minister to consider taking the matter forward.

The referendum was novel in other ways. Online and telephone voting were permitted, and they produced an outcome that was different from that of the postal ballot. The methods were not secure. Anyone who opened an envelope that contained a voter’s ballot number would obtain the unique identifying number, which was all that was needed to record a vote. In a city with hundreds of tenement blocks and thousands of students in student residences, the potential for electoral fraud was clear. The police were called in to investigate on more than one occasion, although apparently no one has been charged so far. Ballot papers were also sent to everyone on the relevant electoral register, regardless of age, so that most 17-year-olds and some 16-year-olds were offered a vote, but some 17-year-olds and most 16-year-olds were not.

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Does the member have any evidence whatsoever that the vote was not secure or solid, or is she just engaging in idle speculation and scaremongering?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

All that I need to report is that complaints have been made. Surely that is enough. That is why we need an investigation.

I thought that the member wanted to intervene on the point that I was making about 16 and 17-year-olds and the robustness of that process. It is funny that he did not want to intervene on that, particularly given the Electoral Commission’s comments this morning.

It was argued that the scheme would not require the council to spend money on it because of the nature of tax increment financing, but that approach is predicated on using £92 million of the council’s prudential borrowing capacity. It is ironic that the council dropped the original proposals, which were to transform Union Terrace gardens with the building of a contemporary arts centre, because Peacock Visual Arts did not have the whole financial package in place when the alternative scheme came along. The money that was required then was around £4 million, which is a drop in the ocean compared with the cost of the current set of proposals.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

The member is right to point out that Peacock Visual Arts did not have the entire package in place at that point, but that is not the reason why it does not feature now. It decided to remove itself from the process at that point because it would not talk to anyone else.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

I am sure that the member will have time to comment on that later in the debate, but my understanding is that the council did not want to progress that scheme, and that is why it is sitting—[Interruption.] The member will no doubt want to talk to us in great detail about that issue later.

There is not only the £92 million; there is also the £20 million assumed funding support for Aberdeen art gallery. Then there are the opportunity costs. As my colleague Sandra Macdonald made clear at the weekend, there are also the costs of managing such a major project, with council staff running the procurement process. Time and resources must be spent on the project rather than on other council priorities, including education. That is even before the unanswered question of how the revenue costs of managing the proposed new facilities at Union Terrace gardens are to be met and by whom is addressed.

Our other concern is about the nature of the TIF scheme that is being proposed. We are fully supportive of the principles of TIF where schemes are credible and where they meet the relevant criteria. Will the minister confirm that the Scottish Futures Trust did not recommend that the TIF bid be supported? Will he confirm that it was ministers who wanted the project to be taken forward as part of the TIF programme? That is hardly appropriate, as the Scottish Government is potentially the final arbiter in planning decisions. We simply cannot see how the project stacks up financially. Audit Scotland has also expressed concern about the risk that is attached to the project.

It appears that driving the Scottish Government’s decision making in the case has been the idea to approve it regardless. The First Minister has already said this week that the TIF proposal will be looked on favourably. How will the Scottish Government be able to be objective if there is any planning challenge to the project? Given that it is the final arbiter for planning decisions where there is a direct council interest, surely the project will end up on the minister’s desk.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

I have 10 minutes.

The last time that a project in the north-east was given the same treatment, similar questions were asked. As we all know, that project has now stalled, because Donald Trump thinks that he has a veto over the Scottish Government’s energy proposals.

The referendum on the Union Terrace gardens proposal will not be the end of the story.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

I hope that members will vote for our motion.

I move,

That the Parliament notes that a local referendum held by Aberdeen City Council to test public opinion on a proposal for development at Union Terrace Gardens confirmed that opinion remains divided; notes the concerns that have been raised regarding the basis on which this poll was held; considers that decisions on local development proposals are for local elected members and, where appropriate, Scottish ministers to make, in line with the statutory requirements of the land use planning system, and recognises that the decision on whether to proceed with the proposal in question is properly one for the elected members of Aberdeen City Council to make, following the local government elections in May.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I think that the motion is one that should have been moved in Aberdeen City Council chambers rather than in the Scottish Parliament.

The Labour Party’s record on referendums is not one of which it can be proud. Unfortunately, I am old enough to remember the 1979 referendum, when the Labour Party and Labour Party MPs proposed the 40 per cent rule, denying the Scottish people the assembly that they voted for by a majority. It is the Labour Party, along with its Tory bedfellows, that in the run up to 2014 is trying to undermine by various means the referendum on independence.

This is a soor grapes motion from the Labour Party because it lost the referendum in Aberdeen. The facts are that 165,830 voting packs were sent out to Aberdeen residents and 86,568 votes were cast, which is far more than voted Labour in Aberdeen last year. The turnout of 52 per cent far exceeded both expectations and turnout in many other elections. It seems that the Labour Party accepts a result if it wins and denies that the process was right if it loses. As Adlai Stevenson said in 1952, “The people have spoken”. I will not add what he said after that, but it perhaps reflects the attitude of the Labour Party to the result of this referendum.

A total of 28,702 votes were cast online, 9,154 by phone and 48,629 by postal ballot.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, North East Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I will give way shortly.

The counting officer was Crawford Langley, a long-standing counting officer of great reputation and independence. If he had any concerns about the legitimacy of the process, I am sure that he would have raised them.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, North East Scotland)

Does the minister recall that the project sponsors held their own consultation on the matter two years ago? That produced a vote of 55 per cent against the project going forward to 45 per cent for. The sponsors said at that time that such an important decision could not possibly be taken based on such a small majority.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I will answer that question, but to be fair I will now take the other Mr McDonald.

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I will change what I was going to say and ask whether the cabinet secretary agrees that, in the vote to which Lewis Macdonald refers, a very small number of people voted in an insecure consultation process? That should be compared with the secure referendum that was backed by the independent returning officer.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I agree with the intervention from Mr McDonald number 2 and disagree with the intervention from Mr Macdonald number 1.

The reality is that 45,301 people voted for the city garden project design and 41,175 voted for retaining Union Terrace gardens. Even on the basis of Labour Party mathematics, there is still a majority of 4,126 in favour of the project.

The Labour motion refers to opinion being divided. That is the whole idea of democracy. That is why we have elections: to find out what the division of opinion is and who is in the majority. In a democratic society, we should not say, “Because we lost, and because opinion was divided, we will challenge the legitimacy of the decision.”

In last year’s election, opinion was divided between Mr Macdonald and Mr Stewart but Mr Stewart had the majority opinion. Did Mr Macdonald challenge Mr Stewart’s legitimacy to be here as the first-past-the-post candidate? Perhaps he did; indeed, it has become a way of life for the Labour Party to challenge democratic decisions.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

Our point is not about the people’s vote but about the voting process itself. The people’s views are entirely up to them; the issue is the system’s robustness. There are no questions about the process in last year’s elections. We regret what happened but it was the people’s choice. We accept that and have moved on.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

The Labour Party has just made a major concession: people are now entitled to their views and are not entitled to be told their position by Labour. The reality is that the Labour Party has ruled Scotland for far too long. Those on the Labour benches still think that they have a divine right to rule in Aberdeen and every other part of Scotland, but the political geography has changed dramatically and for ever.

This was a legitimate referendum with a legitimate result and it is perfectly legitimate for the city council and the project’s organisers to proceed with planning and the business case for the TIF scheme. Obviously, it would be entirely inappropriate for me to comment on the planning process but, as far as TIF is concerned, I make absolutely clear what we have always said: in considering the business case for the project, we would need proof that the majority of people in Aberdeen approved of it. The Scottish Government is taking the referendum result as a resounding endorsement of the project, but the project itself is still subject to the TIF process. In other words, Aberdeen City Council and the sponsors have to submit a business case that will be duly considered under the TIF process; only then will the Scottish Government make a final decision as to whether the project can proceed with TIF. Everything now depends on the business case.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

As far as the Scottish Government is concerned, the first hurdle has been overcome. We look forward to receiving a robust business case and giving it due consideration. We should all be proper democrats and accept the majority decision.

I move amendment S4M-02246.1, to leave out from “confirmed” to end and insert:

“resulted in a majority vote in favour of the City Garden Project; notes that ministers now look forward to considering the tax incremental financing (TIF) business case for the council’s city centre development proposals, including the City Garden Project, which will be brought forward by the elected members of Aberdeen City Council when this has been finalised through work with the Scottish Futures Trust, and recognises that decisions on local development proposals are for local elected members and, where appropriate, Scottish ministers to make, in line with the statutory requirements of the land use planning system.”

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

First of all, I declare that I was a councillor on Aberdeen City Council for 11 years and that my husband is currently a member of the same council.

I could hardly believe my eyes when I opened the Aberdeen edition of Tuesday’s Press and Journal and saw Lewis Macdonald declare that, if Labour won the council elections in May, it would not proceed with the city garden project that had been approved by the citizens of Aberdeen in a referendum just a few days before. What has happened to democracy? As Alex Neil pointed out, had Lewis Macdonald or Sarah Boyack achieved a majority of more than 4,000 on a 52 per cent turnout of their electorate, would they have turned their back on the result and queried the voting system? I think not.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I am taking no interventions—I am having my say on this matter.

I am sorry to say that Labour’s motion appears to have little to do with the future of Aberdeen city and everything to do with Labour’s own future—if there is one—on Aberdeen City Council. Its attempt to win council election votes from those who voted against the city garden project is despicable and indeed could well backfire, given that by no means do all those people support the Labour Party politically.

In 2002, under a front-page headline saying “Boot Them Out”, Aberdeen’s Evening Express called on Aberdeen’s voters to punish the Labour Party for making the kind of mess of the city’s finances that its political masters made in national Government. Labour was indeed booted out in 2003 and, just like the party’s members in this place, Labour members in Aberdeen have behaved like spoiled brats ever since, unable to come to terms with being in opposition.

For a start, Labour has consistently opposed measures to improve the city. In my 11 years as a councillor, I voted three times for a third crossing over the River Don; Labour hotly opposed the proposal until its opposition was finally overcome just last year. Even then, it blames others for the horrendous traffic delays at the Haudagain roundabout. It also fought the Marischal college redevelopment to the bitter end. That project, which has restored the building to its former glory and turned it into an iconic tourist attraction, was completed ahead of time and well under budget, with the added advantage of saving the taxpayer money because it is so energy efficient. If I had time, I could give many more examples of a dinosaur party trying to stifle progress in Aberdeen.

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I am doing that, Presiding Officer.

Labour continues to criticise, but it has had no alternative budget proposals to put forward in the past five years. Now it is trying to block a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to regenerate the entire city centre, not just Union Terrace gardens. It has rejected the wonderful philanthropic gesture of Sir Ian Wood, who is a true son of the city, and it is prepared to turn down the possibility of securing TIF funding for the project—funding that is almost certain to be repaid in good time by the long-awaited industrial developments at Dyce, let alone by the new businesses that are likely to be attracted to the city centre.

Critics say that money would be better spent on Union Street. I wish that they would realise that the city garden project will be a catalyst for that to happen. With a new, vibrant focal point in the city centre, there will be an incentive for the absentee landlords of Union Street and Bridge Street to restore the upper floors of their properties, many of which, I hope, will become well-appointed flats. That will take cars off the roads and deal with the drunken behaviour that is witnessed in the area at weekends, because people living there will simply not put up with it.

So many exciting opportunities for the city could be unlocked by the city garden project. Now that Aberdonians have approved it, it simply must go ahead. Of course, due process must be followed to secure the proposed city centre development—that is not in dispute. However, instead of carping about the referendum result, let us get on with it.

I have lived in Aberdeen for nigh on 70 years. I have seen a once magnificent and flourishing city centre—a far-sighted vision given to us by past city fathers—decline into the sad state that it is in today. I have always been fiercely proud of my city, and I sincerely hope that l live long enough to see it restored to its former glory, and secure in its future.

I will fight the SNP tooth and nail over its proposals to separate us from the rest of the United Kingdom, but on this issue, I am solidly with it, and I will certainly vote for its amendment this evening.

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen South and North Kincardine)

I congratulate Nanette Milne on her excellent speech. She spoiled it in her final sentence, but nevertheless, it was excellent.

There is a maxim that, if someone is in a hole, they should stop digging. That is clearly a message that the Labour Party does not understand. Otherwise, it would not have brought the motion to the chamber for debate. The first indication that I received on my BlackBerry was that the Labour Party was to debate economic growth. The motion is the antithesis of economic growth.

I first stood for elected office in Aberdeen in 1979. At that election, I said that Aberdeen should not be an oil capital with no legacy to show for it. Other cities throughout the world have Getty museums and art galleries, but Aberdeen did not have any significant investment from the oil companies that were based in the city and which benefited from its facilities. Do not get me wrong. Oil companies sponsor individual events, but there has been no long-term investment by those companies in the city.

Now, nearly five decades later, Aberdeen is in the almost unique position of having a promise of £50 million from a local man who has only ever had the best interests of his native city at heart. He proposes to plough in his own money to regenerate the heart of the city of Aberdeen, hauling it into the 21st century so that more companies will locate in Aberdeen. That will ensure that those who do not need to be there any more will stay, and that Aberdeen remains fit to be the energy capital of Europe for many years to come.

Given that the local Labour Party tried to make the development a party-political issue and, I have no doubt, was basing its local election campaign on the subject, it is now in panic mode. Holding a referendum was the right thing to do. Friends of Union Terrace Gardens supported a referendum, and it supported the question that was asked.

Now, the Labour Party is questioning the validity of the referendum. I have known Crawford Langley for many years and there is not another person in whom I would have more trust to conduct a referendum. The words of Sarah Boyack are absolutely disgraceful. Yes, there were police investigations, but they proved invalid. There was no double voting. The counting officer was absolutely scrupulous. If Crawford Langley had had any questions about the validity of the referendum or the costs that were ploughed into it by either side, I have no doubt that he would have raised them.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

Have you read the statement that Crawford Langley gave subsequent to the referendum? What are your comments on the concerns that he has raised having gone through the experience? This is not a criticism of Crawford Langley; I was absolutely clear about that in my opening speech. Let us pick up on the lessons learnt that he has laid out for us to consider.

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen South and North Kincardine)

I take Crawford Langley’s statement on board. Guidelines should be laid down for local referenda, but that is not what we are debating today. The people of Aberdeen have spoken. I thank Sir Ian Wood for his generosity and I welcome further contributions to the city garden project. We all need to get behind the project and make it all that it can be. I recognise that the project still has to go through the planning process.

As I said, the Labour Party finds itself in a big hole. It is flailing around and failing to get out of it. I am confident that the people of Aberdeen will leave it there at the council elections in May.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, North East Scotland)

When Sir Ian Wood launched his proposals for Union Terrace gardens in November 2008, he said that he would proceed only if the project had strong support from the people of Aberdeen. In the past three years, the project has rather divided opinion in the city, and the consensus that Ian Wood hoped for at the outset has not been achieved.

Throughout the process, Sir Ian has been as courteous as he is generous, but that does not absolve SNP or Tory councillors from their responsibility to make decisions on the city’s future if they are elected to office. Nor does holding a referendum allow councillors to shrug off responsibility, especially when the poll is not based on agreement among all the parties that are represented on the city council.

Democracy is about the vote itself, but it also requires consent across parties, effective limits on campaign spending, and properly tested safeguards against fraud. None of those things was in place for last week’s ballot. Many thousands of glossy leaflets went through people’s doors from organisations that had not registered to take part in the campaign. It is also a matter of record that the majority of those who voted by post said no to the city garden scheme.

Ministers are planning their own referendum and it is surely in all our interests that the conduct of that vote should be fair, its legal basis should be clear, and its result should be beyond challenge. The Electoral Commission has raised concerns about, for example, how 16 and 17-year-olds might be given the vote. Crawford Langley said at the count in Aberdeen last week that most 17-year-olds and some 16-year-olds could vote, but clearly some 17-year-olds and most 16-year-olds could not. That is what can happen if there is no agreement on process, and that is also a lesson for the Scottish Government.

The referendum was the third time that public opinion had been canvassed, but the first time that the project achieved any kind of majority. Far from showing strong support, the result confirmed what we knew from the consultation and from every opinion poll that the local press had carried out: public opinion in the city is divided, so the buck stops with those who are elected to the council to take decisions.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Does Mr Macdonald not recognise that there is a difference between an opinion poll that has no rules and regulations in place and which canvasses the opinions of only a small percentage of the city’s population and, in some cases, those from outwith the city, and a referendum in which more than 52 per cent of the city’s citizens voted?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, North East Scotland)

I am quite happy if councillors choose to base their decision in part on the referendum, but they cannot base it on that alone. If SNP councillors lead Aberdeen City Council after 3 May, presumably we can expect them to seek consent in the way that we have heard, but they would be failing in their duty if they judged that the scheme would not work and gave it the go-ahead anyway. That is why I believe that a Labour-led council would not seek consent to borrow for the scheme as it stands. The weakness of the business case is fundamental, as is the lack of any proposal for meeting future revenue costs.

The risk that the council’s consultants and Audit Scotland identified—that there will be millions of pounds of unpaid debt at the end of the process—is still there. The city council does not have sufficient financial strength to take that risk. Of course, another scheme might be a different story. If ministers were prepared to let the council keep business rates income to fund essential infrastructure projects in the city, a Labour-led council would have no difficulty in identifying projects to support economic development. The difference is that those projects would have the support of the vast majority of people in Aberdeen and would allow the city to move forward together.

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

How appropriate that McDonald number 2 follows Macdonald number 1, although I am not sure that I appreciate being referred to as a number 2, but there we go.

I found the referendum in Aberdeen to be helpful for two reasons. First, it helped to give an indication of public support for the project, which the Government stipulated as necessary in its recommendations on how Aberdeen could secure tax increment financing funding. Secondly, the process has given the Labour Party welcome practice at being on the losing side in a referendum, which I am sure will come in handy for it in 2014.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

No—don’t be silly.

I will address some of the concerns—I will be generous and call them that—that Lewis Macdonald and Sarah Boyack have raised by reading some quotations. The first is from Crawford Langley, the independent counting officer, in whom I have a great deal of trust and faith, as I have worked alongside him at a number of elections and seen his work. He said:

“The decision to run a postal ballot was largely taken before I was appointed as Counting Officer, but, as a professional electoral administrator with close on 40 years experience, I would not have accepted the appointment had I been asked to conduct it on any other basis. Make no mistake: any other form of ballot would have been substantially open to fraud.”

The Labour Party’s insinuation that the process was somehow not secure flies in the face of Crawford Langley’s comments.

Sarah Boyack suggested that we all need to read Mr Langley’s statement—I have read it and I agree that consideration needs to be given to what happens with local referenda in the future. However, the Labour Party motion makes not one reference to that concept. We could have had an interesting debate on the concept of local referenda and how to perhaps put in place a framework for them. Instead, we have a motion that Lewis Macdonald has helpfully brought to the Parliament to try to assist his colleagues in Aberdeen City Council in their attempts to win the council election in May. It is unfortunate that parliamentary time is being used for that purpose when the issue rightly belongs in the chamber of Aberdeen City Council and on the doorsteps of the city of Aberdeen.

I have a couple more quotations that might lead to sober reflection among the Labour Party. One states:

“The people of our historic city have voted in a democratic referendum. It is now time for Sir Ian Wood, ACSEF and the city council to return the trust shown in them. I implore all those involved with the City Garden to deliver on their promise of an on budget, sympathetic transformational project. I wish all those involved well.”

That was Jimmy Milne, chairman of the Balmoral Group, in the Aberdeen Press and Journal on 7 March 2012. That is significant because Jimmy Milne opposed the city garden project, but he recognises the result of the referendum and the will of the people of Aberdeen to move forward with the project. It is a great pity that Lewis Macdonald cannot recognise the will of the people.

A final quotation is from Scott Begbie, a columnist in the Evening Express. Again, he was an opponent of the project in advance of the referendum, but he said:

“The campaign was hard fought by both sides, the people voted as they saw fit and the die is cast. What happens now is the real test of Aberdeen as a city. A grown-up, mature society would agree to disagree and accept the majority opinion.”

It is clear that the Labour Party in the city of Aberdeen is not grown up or mature—it says no to the city garden project despite the public support; it said no to the Marischal college project, despite the fact that the scheme was delivered £22 million under budget by an SNP administration; it said no to the third Don crossing, which would solve congestion in the city; and it said no to the community stadium, which would help with the regeneration of our city. In May, the citizens of Aberdeen will be perfectly entitled to say no to the dinosaurs of the Labour Party.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

The Union Terrace gardens debate started badly and has, at times, been bitter. It is a pity that what should have been a positive and lively debate on alternative futures for Aberdeen city centre has become so polarised. One of the reasons why that has happened is that the Labour Party chose—for narrow, party-political aims—to fuel the negativity, and it continues to do so.

There is no doubt that the city centre has lost its vibrancy. Its decline is due, at least in part, to the absence of a master plan for the area. That, of course, has now been corrected, thanks to a change in the city council governance. If a region is to remain competitive, its city centre must compare well with other major European cities. Aberdeen would certainly benefit from a more vibrant city centre, which research has demonstrated is a key component of competitive regions.

Some poor planning decisions over the years have changed the way in which the city centre is used: the shopping areas are now disconnected; the main thoroughfare of Union Street is in decline; and, unlike most cities, Aberdeen has very little pedestrianisation. Although the gardens provide green space in the city centre, they are woefully underused and inaccessible to many.

For all those reasons, I supported the initial consultation and encouraged everyone to take part. A public debate on what might be done to improve the heart of our city was long overdue. Like many, I was disappointed that Peacock’s well-developed proposals were scuppered by the sudden intervention of the offer of funding by Sir Ian Wood. I argued strongly that, however generous, that must not become the main consideration. It was wholly wrong that it was portrayed as a take-it-or-leave-it deal.

I accept that Aberdeen City Council took the decision to progress to the design stage. In fact, the design competition advanced the debate and opened people’s eyes to the possibilities. The exhibition of the shortlisted designs was attended by many people and there was a real buzz around the city.

The decision to hold a referendum reassured people that everyone’s views would be properly taken into account.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

I am sorry, but I do not have much time.

This has been the most thoroughly debated urban regeneration project that I am aware of. Sarah Boyack said that there were concerns about how the proposals were communicated, but the council, Aberdeen City and Shire Economic Future, local groups and the chamber of commerce set out clearly the issues to be considered. The Press and Journal is also to be commended for its coverage of both sides of the argument—the newspaper gave over many pages to explore the ideas over a number of weeks.

Last week, as we have heard, 86,000 people voted in the referendum. The number of those in favour was 45,301 and 41,175 were against. The turnout was 52 per cent, which was better than that for our elections last year. The Labour Party says that that is not decisive enough and suggests that the referendum was not conducted properly, but it has not provided any evidence for that. It is a bit rich of the Labour Party to talk about the result not being clear. Lewis Macdonald’s majority in the 2007 election for Aberdeen Central was 382 on a 51 per cent turnout, but I do not recall him worrying about that not being decisive enough.

Now that the vote has been taken, the onus is on the elected members of Aberdeen City Council to respect the outcome. I remain concerned that a project of this scale will struggle to find sufficient funding and that it could end up being trimmed back and thereby not providing the city with the world-class design for which the citizens voted. That would be a betrayal of the hope that the people have shown. There is a duty on the council to work to determine whether the scheme’s funding package truly stacks up. It must be forensic in its analysis and include the kinds of costs that were mentioned by Sarah Boyack. I imagine that that will take many months and involve both the current council and the new council, which will be elected in May.

The wonderful refurbishment of Marischal college has shown what can be done when our councillors are determined. I hope that that is just the start of our city’s renaissance. The Labour Party can either play its part in that or continue to be negative. If it chooses the latter, it will become utterly irrelevant in the city.

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

As a former citizen of Aberdeen—I lived there when all this started—I am delighted that we have reached the point at which the city council now has a mandate to get on with an undoubtedly world-class project. However, I am disappointed with the nature of this parliamentary debate, principally because the motion bears little resemblance to what Labour Party members are now trying to say about it, having realised that what they proposed in the first place was probably not too bright.

Let me return to the subject at hand. When this process started, I lived in Aberdeen—in AB24 5DE—and I remember when Sir Ian Wood first briefed MSPs on the subject. I had just returned from a visit to family in New Zealand, during which I went to the botanical gardens in Wellington and saw the open-air theatre. I recognise that the weather in Wellington is slightly different from ours, but we get some good weather and possibly less wind. I thought how wonderful it would be if that kind of environment could be created in Aberdeen, where I lived and which I know and love. Along came Sir Ian Wood, saying, “Why don’t we?” and, “Furthermore, I’ll pay for it.” Well done, Sir Ian. Thank you.

I admit that the initial consultation did not get off to a very good start, as Alison McInnes mentioned. Frankly, there was an unhelpful drawing and the original consultation probably was not as wide as it should have been. The net result was that not a very large number of people expressed an opinion. I am glad that a very, very large number of people have now expressed an opinion and that they clearly knew what they were voting on—there can be no doubt about that. The vote might have been won by a relatively small margin, but Alison McInnes made the point well about the way in which elections have operated; some members here know about that.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, North East Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

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

Forgive me, but I want to make another point.

In the debate, I have been surprised not by the Labour Party’s negativity, which I have got used to, but by the fact that it now wants to change the subject to referenda, although it will ensure that the press release is about Aberdeen.

In my last minute, I will consider what the project will look like for someone who lives between Aberdeen and Dundee, as I do. Dundee, where I lived for a long time, has seen a vision of something being done to regenerate the city. If members are not aware of the waterfront project, they should be. That project, which will reach its pinnacle when we get the Victoria and Albert museum there, will transform Dundee completely as a place to do business, as a visitor centre and, therefore, as a place to live. Dundee has shown what can be done, and I do not think that it is entirely coincidental that there was a change in the make-up of the council.

Aberdeen has an opportunity to catch up, but it sounds as though one of the political parties that might have something to do with the council after 5 May does not want that to happen. The message from today’s debate seems simply to be about whom Aberdonians should not vote for. Frankly, if they want to see some vision for and development of their city, they will have to turn to the other parties.

Jenny Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

I thank Nigel Don for his considered comments on the Dundee waterfront; however, I respectfully remind him that the plans for that project were laid before the SNP took control of the council in Dundee. It was a Labour council that pushed those plans forward.

For those who live in Dyce, Kincorth and everywhere in between, the debate surrounding Union Terrace gardens has been the single most talked-about issue in Aberdeen. Although the genuine concern this week has been about what is clearly a flawed referendum, I will talk about the true cost of the project. The figures just do not add up.

Although the SNP-led council claims that the bulk of the £92 million that is being spent on the project will be returned in the future through business rates, the council’s TIF business team recognises that, if there is just a small increase in the cost of borrowing or a small shortfall in the projected income from business rates, Aberdeen City Council will be left with millions of pounds of additional debt but no contingency fund from which to repay it. It also seems that the council’s finance staff do not have high hopes that the city’s revenues will increase. In September, a spokesperson from Aberdeen City Council predicted

“a forecast £127 million reduction in income along with extra cost pressures between now and 2015/16”.

It is not just the council’s own staff who are telling the SNP that the project is financially unviable; it is Audit Scotland, too. In the report that was released this week, Audit Scotland stated that the project represents a

“long-term risk for the council”,

which is unable to fund any shortfall in the new business rates.

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Jenny Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

No, thank you.

Aberdeen City Council is currently £560 million in debt and predicts a further £127 million reduction in income over the next four years. It is incredible that the SNP’s answer to that is to take on more debt now, in the hope that that will be paid off in the future but with no guarantee that that will happen and no way of coping if it does not. That is an extraordinary risk to the people of Aberdeen, who are already suffering as a result of school closures, job losses and pay freezes.

The SNP administration in Aberdeen, endorsed by Alex Salmond, has reduced the education budget by a staggering £28 million. Schools have closed: Victoria Road primary, St Machar primary and Causewayend school have all shut their doors under the SNP. Pupil support assistants across the city have lost their jobs and essential social care providers such as Choices have gone.

Labour will continue to speak out against the administration’s reckless decisions and to stand up in the best interests of everybody in Aberdeen—not just those who have the deepest pockets.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

I declare an interest as a member of Aberdeen City Council. I will begin with Jenny Marra’s speech. When one prepares a speech for the chamber, one should use up-to-date figures. She used figures from the five-year business plan that are rather out of date, thanks to the fact that the SNP Government provided the council with more finance.

Once again, we have the negativity but not the positivity. Ms Marra talked about the closure of some schools, but she did not talk about the 10 new schools that have been built in Aberdeen in recent times and were delivered by the SNP-led administration. That is interesting, but not entirely surprising.

There is absolutely no doubt that the debate about Union Terrace gardens has polarised the city. One reason why I called for the referendum and moved a motion at the council, which was passed, is that there was only one way to deal with the matter and that was to let Aberdonians decide what the situation should be. Last week, 52 per cent of Aberdonians voted in favour of the city garden project. I voted yes, as did many others.

I will give members a few numbers: 51.1 per cent versus 48.9 per cent. The figure of 51.1 per cent is the share of votes that Anas Sarwar received to become the Labour Party’s deputy leader; 48.9 per cent of folk voted agin. Does Labour dispute that he should be the deputy leader? Lewis Macdonald probably does, but he received only 15.62 per cent.

The usual local government election campaign has started and Labour has nothing whatever to say that is positive. It has of late punted out a leaflet called “Aberdeen Leader”—I think not—the headline of which is, “Your City, Your Say”. Labour then gives citizens an instruction:

“Vote to Retain Union Terrace Gardens”.

I am a little bit of a cynic, but I think that Labour has printed a huge number of those leaflets, canna see them go to waste and winna have them pulped, which is why we are having the debate.

It is no surprise to me or my colleagues that the Labour Party is holding up the development of our city. Ms Boyack said that we were discussing “a local planning issue”. It is not a local planning issue yet, although I am sure that it will be. The Labour Party has voted en bloc to turn down every major planning proposal of late. That applies to the third Don crossing, as has been said, and to the community stadium, Marischal college and so on.

The Labour Party has been in trouble before over possible whipping on planning issues—we saw the demise of one of its councillors not so long ago over the Kingswells stadium bid. Some time real soon, somebody will probably look at Labour’s voting records and at the fact that politics is coming into play in planning issues.

Ms Boyack said in the Evening Express this week that Labour would paint the Town house red. That is a matter for the people of Aberdeen, but I do not see that coming, because the Labour Party has gone down and down in recent times. If she wants to paint the Town house red, she will have to visit B&Q to get a few tins of paint and some brushes, and I am sure that she will have an argument with Historic Scotland about that.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I genuinely thank the Labour Party for having brought this matter to the chamber, as it gives us an opportunity to unite the Parliament in a way that it has not been united in a long time. It is always nice when we have something to chase. I thank Labour, also, for giving my colleague Nanette Milne the opportunity to speak on this subject. She is well known as a mild-mannered member of the Parliament, who uses reason to make her arguments and peppers her speeches with statistics. Today, however, we saw her getting her teeth into something that she really enjoyed, and that will be a memory that I will hold for some time.

Today, we are talking about the Union Terrace gardens and the city garden project—at least, I am. There is much that is novel about the city garden project. That is perhaps the one justification for us to be talking about it today, because, when novel processes are adopted and we try something new, it is up to we politicians to debate them, consider the opportunities and take the matter forward in as informed a way as possible. However, the Labour Party has chosen to focus on the referendum. Like many others in this debate, I am amazed at the idea that one of the parties in this chamber, which turned out to be on the wrong side in that debate, should now question the validity of that referendum.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Does Alex Johnstone agree that the Labour Party should have done the same as the other parties in the council and given its members a free vote on the issue?

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I believe that it would have been wise of it to have done so.

I will make a few comments about the referendum that are, perhaps, slightly different from others that have been made. What do I take from the division in the results and the fact that those who voted by post appeared to vote one way and those who used alternatives means of voting—by phone or online—appeared to vote another way? I could suggest that those who voted by phone or online were more likely to be the younger participants in the ballot, and the result might therefore indicate that those who see their future in Aberdeen in the long term, who want greater employment and who want success and wealth to be created in the city are those who chose to vote for the project. That is as valid a claim as any that has been made by the Labour Party.

There have been previous consultations on the issue, in the form of opinion polls and an online ballot. The online ballot sparked a worldwide debate, with people with particular points of view intervening from the far corners of the earth. The online ballot opposed the project, but it was not limited to the people of Aberdeen. The referendum was, though—so much so that I, who live in Stonehaven, and many other people in Aberdeenshire, were disappointed that we did not get the chance to show our vociferous support. Within Aberdeen it was held and within Aberdeen it produced a majority. The minister quite rightly talked about that majority in terms that referred to the 1979 ballot on Scottish devolution, in which the majority that supported the proposition did not reach the 40 per cent mark that had been stipulated in the legislation. The irony is that it is the same Labour Party that supported that requirement that is now griping about the narrowness of the majority.

The vote was legitimate. It was, perhaps, experimental in some ways, but it produced a result that was, in my view, wide enough to be decisive.

There are other things that are novel in the project that have been criticised today, such as tax increment financing, which will, we hope, provide the project with £92 million. The business case is critical to the issue, and it is essential that we understand that TIF is a new funding method for Scotland and that the projects that pioneer its use will have to withstand scrutiny—their business cases will have to be sound. If we are to make the system work, we will have to progress the initiative. I believe that the amendment that the Government has lodged indicates that it will scrutinise that process, as is its responsibility.

I support the amendment in Alex Neil’s name.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Like Nanette Milne, I am a mild-mannered member of the Parliament. My speech will focus on three particular issues but, first, I declare that I have no particular interest in the local election campaign in Aberdeen. I am not standing in Aberdeen or, indeed, anywhere in the local elections.

It behoves political parties to be very careful about challenging a democratic process, particularly when a party is on the losing side and particularly when the turnout for the referendum was higher than the 50.2 per cent turnout for the Aberdeen City Council elections in 2007. If we look at the by-elections that have been held in Aberdeen, the turnout in every case was under 30 per cent. In terms of turnout, the result of the referendum is as legitimate as that for the by-elections and elections to which I referred. Indeed, the result is arguably more legitimate because of the higher turnout, which produced a majority.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, North East Scotland)

Does the minister accept that, given the efforts that were made at the outset to build a consensus in favour of change and given the concerns that we have heard from his own benches about how the debate became polarised, holding a referendum in that format accentuated the polarisation and that, far from building a consensus, it means that, whatever the result, it is one that half the population of Aberdeen did not want?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I would have thought that building consensus or unanimity on the issue would have been extremely difficult, to say the least. We have elections and referenda so that where there is a division of opinion or a choice of points of view, we can settle the matter according to the majority vote. I say to the Labour Party that the water is under the bridge and it is time to get on with trying to build a new future for Aberdeen, and Aberdeen city centre in particular.

As Mark McDonald said, there is a legitimate debate to be had about whether we should have a referendum act to set out the rules and regulations to govern the administration of locally organised referenda in Scotland. Had the motion been on those lines, I am sure that the chamber might have been able to reach unanimity on that point. However, today’s motion is not one of high principle in relation to future rules and regulations for local referenda but one of low principle—in fact, of no principle other than, “We lost the referendum and we are complaining that we lost the referendum.” That is not a legitimate point of view.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

I was not intending to intervene, because I have no knowledge of Aberdeen, but I am interested in tax increment financing. Having listened to the debate, I am concerned that TIF may be being brought into disrepute. Will the cabinet secretary agree to look objectively at the TIF proposal and judge it only in accordance with the strict criteria for approving such proposals?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I will have more to say about TIF, but I can categorically assure the member that the Aberdeen proposal, like every other TIF proposal, will be considered within the regulations and the process that we have set down and that there will have to be a successful business case before it receives approval from the Scottish Government. Sir Ian Wood and Aberdeen City Council and its officers are all fully aware of the fact that planning and approval of the business case are the next steps in ensuring that the project goes ahead. We will approve it only if the business case is sustainable, and I now expect a robust business case to be put forward.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

I agree that that is the way that the process should be carried out and I would not expect anything other.

Will the cabinet secretary join me in calling on private money holders to put their hands a little bit further into their pockets so that the amount that we need in TIF can be reduced even more? I am sure that other benefactors may wish to contribute to the amazing project.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

The leverage from the private sector is one of the considerations in deciding on the robustness of any TIF business case.

My final point is another warning to the Labour Party. It is a dangerous precedent for even a shadow spokesman to say that, if his party is in the majority in a city council, it will not give a proposal planning permission when it comes before the council. That is a complete contravention of the wording and spirit of our planning laws, and I hope that Lewis Macdonald will retract his promise not to give the project planning permission if his party is in a position to reject it.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

I will pick up on that last point. The Labour Party has not made a commitment either way on planning permission. We are nowhere near the planning stage of the project, but a decision has been taken on the TIF and a proposal was put to people without full knowledge of the planning case.

As someone who has been interested in and passionate about planning for decades, I must say that there is a due process to be gone through once we get to deciding on an application and I am concerned that people’s hands have been tied by the process to date. We have seen that happen before and it is of great regret.

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will Sarah Boyack give way?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

No. I took a large number of interventions earlier. I was fairer than I should have been.

We make several points in our motion: we note the referendum that was held; we note that opinion remains divided; and we note that there are concerns about the poll. Most of our time this morning has been spent debating those concerns and our request for the minister to examine the poll.

I am glad that SNP back benchers and the minister have stated that it would be good if common rules and guidelines could be used for future referenda. That is one of the things that we are absolutely determined must come out of the experience in Aberdeen. There need to be clear rules so that no counting officer is put in the position of having to report a series of major concerns about the process of a referendum after the poll. The counting officer in Aberdeen worked hard and did his best. His integrity is not being criticised, but the process, the lack of clarity and the lack of clear, accepted ground rules are. Those must concern us all.

That covers the first two points of our motion and cuts to the heart of the matter.

Why can we not talk about the 48 per cent of voters who did not give their consent to the project? I accept the discussion that we have had today. Independent people counted the vote, but that does not mean that we have no concerns about the process, which must be examined.

Division remains in the city. If members think that the referendum was controversial, they should wait until we get to the planning process. Members should think of the challenges of putting together such a project. We cannot silence people simply because they have not given their consent.

There is a requirement on both sides of the debate to move forward with a proper and honest discussion about what will happen next. I agree that the 48 per cent who did not support the project were not all Labour supporters. We know that. The debate is not simply about us speaking for Labour voters.

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will Sarah Boyack give way?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

No, I will not.

We are making legitimate points in our national Parliament about the concerns that remain. There is nothing wrong with doing that and I do not see why we should be gagged and prevented from doing it. We are making the point that there were concerns about the process. Those concerns need to be brought to the chamber so that they can be learned from for the future.

When we add together the complexities of the finance that underpins TIF and the future complexities of the planning process, we see that the overall process is intensely complicated. I put it to members that we have seen major complexities in previous planning applications and Government ministers should be careful about what they say. At the end of the day, it is inevitable that an issue that involves a council decision and a council’s financial interest will revert to the Scottish ministers, who will have to take an unbiased decision. However, ministers are pushing the process, through TIF. My colleague Lewis Macdonald has written several letters to Alex Neil and asked several questions in the Parliament, and it is absolutely clear that the Scottish Government has been determined that there should be an Aberdeen TIF project and that it should be the Union Terrace gardens TIF project. That is regrettable.

We do not oppose economic development in Aberdeen, although our support for economic development in the past has not been mentioned in the debate—I am not surprised at that, because members of other parties do not want to give the Labour Party a fair hearing on the issue. We have consistently supported economic improvements to Aberdeen city.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Will the member give way?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

I will not, because Kevin Stewart cannot speak for the Labour Party on the matter; he has an opposing interest.

We are committed to the future of Aberdeen. That is why the issue is so important and why we are so passionate about it. Huge amounts of money are at stake. Prudential borrowing of £92 million will tie up a huge amount of the council’s money for the next few years, when the council could be spending the money on other things. Jenny Marra made a powerful speech about the need for investment in education in the city.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Will the member give way on that point?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

I absolutely will not. I could not have taken more interventions during my opening speech, when I gave way to the extent that I lost nearly three minutes of speaking time. I want to make comments that I was not able to make then.

The motion raises issues to do with the conduct of the ballot and the ground rules for the referendum. Referenda need to be agreed in advance by all parties, so that they can be fair and be seen to be fair, and so that people can agree with the outcome and move on.

The motion raises issues to do with the planning process for the project. I agreed with some of what Alison McInnes said in that regard. If, in future, someone says to the people, “You know, we won’t be able to go with the proposals as we put them to you—really sorry about that. There will be financial and planning implications, but we got your say-so, so we are just going to move on,” what will happen? What will happen if there are significant changes to the scheme?

What will happen if there are cost overruns? The main railway line is part of the site. I cannot think of a railway project that has gone through without major financial challenges arising in relation to the initial proposals. For examples of that, we need only look down the road to the Waverley station and Haymarket station projects, which are nowhere near the initial expectations. The details of projects matter, and the details of the Union Terrace gardens proposals have not been worked through.

How will the Scottish Government make an objective decision? It rightly wants every part of Scotland to be able to benefit from TIF proposals. Why is the Government tying itself to such a complex and controversial major project, when if it sat down with and talked to the other parties it would find that there is a different attitude to some elements of the TIF proposal?

There is a real issue to do with objective decision making when the Government is so tied to a particular project, which is regrettable. I will not apologise for Labour standing up to speak for not just our voters in Aberdeen but all voters who had a strong view on the proposal and who remain unhappy and deeply concerned about Aberdeen City Council’s financial future.

There is debate about the nature of the referendum in Aberdeen, and there is debate about the forthcoming referendum on the constitution. The recent experience in Aberdeen demonstrates the importance of fairness in all referenda. Surely we can all agree on that. Our motion simply records the concerns about the basis on which the poll was held. Those concerns need to be listened to; they must not be dismissed by the minister.

The Union Terrace gardens project will not be any less controversial as a result of last week’s vote. The irony is that all the difficult stuff is still to come; the process will not be straightforward. It is absolutely right that we make that point. It is for local councillors to scrutinise the details on the financial and planning aspects of the proposal—accountability will be vital—and it is for the people in Aberdeen to take the matter forward.

It is important that the Scottish Government produces a clear framework to guide local authorities, to ensure fairness in future decisions. When it comes to voting in elections and in the national referendum, we need to ensure that we have all the details and that issues of fairness have been pinned down in advance. Clear lessons must be learned from the Aberdeen experience, because the referendum was not a straightforward process and the project will not be a straightforward process.

We reserve our right, at national and at local level, to ask the awkward questions that our voters put us here to ask. That is the job of a responsible Opposition, and we will continue to do that job.

Partnership Action for Continuing Employment

Michael McMahon (Labour, Uddingston and Bellshill)

1. To ask the Scottish Executive whether it plans to review the membership and functions of partnership action for continuing employment. (S4O-00759)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

There are 21 local PACE partnerships across Scotland. We established the national organisation in June 2009, in response to the economic downturn. It brings together 18 organisations and the Scottish Government to oversee a continuous improvement programme to enhance the operation of PACE. We therefore continually review all aspects of PACE, including membership and functions.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Uddingston and Bellshill)

The cabinet secretary will be aware that I recently had discussions with Fergus Ewing about the involvement of PACE following the closure of WJ Harte of Bothwell in my constituency, as a result of which more than 500 employees lost their jobs. However, he may not be aware that only about one in 10 of the former employees attended the PACE event that was held subsequent to the closure, whereas almost one in five attended an event that I and Thompsons Solicitors hosted on the employment and redundancy rights of individual members of the workforce. That appeared to show that there was a gap in the service that PACE provides.

Does the cabinet secretary have a view on whether the PACE service should be expanded to include the provision of advice on individual employee rights and redundancy rights, as well as advice on training, skills and employability?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Individuals who face redundancy will want to take a range of advice. I imagine that the advice that Mr McMahon and Thompsons Solicitors offered will have been of assistance in relation to some of the circumstances that the individuals in question face.

The focus of PACE is to encourage people who face redundancy to seek positive destinations and alternative employment. My view is that encouraging people to stay in the labour market and to move forward should remain the strongest focus of PACE, although that is in no way to question the value or the wisdom of the employment rights advice that Mr McMahon and Thompsons Solicitors provided.

I will continue to monitor the situation, and if Mr McMahon or other members have any observations to add, I would be happy to hear them and to determine whether PACE needs to broaden its focus beyond its training and employment support activities.

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

David Torrance has withdrawn question 2, but he has provided me with a satisfactory explanation for doing so.

NHS Ayrshire and Arran (Administrative and Hotel Services Staff)

Margaret McDougall (Labour, West Scotland)

3. To ask the Scottish Executive how many administrative and hotel services staff were employed by NHS Ayrshire and Arran in 2007 compared with 2012. (S4O-00761)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Data for 2012 are not yet available. The latest statistics, which ISD Scotland published on 28 February, show that there were 1,561.9 whole-time equivalent administrative staff in NHS Ayrshire and Arran in September 2007 and 1,468.8 in December 2011. For hotel services staff, the figures are 616.9 and 602.9 over the same period.

Margaret McDougall (Labour, West Scotland)

As the minister will know, the working tax credit changes that will come into force in April 2012 will mean that those who work for less than 24 hours a week will lose out on that much-needed benefit. Under agenda for change, in-house staff in the national health service should receive at least the living wage, but that is not always the case for contracted staff.

I appreciate that working tax credit changes are not in the minister’s remit, but NHS pay and conditions are. What assurance can she give me that contracted staff who work in the NHS will receive decent pay and conditions? Does she agree that NHS boards should look to ensure that, regardless of whether they are contracted, all staff who work in the NHS receive at least the living wage?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Margaret McDougall rightly points out that working tax credits are not within my remit. I wish they were devolved to this Parliament. If Scotland becomes independent, we will have control over all such issues, and we will be able to ensure that there are no anomalies.

Agenda for change provides fair pay and conditions for NHS staff. I remind the member—she was not in Parliament at the time—that that pay and conditions system was introduced in 2004, under the previous Administration. One of the changes that we have made is to ensure that everyone who works for the NHS receives the living wage, and I hope that members across the chamber welcome that.

Another of the Government’s policies is to ensure that, as far as possible, NHS services are provided by the NHS, but I encourage all those who provide contracted staff to pay them a fair and decent wage, and to apply agenda for change conditions. We are doing a great deal, and we will continue to ensure that NHS staff are treated fairly—they deserve it. As always on such occasions, I put on record my huge thanks to all those who work so hard within our national health service.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

What proportion of backlog maintenance of the NHS Ayrshire and Arran estate is assessed to be of high or significant risk, and how might that affect staff, particularly those in administration and hotel services, and the provision of services in general?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

As John Scott knows, the Government published its “State of the NHSScotland Estate 2011” report just a couple of weeks ago. The report was the first exercise to give a true picture of the state of the estate, as the previous Administration did not bother to carry out any such exercise. We now know the challenge that we face and, even in these times of constrained capital financing, we are maximising the capital resources that are available to NHS boards to enable them to carry out essential backlog maintenance and to continue to modernise the NHS estate. That is important for patients, and John Scott is right to link it to staff as well, because we must ensure that staff have a safe working environment in which to continue to provide excellent services for patients. We will continue to work with all NHS boards on that.

Private Sector Tenants

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

4. To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to defend and extend the rights of private sector tenants in Edinburgh. (S4O-00762)

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

The rights of private sector tenants across Scotland are protected by a robust regulatory framework. This year, the Scottish Government will improve the effectiveness of regulation in the private rented sector by producing a new strategy for the sector for the next decade, introducing one or more tenancy deposit safeguarding schemes, and launching a consultation at the end of the month that will help to clarify the law on premium charges that are levied on tenants by letting agents.

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

I have been contacted by a number of constituents in financial difficulty who are trying to move house and find themselves legally being charged hundreds of pounds in admin fees. The Private Rented Housing (Scotland) Act 2011 gave the minister the power to do something about that. Is he prepared to use that power?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I have just said that we will launch a consultation at the end of the month that will help to clarify the law on premium charges that are levied on tenants by letting agents. It will address the problem that Kezia Dugdale identifies and, in particular, it will look at charges that tenants have no reason to expect. Nothing should be charged outside the rent and the tenancy deposit, which will be covered by the tenancy deposit scheme, but it is right that we consult first, and we will do so at the end of the month.

Inward Investment (High-quality Jobs)

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

5. To ask the Scottish Executive what mechanisms are in place to ensure that inward investors promote high-quality employment opportunities. (S4O-00763)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Scottish Development International’s policy is to focus on the attraction of high-value, high-quality jobs to Scotland through inward investment. In the year to the end of March 2011, SDI attracted a total of 2,046 high-value jobs, which is within its target range for that year of 1,600 to 2,400 such jobs.

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The cabinet secretary might be aware that constituents in Mid Scotland and Fife have raised concerns about an overreliance on agency workers at Amazon in Dunfermline. Is he prepared to publish any employment targets that have been agreed with Amazon? What mechanisms exist to claw back public funds should those targets not be met?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

It is clear that, if companies enter into agreements with Scottish Development International that give rise to regional selective assistance or any other financial support, there will be stringent monitoring of all the commitments that have been undertaken to determine whether all the conditions have been met. The Government will continue to do that, and if it is necessary for any action to be taken, the Government will take it.

Fuel Poverty

Aileen McLeod (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

6. To ask the Scottish Government when the fuel poverty forum will publish a report on its review. (S4O-00764)

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I expect to receive a copy of the Scottish fuel poverty forum’s interim report in April. I met the chairman of the forum, Professor David Sigsworth, this morning, and we had a constructive discussion about how we can take forward a number of new approaches to tackling the problem of fuel poverty.

Aileen McLeod (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

The latest Scottish house condition survey, which is from 2009, shows that 41 per cent of households in Dumfries and Galloway are in fuel poverty compared with 28 per cent in Scotland as a whole. The region has the third-highest level of fuel poverty of all the Scottish local authority areas. What steps will the cabinet secretary encourage local authorities to take in order to ensure that information is forthcoming to all residents about what they can do to reduce fuel poverty?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Last week, I announced a further £2 million for the Scottish Government’s boiler scrappage scheme and the universal home insulation scheme, which brings the total funding this year for fuel poverty and energy efficiency to over £57 million. I urge local authorities to tell households that are concerned about the cost of keeping their home warm to phone the home energy Scotland hotline—the number is 0800 512012—and free and impartial advice will be provided. Further, localised promotions are delivered through the five regional energy saving Scotland advice centres. That ensures that local authorities and voluntary organisations are fully briefed on the help that is available to their clients.

Drew Smith (Labour, Glasgow)

I welcome the resources to which the cabinet secretary referred. He will be aware that the number of households that are experiencing fuel poverty is rising. In light of that, does he believe that the 2016 target to eradicate fuel poverty is achievable? If so, what additional action will be needed to reach it, given that the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee recently reported that the financial resources fall some way short of what is required?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

This morning, I wrote to the convener of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee with my response to its very good report. We will be glad to endorse a number of the committee’s recommendations.

In the current spending review period, over the next three years, the Scottish Government and the energy companies will invest a significant amount—our share will total around £0.25 billion—in tackling fuel poverty in Scotland. That compares with a budget that has been cut to ribbons south of the border under the previous Labour Administration and the current Tory-led coalition.

Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

7. To ask the Scottish Executive when it expects construction work to commence on the Aberdeen western peripheral route. (S4O-00765)

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

It is hoped that the small number of objectors who are opposed to the AWPR will be willing to accept the recent Court of Session judgment so that we can get on and build the road. Subject to no further appeal being lodged against the judgment, we will continue to work with our project partners to ensure that that vital project can move forward to construction as soon as possible.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

I seek an assurance that the Scottish Government is doing everything necessary to ensure that construction can start as soon as the legal shackles are lifted. The partners in the project—that is, the two councils—need a clear answer on the proposed funding arrangement, and they need up-to-date costings. Will the minister undertake to provide that clarity at the proposed meeting between Transport Scotland and the councils on 11 April?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

We have had a number of conversations with the councils concerned, and they have been kept fully up to date on the progress that has been made. We have to take legal advice on what we can do during the current period, in which the legal process has not been exhausted, but we also have to go through the various design, procurement and construction processes. We will do that as fast as we can, as we want to be the Government that delivers the project, unlike previous Governments.

Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route and Haudagain Junction

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, North East Scotland)

8. To ask the Scottish Executive when it expects work to begin on the Aberdeen western peripheral route and the A90/A96 Haudagain junction. (S4O-00766)

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

As the answer to the previous question dealt with the AWPR, in this answer I will concentrate on Haudagain. We have repeatedly given a clear commitment that we will progress the Haudagain improvements on the completion of the AWPR. That commitment remains firmly in place.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, North East Scotland)

Does the minister acknowledge that work on the Haudagain could begin immediately, and that any further delay in its commencement would be a matter of great regret? It is now some years since the work was approved. Will the minister give us a commitment today—given his recent announcement of funding for design work on the Haudagain—to take the work forward this year, regardless of any change to the schedule for the AWPR?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

The nature of the commitment that I am willing to give was in the answer that I have just given. We will start the Haudagain improvements on the completion of the AWPR—for the best of planning reasons, and because of expert advice that we have received.

However, as the member suggests, there are things that we can do in the meantime. We have started on them, and we will continue prudently so that, immediately the AWPR is completed, we can crack on with the Haudagain roundabout.

Waiting Times (NHS Lothian)

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothian)

9. To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will provide an update on the progress made in response to its request to NHS Lothian to carry out an internal audit of the application of its waiting time practices and management. (S4O-00767)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

In early January, NHS Lothian was asked to commission its internal auditors to carry out a special audit of waiting times management practice. NHS Lothian decided to commission the waiting times audit from external auditors, and it subsequently appointed PricewaterhouseCoopers to carry out the audit. After further consideration of the matter, I advised the chair of NHS Lothian on 25 February that, in the interests of appropriate corporate governance, my officials would now instruct the auditors, and that the report from the auditors would come to the Scottish Government in the first instance. On completion, the findings will be shared with NHS Lothian and, indeed, will be made available to this Parliament. I will expect the board to take forward any recommendations that arise from the report.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothian)

Perhaps the cabinet secretary could explain to us why “the interests of appropriate corporate governance” were not an issue when she signalled her contentment with NHS Lothian’s proposal for an independent external audit in a letter of 24 January. Is not the truth of the matter that a large part of the problem lies in the confusing and ambiguous guidance on waiting times, for which the Government is responsible? Will the cabinet secretary give an assurance that her audit will be completed within the timescale that was originally envisaged by NHS Lothian, and that it will focus on the terms of the guidance and decide whether NHS Lothian took a reasonable approach in its interpretation and implementation of the guidance?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I would hope that David McLetchie and other members would welcome the fact that I consider the adherence of NHS Lothian and all health boards to the waiting times guidance—and some of the issues relating to NHS Lothian—to be so important. The carrying out of an audit that complies with strict standards of corporate governance and is seen to be completely independent of NHS Lothian should be welcomed.

I do not accept that there is ambiguity in the waiting times guidance that would excuse any board from adhering to it. I want to ensure that people have confidence in Lothian and in every part of Scotland. Patients expect and deserve that the rules that we set out to ensure speedy access to treatment should be complied with.

As I have said, the audit will be fully published. I have asked for it to be completed as quickly as possible, and any lessons that require to be learned will be learned by NHS Lothian.

Tax Increment Funding (Aberdeen)

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

10. To ask the Scottish Government what progress has been made in securing a tax increment funding pilot for Aberdeen. (S4O-00768)

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

In November 2011, Aberdeen City Council was invited to work with the Scottish Futures Trust to develop a tax increment financing business case for the city centre regeneration plans, including the redevelopment of the Union Terrace gardens. At that time, it was emphasised that Aberdeen City Council’s plan to use TIF for the Union Terrace gardens project would be progressed for ministers’ consideration only if public support for the project could be demonstrated. The recent referendum in Aberdeen demonstrated that public support, and we look forward to receiving the final TIF business case.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

I feel a bit bad about asking these questions as we have already had a debate on the subject this morning. In the light of last week’s referendum, does the cabinet secretary intend to meet Aberdeen City Council to discuss the business case? The city garden project is not the only project, as we also have the St Nicholas house redevelopment, the city art gallery redevelopment, improvements to the city realm and the north Denburn valley redevelopment.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Presiding Officer, I hope that we are not going to have a tiff about TIF. I have no plans to meet Aberdeen City Council to discuss its bid for a TIF pilot. I expect finalisation of the TIF business case to be taken forward by the Scottish Futures Trust and the council, and I look forward to considering the business case in due course.

Engagements

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of this international women’s day. (S4F-00528)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

With your permission, Presiding Officer, I want to say a few words about Paul McBride, who tragically died last weekend. Paul was an outstanding advocate and a substantial public figure in Scotland. His reservoir of talent was great indeed, and I believe that he had a great deal more to contribute both to the law and to the great debate on Scotland’s future. He will be sorely missed and I am sure that the whole chamber will wish to convey our condolences as a Parliament to Paul’s partner, Gary, his parents and his many friends and colleagues.

As has been said, today is international women’s day. It is a day when the world celebrates the achievements and contributions of women past and present. I want to acknowledge women’s tremendous contribution to Scottish society, so this is a fitting opportunity to announce that the Scottish Government has committed to fund the Scottish resource centre for women in science, engineering and technology at Edinburgh Napier University. Because funding for the United Kingdom parent body had been removed by Westminster, the facility was facing closure, but we have acted to ensure that the centre, which supports the success of women in fields of endeavour in which they are significantly underrepresented, remains open to continue its vital work. [Applause.]

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

On behalf of Labour members, I support the First Minister’s comments about Paul McBride and express our sympathy with regard to the very sad and tragic loss both to Mr McBride’s family and to critical debates in Scotland. As the First Minister said, he will be sadly missed.

This week, Joan McAlpine, the First Minister’s parliamentary aide, likened Scotland’s place in the United Kingdom to that of a woman in an abusive marriage. Does the First Minister agree?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Joan McAlpine did not do that. Despite feeling the need to misrepresent, the Labour Party really should not treat hugely important issues in such a fashion. In her column, Joan McAlpine talked about the abuse of power; there are abuses of power by the Westminster Government over Scotland. The Labour Party should try to treat the hugely important issue of abuse against women with the importance that it deserves, instead of feeling the desperate need to misrepresent what other people say.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

The First Minister should be very careful about suggesting that people on this side of the chamber wish to diminish the issues of domestic abuse and violence in the home. The reality is that there has been commitment and co-operation across the Parliament to address those problems, which is precisely why the First Minister should reflect on what his aide said. How the First Minister handles his aide is entirely a matter for him, but I do not know many people who, on coming out of an abusive marriage, have then entered a social union and kept the same bank account, which is what the First Minister has suggested for a separate Scotland.

The First Minister needs to deal with the fact that his aide’s analogies are as offensive to women as his policies are damaging. As a result of those policies, 400 women are being put out of work every day. It is not, as his aide alleges, being part of the UK that is holding women back; rather, Tory cuts have been compounded by the First Minister’s inaction. That is why female unemployment is higher in Scotland than it is in the rest of the UK. When is the First Minister going to start doing something to help women back to work? Is it the case that, like everything else, we are going to have to wait his 1,000 days for a referendum before he lifts a finger?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

As I have pointed out to Johann Lamont, a hugely important issue should not be demeaned by taking someone’s remarks totally out of context and distorting them. There are plenty of abuses of power by Westminster over Scotland; today, for example, I regard the Remploy employees as suffering from such an abuse of power, I regard the cuts to the disability living allowance in Scotland as a huge abuse of power, and I regard the plans to replace the Trident missiles on the Clyde as an enormous abuse of power that should be sorted out in Scotland.

As for how we as a Parliament have challenged that serious issue, I am sure that Johann Lamont would be the first to acknowledge that, against the extraordinarily difficult circumstances of Westminster cuts—cuts that Alistair Darling told us would be “deeper and tougher” than those of Margaret Thatcher—the fact that investment in key areas in Scotland has not only been maintained but increased is a huge tribute to the commitment of our Government and our Parliament.

For example, funding to tackle violence against women, including domestic abuse, has doubled. It has increased from £21 million over three years to £55 million in the four years from 2008 to 2012. Against the background of the cuts imposed from Westminster, those figures surely indicate this Government’s endeavour—our joint endeavour—to give those hugely important issues the priority that they deserve.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I have acknowledged the commitment across the Parliament on domestic abuse, and I recognise the funding that exists for that.

I hear from the First Minister a critique of what the Tories in Westminster have done—they are a problem because they are Tories, not because they are English—but I hear nothing about his responsibilities. I was making the point that the unemployment rate for women is higher in Scotland than it is in the rest of the United Kingdom, and that that is the First Minister’s responsibility.

The Deputy First Minister has also been making grand promises this week. Apparently, only in an independent Scotland can we have policies that do not offend our sense of decency. However, on her Government’s watch, the fuel poverty rate is double that in England, and she does nothing. Childcare costs are higher than in the United Kingdom and one in four children lives in poverty, but she does nothing.

Is this not the mañana Government? It is doing nothing for people who are in difficulty today, but is promising them the world tomorrow—a tomorrow that is at least a thousand days away.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The reason why a Tory Government rules over key areas of Scottish life is precisely that the Labour Party accepted the position of Westminster control over vital areas of Scotland.

There is, at present, a huge difficulty with unemployment in various sectors of society that is affecting women and young people. However, Johann Lamont should at least acknowledge the employment rate: that is, the number of people who are in jobs. There are 10,000 more women employed in Scotland than there were just over a year ago. [Alex Salmond has corrected this contribution. See end of report.] The number of women in jobs is the highest across these islands: the employment rate for women in Scotland is higher than it is in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. That should be acknowledged.

I have already stressed to Johann Lamont the importance that I place on the figures for modern apprenticeships—the apprenticeships that the Labour Party voted against, we must remember, in the budget debate. The figure for women who are participating in modern apprenticeships has moved from 27 per cent at the disgracefully low level of 15,000 or 16,000, to 45 per cent at the much-increased level of 25,000. I hope that we can unite as a Parliament to look at that figure of 25,000 modern apprenticeships not only in relation to this year, but stretching through the next five years, and see the percentage of young women who learn trades and skills ever increasing. That will contribute to our acknowledgement as a Parliament of women’s critical role in work and in Scottish society.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

If the First Minister was talking to women, he would know that his figures on women’s employment mask something much more serious. We have lost more than 100,000 full-time jobs to temporary and part-time jobs. Women in local government—which he has targeted for cuts—and in the voluntary sector are having their hours cut. The figures mask the fact that women are suffering disproportionately from unemployment and underemployment.

The gap between the words and the reality grows as we speak. Last week, the First Minister told us that the only thing that Rupert Murdoch got when he visited him was

“a cup of tea and a ... caramel wafer”.—[Official Report, 1 March 2012 ; c 6828.]

We have now found out that he also offered Murdoch a multimillion-pound tax cut.

There is a pattern here. All that a working person—[Interruption.]

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Order. We will hear the member, please.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

All that a working person who needs help gets from the First Minister is warm words about what might happen in 1,000 days, but Fred Goodwin gets all the backing that the First Minister can muster, Donald Trump gets direct access to the chief planning officer, and Rupert Murdoch gets offers of multimillion-pound tax cuts in exchange for headlines. Some people might say that Scotland is being bought and sold for Murdoch gold. Is it not about time that we heard less, that women heard less, and that families across this country heard less about the First Minister’s fantasies for tomorrow and more about how he will deal with the realities of today?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

That lot indicates that Johann Lamont would do better to focus on one subject at a time during question time. Let us look at the substantive issues. [Interruption.]

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Johann Lamont is better at asking questions badly on one subject than she is at asking them badly on six subjects, in my opinion. Let me give her the statistics. I accept that unemployment is far too high, but 10,000 more women are in work than were in work just over a year ago. [Alex Salmond has corrected this contribution. See end of report.] The figure for employment—people who are actually in jobs—which is a very important figure, is 66.8 per cent in Scotland as opposed to 65.3 per cent in England.

The amount of young women who are just starting modern apprenticeships is at 45 per cent, and the training for work figure has gone up from 28 per cent three years ago to 35 per cent now. There is still more work to do but, again, the figures indicate that young women are taking their rightful place in the workforce.

The figure for young women who are leaving school and going on to the positive destinations of full-time education, employment or training is now at 90.4 per cent—an increase from 87.8 per cent in 2006-07.

The Government’s commitment to no compulsory redundancies in our controlled public sector and the health service is vital for all workers, but it is particularly vital for women, given their importance in the public sector workforce.

Finally, of course, there is the Government’s delivery of—not a commitment to, or a promise of—something that the Labour Government never did, which is the living wage at £7.23 an hour across our controlled public sector. That is why last year, when it came to the test, it was not just a vast majority of Scottish men, but also a substantial majority of Scottish women who gave this Government their endorsement and placed their hopes in this Government for improving the lot of women and Scottish society by getting control of the towering heights of this economy, so that we can mould a better future free of Tory government.

Prime Minister (Meetings)

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

2. I thank the First Minister for his warm words about Paul McBride. Paul made a huge contribution to Scottish public life and he had many friends in the chamber. The thoughts of the Conservative Party are with his partner and family at this time.

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S4F-00513)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

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

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

Today, the Scottish Conservatives announced plans to support the Government’s Alcohol (Minimum Pricing) (Scotland) Bill in return for concessions that will help industry, such as voluntary notification to Europe and a vital sunset clause so that, although we hope that the measure works to reduce problem drinking across Scotland, Scottish industry will not be penalised in perpetuity should the legislation prove to be not effective.

Yesterday, the Scottish Conservatives tried to help employers by blocking the retail levy, which is a Scotland-only tax that is designed to be a £95 million cash grab to allow the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth to plug holes in his budget, aided and abetted by Labour. This punitive tax, unheralded in the SNP manifesto, and with no assessment of its impact on Scottish retailers, will result in Scottish retailers having the highest business poundage for more than 20 years. Asda has already said that this uncompetitive tax will add significant costs to its business in Scotland, and has warned that future projects might now be scrapped.

Can the First Minister tell me how many young people are employed by the retail sector in Scotland right now?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I welcome the change in the Conservative Party’s position on minimum pricing. The matter was touched on in my recent discussions on the constitution with the Prime Minister. Since the election, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives have seen the importance and crucial nature of Scotland confronting its difficulties with alcohol and have recognised that the proposed legislation is worth trying to see whether we can combat that scourge on society. I welcome the movement by the Liberal Democrats and now the Conservatives to try, as a Parliament, to make the measure a success.

I do not agree with Ruth Davidson on the impact that she feels the retail levy will have. She mentioned Asda, which announced plans for three new stores and a replacement depot in Scotland on 23 January, in full knowledge of the Government’s plans for the retail levy. If Ruth Davidson wants to say that we do not need to make that move to fund crucial public spending—incidentally, she called for additional public spending on those areas, oblivious to the fact that the pressure on our budget comes from her colleagues at Westminster—perhaps she will detail for us here and now what she would cut or where she would raise the money, rather than have a completely proportionate levy that will allow a vital contribution to health education and the general confronting of the problems with alcohol.

I am not going to say, “Better one sinner who repenteth,”—

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothian)

You have said it.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I point out to Mr McLetchie that I was only sayin it so as I didnae say it. I will withdraw it, if that helps.

I want us to treat this vital matter of taking the initiative and having the courage to introduce minimum pricing as part of an overall and general approach to confronting the scourge and evil of Scotland’s problem with alcohol.

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

The retail levy has no preventative properties in terms of health. It does not target retailers that sell alcohol and tobacco; it merely targets the largest and it is not a proportional cost based on the amount of alcohol or tobacco that is sold. Frankly, to call it a “health levy” is a fig leaf to cover the embarrassment of the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth, whose numbers did not add up.

The First Minister did not answer my question on youth employment, so I will answer it for him. More than a third of all Scots who work in retail are under the age of 25. The sector supports 80,000 young people directly and is a gateway to employment in other industries for thousands more. Sixty-two per cent of all retail jobs are done by women. The Confederation of British Industry Scotland, the Scottish Property Federation, the Scottish Retail Consortium, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, the Scottish Council for Development and Industry, the Wine and Spirit Trade Association and the British Council of Shopping Centres all condemn the tax as being damaging to Scotland.

The First Minister says that he wants to be trusted with all Scotland’s taxes. We now see what he would do with them: he would put them up and damage the very companies that are preventing Scotland’s youth unemployment figures from rising above the already scandalous figure of 102,000 young people on the dole. It is not too late for the First Minister. Will he now scrap that cynical and anti-competitive £95 million tax that will endanger jobs and investment in Scotland?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

As gently as I can, I remind Ruth Davidson that the application of a 2.5 per cent increase in VAT had 10 times the impact that the retail levy will have. Not only that, but the VAT increase applied to goods and services and companies across the board. The public health supplement—the title contains the clue to what will be done with the revenue—applies to 0.1 per cent of retail outlets in Scotland. Their business rates, which currently account for 2 per cent of their turnover, will with the supplement increase to an estimated 2.3 per cent of turnover. The party that swept the VAT increase into the Scottish economy a year ago is now oblivious to the public health levy’s minor impact on a small number of very large retailers, which will help to finance critical areas of preventative spend in Scotland.

After publication of “Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland 2012-11” yesterday, I point out to Ruth Davidson that, if we had access to the £2.6 billion that was lost to the Westminster Treasury in last year’s accounts—£509 for every man, woman and child in Scotland—we would have a range of choices open to us that are not open under Tory rule from Westminster.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn)

The First Minister will be aware of the UK Government’s decision to close four Remploy factories in Scotland, including one in Springburn. I am sure that he will share my concern about how the announcement was made and the situation in which the workers have been placed.

What actions will the Government take to support Remploy workers in Scotland? Will the First Minister encourage the increased use of section 19 provisions in Government procurement? Did the Government respond formally to the consultation on the Sayce report? If not, what action did it take to influence its outcome?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

We have been in discussions on that very matter, which made it all the more disappointing that we received our first notification about the decision on Remploy only yesterday afternoon, when Maria Miller told Fergus Ewing about the announcement. The decision and the way in which it was communicated are matters of great disappointment, given the number of discussions we had about the general issue.

Patricia Ferguson touched on the important issue of section 19. In October 2010, the public contracts Scotland portal developed a re-registration process to identify supported businesses for buyers. That work is on-going, but it has already had a substantial effect. Since October 2010, a total of nine framework agreements have been awarded to supported businesses, to the value of £13.7 million. The latest financial data for this key area confirm that £24 million was spent on Scotland-based supported business by the Scottish public sector in the past financial year.

I share Patricia Ferguson’s great disappointment and concern. The announcement was, at best, ill-timed and insensitive. The necessary preparations do not seem to have been made to guide the 104 disabled people—Remploy employed 111 people in Scotland—into productive employment. Discussions must start as quickly as possible and the UK Government must accept its responsibility for the situation in which it has placed so many vulnerable people.

Colin Keir (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Western)

Following the Royal Bank of Scotland’s announcement that 120 jobs are to be cut in my constituency, what action is the Scottish Government taking to ensure that employees who are made redundant are supported into new employment? Does the First Minister agree that, at a time when RBS requires solid political leadership, Vince Cable’s recent statements demonstrate why Scotland should be in charge of its own banking regulations?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Vince Cable’s comments were made in a leaked letter, rather than a statement, but if the Royal Bank of Scotland was broken up, that would have substantial implications for the headquarters’ workforce in Scotland. I regret that Vince Cable’s memo to the Prime Minister did not acknowledge that important issue.

I share Colin Keir’s concern about the job losses that have been announced by RBS, and about the impact on the employees affected and their families. Fergus Ewing has already provided full details of the support that is being provided through PACE—partnership action for continuing employment—and the finance sector jobs task force.

The task force operates under the auspices of FiSAB—the Financial Services Advisory Board—and the agreement between the financial sector and the Scottish Government, and has had substantial success in allowing people who have been released by the clearing banks to find other financial sector employment. That has been a substantial success over the past few years.

I hope that that goes some way to assuring Colin Keir of what we are doing. We will do everything possible to minimise the time that individuals who are made redundant spend out of work.

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-00517)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

We will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

In the first edition of The Scottish Sun on Sunday, the First Minister played down the role of The Sun, the News of the World and News International in the phone hacking scandal. By using the defence, “It wasn’t just them—others did it, too,” the First Minister lent his support to Rupert Murdoch, yet was silent on the victims of phone hacking. Does the First Minister believe that hundreds of phone hacking victims and their families will be satisfied with his failure to stand up to News International?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I do not know whether Willie Rennie managed to attend First Minister’s question time last week, when I reiterated and made absolutely clear my full support for the police investigations south and north of the border and my full support for the Leveson inquiry. Since the then Government did absolutely nothing about it, he should take on board the findings of operation Motorman. I promised last week that the document would be placed in the Scottish Parliament information centre, in case the identification by the information commissioner of potential criminality in respect of data protection had not been fully understood by members. I advise Willie Rennie to read the list, which extends across the London press—there are very few Scottish examples in the analysis. Every part of that document should be analysed, and we should support the police inquiries into phone hacking and the Leveson inquiry to the hilt.

I hope that, now that that has been explained to Willie Rennie, he accepts our total commitment to seeing the law upheld.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The First Minister prefers to cosy up rather than stand up to Rupert Murdoch. Earlier this week, he was caught bragging about Rupert Murdoch’s support for Scottish independence. We have discovered that Rupert Murdoch wants to break up Britain in revenge for the Leveson phone hacking inquiry, and our First Minister is only too happy to leap on that and ignore the victims. That was the trade: “I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine.” The problem is not the column in The Scottish Sun on Sunday, the fireside chats with Rupert Murdoch or even the free tickets to the golf. The problem is that, rather than stand up to Rupert Murdoch, the First Minister has defended him and put his interest above the interests of the victims. Is the First Minister not ashamed of this grubby deal?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Willie Rennie would do well to read what I said last week and at least hear my answer to his first question before reading out his second question.

It is reasonable to make the point that the Government is totally committed to upholding the police investigations in England and Scotland, upholding the Leveson inquiry and asking for the law to be enforced and upheld, which clearly has not been done in recent years. I suggest that Willie Rennie has a good look at the findings of operation Motorman to see the extent of potential criminality across the Fleet Street press and the number of titles that were named by the information commissioner in that report.

I was going to talk about Michael Brown, Liberal Democrat donors and how the Liberal Democrats are in no position to lecture anyone about their associates. Liberal Democrats have always wanted to adopt a holier-than-thou position in politics—the party that put the moan into “sanctimony”.

Economy

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

4. To ask the First Minister what the implications are of the findings in the Scottish Government’s recently published “State of the Economy” report. (S4F-00530)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The “State of the Economy” report highlighted the challenge facing the global economy and the economic outlook for the months ahead. The Scottish Government has taken and continues to take decisive action to promote growth and to create jobs, helping Scotland to face the recession, so that—although still extremely serious—it is both shorter and shallower than the recession in the United Kingdom as a whole. That fact is confirmed by the report, as are the extraordinary challenges that will face public spending for years to come if we remain under the thumb and under the control of the London Treasury.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

Does the First Minister share my concern that UK Government cuts and revised inflation forecasts will cause the Scottish Government’s spending power to fall in real terms by 18 per cent over seven years, meaning that the cumulative loss to the Scottish budget over the period could be £51 billion—£10,000 for every man, woman and child in Scotland? Does he agree that, as figures in the report “Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland” revealed yesterday, an independent Scotland would be in a stronger fiscal position than the UK as a whole, with a lower per capita debt, and would therefore be better able to stimulate investment, generate growth, create jobs, raise living standards and improve the quality of life of everyone living in Scotland?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Yes, I agree. The figures that were published yesterday with the official kitemark showed a difference of £2.6 billion, which is equivalent to £510 for every man, woman and child in Scotland. Facts are chiels that winna ding. The figures speak for themselves and the anti-independence parties in the chamber had better get used to hearing about it, because they are going to hear a lot more of it.

Public Entertainment Licensing

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

5. To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government will issue guidance on the new public entertainment licensing regime. (S4F-00515)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The Cabinet Secretary for Justice wrote to assist licensing authorities this week by setting out the powers that they have to decide what they wish to license and not to license. The amendment to the law was introduced to allow local authorities to control and ensure safety at large-scale free-to-enter events, such as raves and fireworks displays.

When local authorities take licensing decisions, we expect them to take account of the impact on cultural activity and small-scale events in their areas, to continue to support the fantastic individual, grass-roots and community-based artistic talent in Scotland. That is the case at any time but is particularly important in the year of creative Scotland.

As Malcolm Chisholm asked the question, I am pleased to note that the City of Edinburgh Council has indicated that no free cultural events for audiences of less than 200 people will be affected.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

I thank the First Minister for the letter, which was at long last issued yesterday, so soon after my question appeared in the Business Bulletin. Last week, I spoke at a constituency meeting of more than 200 people who were very concerned about the threat to grass-roots culture and very annoyed about the new licensing legislation and the absence of any guidance about it. Given that the Scottish Government did not understand the immediate implications of its proposed legislation when questioned about it at stage 1, will it now take every action possible to promote and support our vibrant grass-roots culture in this year of creative Scotland?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I congratulate Malcolm Chisholm on his question and on eliciting the response that I am about to give him. I gently point out that the problem cannot really have been legislative; if it had been, a letter of guidance could not have sorted it. As he is well aware, local authorities have discretion under the legislation, which they are now using. I hope that he welcomes the excellent letter of guidance that has gone out to local authorities from Kenny MacAskill.

Incidentally, I would be the last person to say that independent-minded members of the Parliament cannot have a key role in asking key questions on issues that are of public concern. I congratulate Malcolm Chisholm on doing that.