Scottish Parliament, 12 February 2003

317 contributions from 48 members. The official report.

Introduction

Time for Reflection

David (None, Lothians)

Our time for reflection leader this morning is Mrs Anne McIntyre, who is the leader of the Prayer for Parliament, Scotland, Intercessors Team.

Education

David (None, Lothians)

The first debate this morning is on motion S1M-3879, in the name of Michael Russell, on education. I invite all those who want to take part in the debate to indicate that now.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Two weeks ago in the chamber, the Minister for Education and Young People launched a glossy document called "Educating for Excellence: Choice and Opportunity"—I have a copy of it in my hand. I am sorry that the Minister for Education and Young People is not here today. Most people in Scottish education looked forward to the document. We are talking not about the great debate, but about the response to the great debate. Our motion finds the Executive's response to that debate wanting.

We should consider what the great debate brought forward and what those who were encouraged to respond to the debate said. People had to be encouraged to respond, because many were obviously confused by the process. The team that was established to analyse the results of the great debate—Professor Pamela Munn and her colleagues at the University of Edinburgh—identified four key areas that required improved funding and support. The first area was more pupil choice. In the document, there is repetition in respect of further initiatives, further interventions and an overcrowded curriculum, but there is no indication that anything in the document will produce more pupil choice.

People wanted smaller class sizes. There is a vague commitment to those in the document, but it is not backed up with any details or concrete proposals.

People wanted more professionally qualified teachers, but the document and the minister's statement two weeks ago are heavy on matters such as adult to pupil ratios and light on the key issue of getting additional teachers into classrooms to make a difference. Indeed, the Executive's projections on teacher numbers show that it is intended that numbers will peak in 2007 and fall thereafter.

People wanted better buildings. Many reports, including the Accounts Commission's report, say that the way to get better buildings is not through the current private finance initiative scheme. The Accounts Commission report, which was published in January 2003, showed that it was harder to get better-designed buildings under PFI procurement, particularly buildings with wider corridors, enough social space, swimming pools and good equipment.

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

Will the member take an intervention?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

No—I have only just started. I will give way shortly.

On the key requirements, there is an obvious mismatch between what people want and the Executive's responses. The most dramatic mismatch relates to a key requirement that came through in virtually every request in the great debate—a move away from performance measurement, tick boxes and meaningless statistics and towards actual achievement in education. The gap between achievement in education and what the Executive has proposed is as dramatic as the gap between the Executive's rhetoric over the past four years and the reality of Scottish education.

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

Has the member visited Balfron High School? Many characteristics that he said were not appearing in new schools have appeared there.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I am sure that some buildings are better than others and that, if the member believes that Balfron High School is among the best of those buildings, she will carry that belief, no matter what the evidence is to the contrary. However, the reality is that PFI contracts throughout Scotland are not delivering the buildings that are needed, particularly as they do not allow schools to be built in a way that will reduce class sizes.

The gap between the Scottish Executive's rhetoric and the reality is absolutely stunning. One should consider what the Executive has promised and what it has delivered. To some extent, I am sorry that the Deputy Minister for Education and Young People is here, as he is not responsible for that gap. He did not write the Labour party's manifesto or other documents in the Labour party's name. However, he must take responsibility for them—that is one of the pitfalls of coalition.

The gap between what was promised and what has been achieved is stark. One target in the Labour party's manifesto was for

"80% of children to reach the appropriate standard in reading, writing and arithmetic by the time they leave primary school."

The reality is that, in reading, 28 per cent of pupils, in writing, 41 per cent of pupils, and in maths, 32 per cent of pupils did not reach the basic minimum level expected of them by primary 7. That is a gap between rhetoric and reality.

Another pledge was that there would be

"An e-mail address for every Scottish child and at least 4 modern computers per class."

That has not been achieved. There are 2.2 computers per primary class and only 16 per cent of primary school children have an e-mail address; indeed, not even two-thirds of secondary school children have an e-mail address.

There is a whole list of other examples. The Labour party's manifesto target was for

"13,000 pupils to achieve higher standards at Standard and Higher grades."

The gap in attainment at standard grade is now wider than when the Labour party took office.

Another target was for

"Every child in Scotland to have access to an After School Club."

That process has hardly started.

Another target was to

"Reduce by half the number of 16/17 year olds who do not go on to education, training or a job"

between 1999 and 2002. That gap grew.

Another target was to reduce school exclusions and truancy by a third. Since 1999, unauthorised absence in primary schools has risen by 30 per cent and in secondary schools by 21 per cent. The statistics for violence in schools are off the chart.

Another target was to recruit 5,000 extra classroom assistants by 2002. That is the target that Labour trumpeted most, but it has not been achieved. The target of 1,000 additional teachers by 2002 has not been achieved. Another target was to improve assessment by 2003 so that achievement could be measured effectively; the Executive has given up talking about that, such is the mess that it is in. Another target was the development by 2002 of a comprehensive building strategy. The school estates strategy that was published last week contained none of the promised information. It is empty rhetoric; all that it asks for is information by December 2003.

I could go on with that list, but there is a longer list of the gap between rhetoric and reality in education. It is extremely important that that gap is closed, but "Educating for Excellence: Choice and Opportunity" does not close it. Within hours of the document being published, those who know something about education were complaining about it.

An example is the proposals on inspection, which were very confused last week. Cathy Jamieson talked about stronger inspection and the document mentions "'proportionate' inspection." The following Friday, after the document was published, an article in The Times Educational Supplement Scotland started:

"Education directors have told Cathy Jamieson there is no need for extra Scottish Executive powers to deal with schools or authorities deemed to be failing pupils."

The directors of education state that there is no need for the extra powers. There is a gap between rhetoric and reality. We must close that gap in the coming Scottish Parliament elections. We must say to people in Scotland, "This is what can be achieved in Scottish education and this is how we are going to achieve it." I will focus on three issues that need to be addressed; they are listed in the SNP motion. The first of those issues is smaller class sizes. There is a desperate need for that throughout each school, but there is a particular need in primaries 1, 2 and 3, where investment in smaller class sizes produces the biggest results. That can be achieved and it will be achieved by an SNP-led Executive, because it has to be done. Sylvia Jackson finds that amusing; she finds anything that will bring forward real change in Scotland amusing. That is the problem with Labour in Scotland; it can only laugh at the reality of real change, because it is unable to achieve it. It is essential to have smaller class sizes in the early years in Scottish primary schools.

The second issue is simplification of the five-to-14 curriculum, with a new emphasis on core skills. The minister talked two weeks ago about literacy and numeracy being among our most pressing problems, but the document states that the Executive will carry on with the present failed policies. We know that those policies have failed. We must simplify the core curriculum and introduce an emphasis on core skills. In secondary 1 and 2, where the problem is most pressing, we must not play around with ideas of a teacher here or a teacher there; we must refocus on core skills.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will Michael Russell give way?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

No thank you.

It is impossible to have a modern and vibrant economy and a successful Scotland without an emphasis on core skills. We build on those core skills of thinking and learning. If they are not deeply embedded by S1 and S2—and, according to the figures, they are not—the prospects for Scotland and its economy are grim.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Michael Russell talks about core skills. Will he define what he means by telling the chamber what subjects will be dropped to establish core skills? Will music, art, science or ecology be dropped? What will be removed from the curriculum to establish the remaining subjects as core skills?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

That shows about as much understanding of the process of simplifying the five-to-14 curriculum as does Mr Monteith's amendment, which I find baffling.

It is necessary to deconstruct the current curriculum and take it back to the core skills. The curriculum can then be rebuilt on the basis of all the things that we have talked about, which centre on the core skills. Any primary teacher in any classroom in Scotland understands that. It says something about the Conservatives' education spokesperson that he does not understand it.

The start of this Parliament was seen as a time when people in Scotland might establish renewed faith in the delivery of public services in Scotland. They have spent four years looking for an opportunity to re-establish that faith. It is a cruel hoax on the people of Scotland, after a so-called great debate, to produce a document that is as empty of initiative and as empty of solutions as "Educating for Excellence". It is an even crueller hoax to come to the chamber and try to justify the document on the basis that it is what people want. In respect of the document, people have asked for bread and they have been given a stone. [Interruption.] I am sorry that a quotation from the scriptures makes Karen Gillon laugh.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

Will the member take an intervention?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

No.

People are being deceived in Scotland. It is time that we had honest politics that shows that it will deliver. The SNP is pledged to deliver real excellence in Scottish education; what it will not do is deceive the people.

I move,

That the Parliament notes Educating for Excellence: Choice and Opportunity, the Scottish Executive's response to the National Debate on Education and the statement by the Minister for Education and Young People on launching the document; further notes that in places the document is contradicted by the Minister's statement; expresses concern that the document contains little new despite the high quality of many responses to the consultation; is particularly concerned that, despite the Minister's admission in her statement that matters of literacy and numeracy "are among our most pressing problems" and that "we will not tolerate underperformance in literacy and numeracy", the document contains no clear and firm commitment to actions that will change the present situation in which the number of pupils failing to meet the required standards of literacy and numeracy by S2 is unacceptably high, and therefore supports the Scottish National Party's radical programme to reduce class sizes in the first three years of primary education to 18 or below and to re-focus teaching effort on core skills throughout the primary school and into the early secondary years.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

I welcome the opportunity for the Parliament to consider again the key issues that face education in Scotland.

Cathy Jamieson presented the Executive response to those issues in her statement on the national debate at the end of last month, on the same day that we published the document, "Educating for Excellence: Choice and Opportunity", which was referred to in such glowing terms by Mr Russell.

I remind Mike Russell, in among all his false and feigned anger and his bluff and bluster, that the document is all about creating choice and opportunity. At the core of the document is a move from a one-size-fits-all system to a new curriculum and a new approach to education, which meets the needs of each individual pupil. That is the core of the document.

I will start with our plans on class sizes. The Executive has already delivered smaller class sizes for pupils in primaries 1, 2 and 3. The early years of primary are a critical stage in pupils' education, but we all know that many pupils are not making the progress that they should in the later stages of primary—primaries 5, 6 and 7—and the first two years of secondary school. That is also a critical stage for young people. The Executive is not prepared to let those young people miss out on the opportunities that each and every one of them should have. We are committed to reviewing class sizes at all critical stages—the early stages and the P7 to S1 and S2 transition—and to bringing forward proposals to make reductions, after consultation with the education community, where they will matter most.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The minister is aware of the proposals that I mentioned—my colleagues will talk about specific proposals. Could he tell me the time scale for the reductions that he is talking about, where they will apply and what they will cost?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

Not yet, because we will establish that in consultation with parents, pupils and education authorities throughout Scotland. That is the right approach. It is the approach that we have taken through the national debate and it is the approach that we will continue to take. We are not going for the single, monolithic SNP policy of reducing class sizes in P1 to P3; it is not as simple as that. To suggest that it is that simple is to deceive pupils and parents throughout Scotland who are looking for improvements to the education system.

Margaret Ewing (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Will the minister give way?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

No thank you.

We are particularly keen to reduce class sizes in maths and English as part of our overall strategy to improve literacy and numeracy. Mike Russell is correct that we must raise standards of literacy and numeracy. We must close the unacceptable opportunity gap for many of our children in Scotland. Doing that means taking action on all fronts.

Teachers are central to everything that we do throughout Scotland's schools. That is why we are reviewing initial teacher education, so that new teachers will have even better skills to improve standards of literacy and numeracy. We will give literacy and numeracy their place at the heart of a fully revised curriculum, emphasising their key importance. Above all, we will not tolerate underperformance in literacy and numeracy. We expect education authorities to play a key role in driving forward the issues to ensure the highest standards in their schools.

Raising standards means that we need good information on the outcomes of education for pupils. I agree that we cannot and should not reduce the outcomes of education to simple tables of exam results for each school, which is why the Executive rejects league tables in Scotland. The key reason for assessment in Scotland should be to support the learning of the individual child. That is why the Executive has put in place a framework based on the national priorities in education and the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000, which the SNP supported and which was approved by the Parliament.

We want good education authorities and good information for those authorities. We want good teachers with good information and we want pupils and parents to have access to excellent information to assist the education of each child. We want to take into account all the national priorities, not only exam results.

Later this year, we will publish the first baseline report on national priorities, which will draw together reports from all schools and education authorities and give a rounded picture of what we are achieving in education throughout Scotland. That is a huge step forward, but it is only a first step. We will do more to allow parents and pupils to achieve a clear and meaningful understanding of each child's development and the performance of their school. Exam results will be a part, but only a part, of the picture.

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

Given that it will be difficult to take the league tables out of the public domain, is the minister considering a value-added approach, whereby the improvement of schools, rather than crude raw information, is taken into account?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

The approach taken through the national priorities is intended to achieve exactly that—a far more rounded picture that takes into account not only exam results but a range of indicators. Our approach will not try to compare one school in one area with a different school in another area in a crude league table.

The Executive has set out its plans for delivering excellence in education in Scotland. We are reducing class sizes and improving literacy and numeracy. We are determined to give parents, pupils and the Scottish community better information and to involve those people more in the education system. We want to implement our plans for excellence for Scottish schools, as outlined in our response to the national debate.

Our plans involve creating a more flexible and relevant curriculum; giving head teachers more local control; allowing teachers to work more flexibly across primary and secondary schools; reforming the assessment system; reducing and simplifying the burden of assessment; improving facilities and the design of school buildings; and involving parents more in their children's education. Those priorities reflect the broad range of concerns that pupils, parents and teachers throughout Scotland raised during the national debate. We are determined to deliver a world-class education for all Scotland's children.

I move amendment S1M-3879.1, to leave out from first "notes" to end and insert:

"welcomes the strategy for the future of education in Scotland published in Educating for Excellence: Choice and Opportunity with its focus on raising standards and closing the opportunity gap; supports the plans to reduce class sizes and the measures to improve literacy and numeracy and to ease transitions between key stages, and endorses the strategy's key objectives of an education system centred on the needs of each individual child with a more flexible and relevant curriculum, a streamlined assessment system and greater parental involvement in our schools."

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Unlike the SNP, I will not concentrate on the coalition Government's response to its great debate. Why should I? The document is worthy and full of good intentions and it contains much on which members of all parties can agree, but we all know that it is really just an appetiser. It tickles our taste buds, but leaves us unsatisfied.

The main course is still to come: we will not have it at least until the election campaign, or after it, if the coalition parties form the Government. The minister's problem is that he is scared to reveal the real agenda for change. He is scared that the unions, the directors of education and many members sitting behind him will find it unpalatable and throw it back in his face. The minister uses flowery language like that of fancy restaurants to disguise his true intentions. In future, will he intervene in failing schools or failing council education departments? Will he use independent school expertise? There is nothing in the document to reveal that, but there are suggestions that that is the way that the coalition Government will go if it is re-elected.

The minister's boss might be a vegan, but—nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more—the truth is that the document suggests that she will be eating bacon rolls and red-blooded steak tartare.

Margaret Jamieson (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Is it in the interests of the Parliament to discuss someone who is a vegan and to make such appalling comments?

David (None, Lothians)

I do not think that it is insulting to describe someone as a vegan if they are one.

Margaret Jamieson (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

My point is about the relevancy of that issue to the debate.

David (None, Lothians)

If I were to rule on relevancy, that would be a full-time job.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I assure members that I did not mean the word "vegan" as a term of abuse; I was simply drawing to members' attention the metaphor that the minister may be forced to eat something that she finds unpalatable.

To some extent, the document is a deceit, but it is nothing compared to the great deceit of the SNP's education policies. The policy of having class sizes of 18 or fewer is well intentioned and laudable, but without the right ingredients, it is a recipe for disaster. The simple truth is that class sizes of 18 or fewer cannot be delivered without abolishing placing requests, tearing up the current catchment areas and, in many cases, building extra classrooms and new schools. As long as the SNP resists admitting the real cost to parental rights and choice, it will be lying to the electorate.

The SNP policy is predicated on using the spare capacity that some schools have and which many more might have in the future because of falling school rolls. However, many schools are in the wrong place and many are half empty because parents choose not to send their children to them.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

rose—

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I will take an intervention.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Mr Monteith anticipates my every move.

There is no intention to abolish placing requests, which I support. In those circumstances, I find Mr Monteith's argument bizarre. I find it even more bizarre, although illuminating, that many of the Labour members nodded in agreement with him. Many parents will find it simply disgraceful that members are dancing on the head of a pin to stop smaller class sizes.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I will move on and give a few examples so that Michael Russell understands why his policy is a deceit. As I said, the policy is predicated on falling school rolls, but some schools are simply in the wrong place. Some parents choose not to send their children to certain schools, which creates the empty classrooms that Mike Russell wishes to fill up. However, there is a difficulty: if we decide to send children to schools that their parents have not chosen, parental rights and placing requests will, in effect, be abolished. That would create a terrific backlash and a clamour for independent primary schools.

Parents guard jealously their right to placing requests and, though many politicians try to deny it, they often choose schools by choosing houses that are located in a particular catchment area. I will give a recent example with which Sylvia Jackson will be familiar. In Dunblane, there has been outrage from parents in the Barbush area, who found that the area was to be rezoned into a new catchment area, which would mean that new pupils would go not to Newton Primary School, but to Dunblane Primary School. The parents held public meetings and, with some effect, sought to change the situation. Families had located to Dunblane because of its schools; they had bought houses in the Barbush area because it fell within the catchment for Newton Primary School, but they were told that that was going to change.

The problem is that Newton Primary School is full to the gunwales and, from next year, class sizes will reach 30. Dunblane Primary School has just enough spare capacity to accommodate the city's expansion and St Mary's Episcopal Primary School is full. All three primary schools in Dunblane are full, with no spare classrooms and no budget to expand, so catchment areas are having to be redrawn. Placing requests for those schools from outside the catchment areas, such as from Bridge of Allan, will have to be refused in the future.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Will the member give way?

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

No, I am running out of time.

David (None, Lothians)

You are already over time. I have given you injury time.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To introduce class sizes of 18 or fewer in Dunblane will require seven more classrooms and seven more teachers, but there is no budget available. There is no spare capacity in Dunblane.

Thank you, Presiding Officer, for allowing me to extend, given the interventions that I took. The SNP's policy is nothing more than mutton dressed as lamb. It will ultimately disappoint the electorate, who would be better turning to the Conservative benches; we will strengthen parental rights, because, on these benches, we know our onions.

I move amendment S1M-3879.2, to leave out from "in places" to end and insert:

"the response of the Scottish National Party has been to advocate policies which, whilst well-intentioned, would require placing requests to be abolished, catchment areas to be re-drawn and, therefore, parental choice to be considerably restricted, and calls upon the Scottish Executive to reaffirm its support for the placing request provisions of the Education (Scotland) Act 1981."

Cathy Peattie (Labour, Falkirk East)

It is fashionable for some parties to play down and seek to undermine the Parliament's achievements. There have been many achievements in education. We are improving standards and broadening the curriculum. Devolved school management has enabled schools to develop areas of particular excellence and £14 million has been invested to support that.

We have introduced new national qualifications, bringing together vocational and academic qualifications. We are extending opportunity. We are committed to allowing children with additional support needs to have access to mainstream education.

Higher still offers all young people the opportunity to gain a qualification and provides a better assessment of their abilities. In 2002—for the first time—more than half of school leavers continued their studies in further or higher education.

Some 97 per cent of Scottish secondary schools now provide access to the internet. We are improving the learning environment through better conditions for teachers and better school buildings. More than 4,000 classroom assistants have been employed in primary schools and by 2006 there will be 3,000 more teachers, ensuring a 15:1 adult to child ratio in all local authorities.

We have implemented the new community schools programme in 430 schools and have committed £78 million to roll out the approach to all schools by 2007. We are investing more than £1 billion to rebuild and refurbish schools and have recently announced an additional £110 million for improving school buildings over the next three years. Record investment in education means that, by 2003-04, education spending will top £5 billion for the first time. That represents £1,000 for everyone in Scotland.

I do not plan to dwell too long on what has been done and what is already under way. I want to look forward beyond the posturing of the SNP motion to a more constructive view of where we are going.

Our objectives are clearly supported by the responses in the national debate. We want a review of the school curriculum to ensure greater subject choice and to enable pupils, within a comprehensive system, to opt for academic and vocational subjects that best match their interests and aspirations. There should be simplified assessments and fewer tests and exams, with more flexibility for schools to address the needs of individual pupils. Do we really need pupils to sit exams every year from S4?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The member makes an interesting point, which the minister raised two weeks ago. Do we need pupils to sit exams every year? What is the Executive's official policy towards the schools that have already abandoned the standard grade? Is there a framework for change or is change happening piecemeal? What are the specific proposals to reduce the examination overload?

Cathy Peattie (Labour, Falkirk East)

The member will have to ask the Executive that. I am suggesting that we examine the issue. The member knows from the many inquiries that the Education, Culture and Sport Committee has undertaken that we need to examine the issue of over-assessment. I suggest that he ask the Executive about that.

Smaller class sizes and improved pupil to teacher ratios at the crucial transitional stage between primary and secondary school—P7, S1 and S2—in mathematics and English are clearly the priority.

There should be more involvement for parents and improved information about the child's progress. The suggestion that we review and reform the role of school boards and parent-teacher associations is welcome, but there is a clear need for full consultation with all concerned before there is movement on that.

Head teachers should have more control over budgets, so that those closest to children can decide how best to use resources. There should be greater flexibility for schools and education authorities through agreements for excellence.

We want to improve literacy and numeracy, particularly among the most vulnerable and disadvantaged young people. We must ensure that all children have a good grasp of basic skills. Smaller class sizes are crucial, but we should not focus only on that—having additional adults in the classroom is probably more important. We want better discipline, building on the recommendations of the discipline task group.

The aim of the measures that I have mentioned is to create confident, articulate young people who can realise their potential. The national debate has confirmed many of the ideas that we have been discussing for some time and has thrown up new ideas that deserve serious consideration.

The purposes of education inquiry will add to the important national debate. Although I cannot divulge the contents of the inquiry, I assure members that it will make a positive and challenging contribution to our consideration of the future of education in Scotland. Taken together, the inquiry and the Executive's document will enable us to achieve clarity of vision.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member give way?

Cathy Peattie (Labour, Falkirk East)

No, I am just finishing.

They will ensure that we can deliver education that is fit for citizens of the 21st century.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The Deputy Minister for Education and Young People's opening comments were permeated with phrases such as "we want to", "we will" and "first steps". One is tempted to ask the Executive what on earth it has been doing for the past four years. It seems that it has been doing nothing, which is of course why the great debate is taking place. The Executive is not doing less, better; it is doing much less, worse.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Will the member give way?

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

No. I have just started.

It seems that Brian Monteith was being sponsored for every cooking reference that he made—there was much less reference to education.

I shall concentrate my remarks on school buildings and the need for young people to be educated in facilities that are conducive to learning.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Will the member give way?

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

All right, then.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

The member asked what the Executive has done in the past four years. I invite her to Pollok to see the new Rosshall Academy, the new St Paul's High School and the refurbished Lourdes Secondary School. We now have an environment to match the talents of the young people in my constituency.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I wonder whether Johann Lamont, unlike her colleague Cathy Peattie, is speaking on behalf of the Executive.

As I said, I shall concentrate my remarks on school buildings—the very point that Johann Lamont brought up. At a recent conference in Edinburgh, it was revealed that schools that have an abundance of natural light and ample ventilation significantly outperform more traditional schools in terms of academic results. Professor Brian Edwards of Heriot-Watt University claimed that research from America shows that the more natural light in schools, the better pupils learn. Too many of our young people are being taught in poor physical conditions. It will cost up to £2 billion to bring Scottish schools up to standard.

Unfortunately, the new PFI schools are generally not being built to a desirable design that will allow pupils to attain. As John Swinney revealed last week, the Amey group made profits of 31 per cent on its schools PFI projects, so £13 million was stuffed into the pockets of Amey and its shareholders—money that should have remained in our schools system. Audit Scotland found that PFI projects will cost taxpayers in Scotland £18 million more every year than they would have paid if all school projects had been funded by normal public procurement methods.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member give way?

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

No, I shall continue.

The PFI projects have been beset with problems, such as small classrooms, poor materials, no swimming pools in any of the Glasgow schools, very little social space—

Cathy Peattie (Labour, Falkirk East)

Is the member aware that the five new PFI schools in Falkirk all have swimming pools, all have lights and all have central areas to visit?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Falkirk is not in Glasgow.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

As my colleague said, Falkirk is not in Glasgow. Moreover, there has been a problem with reduced community access—it is costing communities an extortionate amount to hire the facilities within schools. Even though public money has already bought those facilities, youngsters who play for football teams are being forced to go elsewhere.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member take an intervention?

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

No. I am running out of time.

For the past six years, the Labour Government has fixed it to ensure that PFI projects are the preferred option. Indeed, they are the only game in town. The National Audit Office referred to the so-called public sector comparator as "pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo".

That is the result of a dogma that permeates all the thinking on the provision of new facilities. The Treasury's drive to get capital projects off the balance sheet has ensured that PFI projects cost more, that profits are squirreled out of the public sector and that the facilities that have been provided are not as good as those that could have been provided if students, teachers and the wider community had had some influence on the design process.

I understand that the Liberal Democrats now favour public sector trusts. I look forward to hearing the Liberal Democrat Deputy Minister for Education and Young People say that the past four years of PFI have been a wasted opportunity from the point of view of both cost and design. I suspect that it will not suit him to do so.

The SNP will ensure that our young people have decent facilities to learn in and that any profit will be returned to the education system, rather than being put into the pockets of those who seek to profiteer at the expense of our public services.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

When I reflect on the education of SNP members, I note that Mike Russell must have done particularly well in his creative writing class and that Tricia Marwick must have sailed through her geography class. The observation that Falkirk is not in Glasgow is most illuminating. It might surprise Tricia Marwick to learn that Scotland is still in Britain.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member take an intervention?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

No—I am still in my first minute.

Although everyone knows that education and opportunity are closely linked, the link between ambition and opportunity is talked about less often. Opportunity needs to be courted. Opportunities do not just appear with the milk on the doorstep; they need to be seized. I want the children of Scotland to be educated, to be ambitious and to seize opportunities. I want them to be educated with a can-do attitude. To encourage such an attitude, it is essential to recognise the child as an individual, to address life skills as well as maths and English and to build confidence as well as qualifications.

The Scottish Executive has invested money in education in the traditional sense, through the provision of bricks and mortar, school books, equipment and teachers. Unlike the SNP, it has also shown a clear understanding of education in its broadest sense.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

No, I will not.

Through sure start Scotland, we have recognised that a child's early educational background and family environment have an impact on their ability to learn and to fulfil their potential later in life.

New community schools also embody the principle that the potential of all children can be realised only by addressing their needs in the round. In new community schools, teachers, social workers, community education workers, health professionals and others work together in a single team to meet an individual child's needs. Following that route has meant that children in Dumbarton constituency have access to health development officers, to family and pupil support—to address barriers to achievement at school—and to groundbreaking educational information technology systems. Subsequent evaluations have shown that those investments have paid dividends, particularly in improved literacy, numeracy and good behaviour.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Will the member give way on that specific point?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

No. Unlike SNP members, education has come a long way in the past four years. However, I am always the first to agree that more can be done. The national debate revealed the need to make progress in some areas. I am pleased that the minister is addressing those issues.

The sheer scope of the five-to-14 curriculum is one of the most important issues, as teachers in my constituency—most recently, staff at John Logie Baird Primary School—have pointed out. In trying to cover so many areas, teachers cannot give sufficient attention to core areas. A slimming down of the curriculum would lead to the devotion of more class time to core skills and would ensure that everyone attained a level of foundation learning.

I must take issue with the SNP on the important issue of class sizes. Yet again, the SNP conveniently fails to acknowledge what is being done. The Executive has already set targets for primary and key secondary school years. Let us step back to analyse the logic of the SNP's call for smaller classes across the board. How would such a change be paid for? Smaller classes ultimately mean more classrooms and a complete overhaul of the school infrastructure. Although the Executive is committed to improving the school estate and has secured £1 billion to do so, that would not be enough to fund the SNP proposals.

Like most critics, the SNP thinks that it knows the way, but it cannot drive the car. The SNP has no idea how it would deliver any of its proposals. Surely it is much more sensible to increase the teacher to pupil ratio. That is quicker and much more effective than counting the number of classrooms. After all, it is attainment that matters. We know that improving the adult to pupil ratio gives a significant boost to pupil learning.

Anyone who removes the blindfold of bias—I urge Mike Russell and Tricia Marwick to do so—must admit that great steps have been taken. Ninety-seven per cent of secondary schools have access to the internet. Extra educational resources are being targeted at those in most need. For the first time, more than half our young people are going on to university and further education colleges. Those are the foundations for a strong society and a strong economy.

Colin Campbell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I recently asked an experienced teacher what single thing he would prioritise to improve schools. He said that he would prioritise getting the bad kids out so that the good kids could be educated. He went on to tell me stories that I will not relate.

However, I will give members a couple of my stories. Discipline has deteriorated since I left teaching. With the minimum amount of force, I have gently neck locked a pupil of my size who continued—in spite of my order to stop—to kick another pupil repeatedly. My actions were aimed at safeguarding the victim, who was lying on the dining hall floor. The victim had hurled school custard at the assailant, although most of it had ended up on my suit. In a disciplinary situation, four adults, each holding a limb, have brought into my office a writhing and screaming child who was parallel to the ground. Things have not got better.

A better teacher to pupil ratio—

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Will the member take an intervention?

Colin Campbell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

No, because I know exactly what I will get. I have only four minutes, which will probably be my last four minutes on education.

A better teacher to pupil ratio in the early years of school is essential, because that is when the fundamental attitudes to the system and to the way in which it works are established. International evidence backs that up. Better liaison with social work and support services is needed. Teachers should be given systematic training in conflict avoidance and resolution and in how to keep themselves and their charges physically safe. I ask the minister to take that point on board.

On exclusions, there is a predictable tension between teachers and head teachers. I understand that my exclusion rate was average. The price for that was that some teachers thought that I was far too soft. Schools do not need targets for the reduction of exclusions. To demand percentage decreases in exclusions is to increase classroom and inter-staff tension and to demoralise teachers and head teachers. I ask the minister to take that on board, too.

Head teachers manage their institutions. Following a surgery with ex-head teachers who felt that they had been treated unjustly, I wrote to The Times Educational Supplement Scotland. My letter, which was published in the edition of 13 September 2002, invited any head who

"feels that he or she has been hounded from their post by the actions of staff who have adopted a culture of grievance and orchestrated a campaign against the management of the school"

to contact me in confidence. A number of head teachers did so.

Let me give a composite of their replies. Imagine a head who arrives in a school in which an influential body of staff is set in its ways. The staff are resentful of the head, perhaps seeing themselves as the guardians of the school's traditions. They may have extensive networks through parents associations or social circles, but they are clever enough not to get themselves disciplined. Alternatively, imagine even a well-established head of some years' standing, who is obliged to implement new policies with a staff whom he or she had hitherto been able to woo and persuade.

Indifference to the head's desired new policies changes to open hostility. Grievances are lodged. A succession of grievances may even be planned. The unions are brought in. To whom does the head then turn for support? The head's union may not have the wealth to fight his or her legal case—that is something that those who are thinking about becoming head teachers should investigate—or, if the staff and the head are in the same union, the union may side with the staff against the head. The union may even coach staff in the tactics necessary to beat the head. To whom then does the head turn?

Does the head turn to his or her employers? Good employers will give advice and support and even offer arbitration to solve the problem and make progress, but others may make the calculation that it is easier to move one member of staff than to move several and so side with the majority. The head must then go, even if he or she is innocent of any major wrongdoing. I have evidence that that has happened. I ask the minister to take that on board. I would love to say to the minister, "Come to my office and we will discuss it." However, I recognise that it is I who may need to invite myself to the minister's office.

Ian Jenkins (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

At the centre of today's debate is our consideration of the Executive's response to the national debate on education, which the Executive published under the title "Education for Excellence: Choice and Opportunity". The document must be popular—I was unable to obtain a copy from the Scottish Parliament information centre yesterday, so it must be going down well with the public somewhere.

When the minister introduced the document, I welcomed it as a first step in taking up the ideas and recommendations that flowed from that extensive debate. I acknowledge that the proposals in the document are not revolutionary, but they promise solid progress across a wide range of aspects of the education system. If we can make solid progress in all those aspects, the educational experience that we offer our children will benefit from a substantial improvement, building on the sound basis that exists within our schools today. We need to build on the pre-school provision and the early-start mechanisms that are currently in place.

I was pleased that the responses to the debate endorsed the comprehensive system, but I am not complacent. I am anxious to see a system that is not monolithic but embodies flexibility and offers opportunities for innovation and fresh approaches at all levels. The document's proposals offer to increase pupil choice by reviewing the school curriculum and by streamlining and simplifying assessment. It proposes to bring forward a reduction in class sizes and to tackle discipline problems. Indeed, I endorse many of Colin Campbell's recommendations about the need to improve things such as initial teacher education.

The document also makes proposals about improving school buildings, giving more control over budgets to head teachers and improving transitional arrangements between primary and secondary schools. There will be more professional co-operation than has previously been the case and parents will be involved more fully. The inspection regime for schools is to be changed, so that it is more closely focused on schools in which there are problems. All those measures are important; cumulatively, they will offer a substantial model for progress.

Let me say a little about class sizes, assessment and the promised review of the school curriculum. As a former teacher, I well know how important class sizes are to our ability to deliver the best in education. I believe that a reduction in class sizes is important and that it should be built into how we think and plan about the future. However, the SNP promise to reduce class sizes to 18 seems to me to be wildly optimistic. As others have pointed out, the SNP policy takes no account of the cost of extra school buildings.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Ian Jenkins (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

No, hang on.

Just the other day, I spoke to a teacher who compiled a wee Latin motto that describes the SNP policy:

"Crustum hodie in caelo est, et cras fructus conditus erit."

That translates as: "Today, there is pie in the sky and tomorrow there will be jam." I am pleased that the Executive is committed to reductions in class sizes, but I would welcome a longer-term commitment to planned and achievable reductions within a time scale over the next few years.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The member has received no such commitment, even from his own minister.

Ian Jenkins (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

But I would welcome it.

The commitment to simplify assessment is vital. We must always consider what assessments are for and whether they are reliable, necessary and practicable. We must also be careful about the use that is made of the results. I am pleased that the exam results league tables are being discredited as the sole benchmark of quality. I endorse every measure that can be taken to reduce the power of the league tables in that regard.

The national tests for reading and writing that were in operation when I left teaching involved a whole battery of tests that had to be applied to individual pupils or to groups of pupils when the teacher thought that the pupils were ready. Not only were the tests difficult to manage and inconvenient to administer, but they simply confirmed what the teacher already knew. They were part of a silly and elaborate bureaucratic system. We need to have a rational look at how we obtain information about standards without such elaborate arrangements. In all those ways, it is vital to reduce the burden of assessment on teachers and pupils.

Like the Executive's document, the SNP motion talks about reviewing the curriculum and focusing on core skills. I support such a review. I welcome the focus on literacy and numeracy, but I am anxious that the core curriculum should not be confined only to numeracy and literacy. It must embrace the wider purposes of education and involve the development of the whole pupil as an individual and as a member of the community. We must be prepared to make informed and sometimes difficult choices about the shape of the curriculum and what may have to be dropped from it. I hope that the Education, Culture and Sport Committee's document on the purposes of education will assist that process.

I believe that we now have the basis for real progress. I urge ministers to ensure that the mechanisms are in place to take the proposals off the paper and put them into action in the classrooms. That should be done in partnership with teachers, parents and pupils.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Like Ian Jenkins, I have listened to parents. I will make two points today, both of which arise from representations that parents in the Highlands have made to me.

My first point has been made in particular by school board chairmen in the Highlands. Although the McCrone report was widely welcomed, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities estimated that there would be a shortfall in funding of £150 million. At the time, many of us thought that COSLA might be exaggerating. However, now that McCrone is being implemented, the actual shortfall is £147 million. For Highland Council, the underfunding for McCrone implementation is £6.6 million, which means that the council can implement the pay settlement but little else. Classroom assistants and continual professional development are now dreams, aspirations or targets—to use the Executive spin.

Given that the McCrone funding formula was based on pupil numbers, it is hardly surprising that there should be a shortfall in an area that has so many small schools. The result is that teachers in urban areas will receive all the support and classroom help that was outlined in McCrone, whereas rural teachers will receive only minimal support. If the minister were job hunting after graduating from teacher training college, where would he choose to go? The Highlands already faces a crisis in recruiting general practitioners and dentists, but the Executive is now creating similar problems in respect of teachers. We will have a two-tier system in Scotland.

How can schools and education authorities be given a legal obligation to pursue continuous improvement when they have no funding to implement it and no staff to cover the resulting teacher absences? Highland Council's education convener said only this week:

"This financial year will not be good for education, culture and sport. £3.58 million was removed in 2002/03 from our service to help balance the council's budget which was not replaced.

That meant a 10% cut in the money schools get per pupil ... and a freeze on recruiting visiting teachers."

Highland teachers also have to deal with the fact that their levels of administrative and support staff are among the three lowest in Scotland.

The second point that I want to make relates to what was said by Colin Campbell, who made his points extremely well. However, my concern is not only with class sizes. A problem that is constantly brought to the surface is discipline and bullying in schools. That could be tackled by joined-up government. It takes far too long to identify vulnerable children and bullying, too long to diagnose and assess education needs and an impossible time to get the necessary psychological support. Young offenders are simply becoming old offenders because there is no help or support for them, so they carry on offending. If addressing offending behaviour were a higher priority than the publication of glossy brochures, that would be of great benefit.

There is a critical lack of residential care for children with psychiatric problems. Without facilities and support near home, young people's problems become more acute. Those with drug and alcohol problems cannot be treated in adult facilities until they are 16—that wait is just too long for many. In Inverness, fast-track referrals to the department of health and child psychiatry take more than six months and normal referrals take 18 months.

I have raised those points because of the effect that disruptive children can have on other children and because of the demands that they can make on teachers.

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I was going to begin my speech by declaring my registered interest as a member of the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals. However, having heard the earlier speeches, I will concentrate my remarks on school buildings. As we have heard, evidence shows that a pleasant and healthy environment leads to healthy education and good educational attainment.

My colleague Tricia Marwick has already quoted from the Audit Scotland report that told us that under the public-private partnership regime to which this Government seems to be wedded, we are already paying 3 per cent more in additional interest payments on the schools that we are procuring under PPP. Only last week, we heard that Amey—the company that used a PPP to build our schools in Glasgow and Edinburgh—made a 31 per cent profit on that contract.

Brian Fitzpatrick (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

Against that background, can we take it that the member will not be urging favourable treatment for the outline business case that was made by East Dunbartonshire Council for funding from the Scottish Executive? Is she content that schools in East Dunbartonshire should wait until funding can be secured from public revenue?

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I was anticipating that intervention from Mr Fitzpatrick. I remind him of the meeting that we both attended last week with Cathy Jamieson. At that meeting, the parents of pupils who attend Kirkintilloch High School showed their hostility towards the use of private finance initiative contracts in building public schools in East Dunbartonshire. At that meeting, Cathy Jamieson said that it was her responsibility to "spend the money wisely". Given the information we have had from Audit Scotland and the gross profits that Amey has made from the Glasgow schools, how many more schools could we have built from that profit and the interest on that money? Is that a wise use of public money? How many more teachers could we have got and how much smaller could class sizes have become using those grossly inflated profits? Is that responsible use of public money?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I want to add to the very impressive case that my colleague is making by giving one piece of information that I learned on Monday. Dumfries and Galloway Council asked whether it could use a not-for-profit scheme, but that was refused by the Scottish Executive. Despite the Executive's announcements on the issues, it is determined to keep putting 31 per cent profit into private companies.

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Mike Russell's comments lead me on to say that a procurement process for public buildings should be open, consultative and participative. As Mr Fitzpatrick and I know, those processes should not be shrouded in commercial confidentiality—or secrecy—as was the outline business case to which Mr Fitzpatrick referred. I wonder how the member can support an outline business case for a joint venture from East Dunbartonshire Council, when the council refuses to discuss it in public with members of the public or with parents.

Brian Fitzpatrick (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

Will the member take an intervention?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The member is in her last minute.

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

The other day, I was at another meeting with Brian Fitzpatrick, but because of the commercial confidentiality and secrecy surrounding the issue, a local school where the building is crumbling around the pupils has been offered "tarting up" and maybe—if members will excuse my cod Latin—fructus hodie, or jam tomorrow.

Not-for-profit trusts would ensure that the public, parents and pupils were involved producing schools, rather than having foisted on them schools that are not fit for purpose—schools whose only purpose is to provide profits for private companies.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

By and large, our education system is reasonably successful in getting pupils to learn more, understand more, acquire facts and learn skills. However, we are less good at making pupils into better people and citizens. The problems are very difficult to solve. First, people tend to fulfil the expectations that others have of them, and to respond to peer pressure. In some communities, peer pressure pushes people in the wrong direction—it is assumed that people will fail, get into trouble and not have a job. We have to address that.

Secondly, a minority of pupils have parents who are apathetic about or positively hostile towards education, and who are often extremely hostile to teachers. We have to sort that out. The suggestions in the Executive's worthy document about improving parent-teacher associations are not relevant because such parents do not come to PTA meetings. We have to get through to them somehow.

Thirdly, a lot of learning is done outwith school, or at school but outwith the mainstream, but there is little mention of that in the Executive's document. I am sure that I am not alone in that my abiding memories are of the things that influenced me most being, for example, performing in concerts, playing in school teams, acting in plays, being involved in clubs during the holidays, and going to scout and cadet camps which, with all their failures, have still done some good work.

We must put much more effort into recreational and informal education activities. That would not require a huge sum from the education budget; however, a little more effort would have a significant effect on pupils. Those who are switched off by school can often be switched on again by a charismatic club leader, for example. Most people are interested in something and if we can get young people interested, that would do a huge amount of good.

I have experienced the good effect that Outward Bound Trust-type activities have on some people. Such activities are not everyone's cup of tea, but they do some people a lot of good. I plead that, in addition to the good things that are mentioned in "Educating for Excellence", we should pay more attention to education outwith school and try to create a better society.

Possibly the greatest contribution that politicians could make to improving education is to start saying what we mean and meaning what we say. I know that most members are well intentioned and honourable, but the public sees us as a shower of dishonest people and we must correct that. If the leaders of the country are seen to be unreliable and dishonest, young people will follow that course. We have to persuade them that society can work better if they become better and do a better job than we have ever done.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

There has been a lot of talk today about the gap between rhetoric and reality, but I suppose the SNP has become expert on that in the past few years. "Free by '93" represents one of the gaps between rhetoric and reality that we can all enjoy.

The gap between rhetoric and reality is well illustrated by what the SNP says, which is that the only thing that matters is class sizes. However, parents actively send their children to schools that have larger class sizes because, in reality, there is more to school than the number of pupils in the class, although class size is important and we need to make progress. Some of the worst discipline problems come from schools that have small classes.

The SNP wants to improve the support that is available to pupils, but dismisses classroom assistants as nose wipers and pencil sharpeners-exactly the kind of educational snobbery that has put us in the current situation. The reality in every school that I have visited is that every person and every teacher welcomes classroom assistants as being valuable and meaningfully supportive of pupils' learning.

I arrived in the middle of Donald Gorrie's speech, in which he spoke about a wide range of issues. One thing that has struck me in some schools that I have visited in Clydesdale is how the whole school team, from the janitor to the lady who provides the school dinners, is part of the learning environment for every child. Whoever they are, they can be a learning model for every pupil. We cannot take away from the valuable role that every member of a school's staff plays.

There has been rhetoric about improving school buildings, but the reality is that the SNP has opposed every case where it has happened, it. My colleague Johann Lamont talked about Rosshall Academy, St Paul's High School and Lourdes Secondary School. Those examples were dismissed by Tricia Marwick as being irrelevant to the debate, yet there have been real improvements to the learning environments of some of our most disadvantaged children in Scotland, who are learning in places that are fit for learning. The reality is that when the new Larkhall Academy is built, Biggar High School is refurbished, Carluke High School is refurbished and Lanark Grammar School is refurbished, the SNP will oppose those improvements.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

No, Michael Russell has had his turn. Sit down.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Karen Gillon said something that is not true.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

Oh—the member welcomes PFI in Lanarkshire. Well done; that is good. I am glad to hear about that change of heart.

The difference between the rhetoric and the reality is only too real. Mike Russell likes to quote the Bible and the reason why I laugh is that he has done it once too often. The reality is that here in Scotland people see the truth and look for the truth; they know the difference between rhetoric and reality. People in Scotland know that although classes of 18 might sound good, the reality is that they are unachievable. On 1 May they will dismiss the rhetoric of the SNP and support the reality of the Labour party.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I enjoyed Karen Gillon's wind-up speech for Labour. There is much in "Educating for Excellence: Choice and Opportunity", and much in what Labour has said over the past five or six years, that represents a sea change for that party. There is much that is highly progressive and that deserves support from the Conservatives. I trace that back to when Helen Liddell became the shadow spokesman on education. I wonder whether much of the change is the result of Karen Gillon's input at that time. Although we will not support the Labour amendment, there is much good in it, and if it becomes the substantive motion it will enjoy our support.

I wish that there were an education debate almost every week. It would be a terrific opportunity for all of us to give examples to Michael Russell of the problems that the SNP policy faces. Every week I could mention yet another school—yet another Newton Primary School—that exemplifies the inability to deliver class sizes of 18 or fewer. [Interruption.] Michael Russell laughs as if reality has not dawned on him, so maybe I should give another example to address the obvious lack of knowledge on the SNP benches.

Take the Royal High Primary School, which my sons recently attended. It has three forms—P1, P2 and P3—with 30 pupils in each class, and two classes in each form, which equals 60 pupils in each year. Of course, 18 does not fit nicely into 60, so that school would have to have 54 pupils in each form. The catchment area would have to be reduced to take account of the falling numbers, because we could have only three classes of 18—

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I must carry on with this example. The three forms would need to be reduced and we would need to reduce the catchment area to take account of the fact that there could be only 54 pupils in each year. If we had 54 pupils, we would need another classroom for each year: even if the catchment area were reduced, we would still need another classroom for each year.

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

Does Brian Monteith agree that that policy might result in composite classes?

I do not know the SNP's line on that.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Composite classes might be a way round the problem. I would be interested to hear Michael Russell's point of view on that.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

rose—

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Mike Russell can answer in his own speech—I have less than two minutes left.

The point is clear: a school like the Royal High Primary School would need three new classrooms and three new teachers and would still need to reduce its catchment area. That school already has placing requests, but those would have to be removed. That would not happen only at the Royal High Primary School, but at the neighbouring Parsons Green Primary School and the neighbouring Duddingston Primary School, because in Edinburgh many schools are full to the gunwales.

Of course, the situation does not apply only to Edinburgh. I quote from a letter from the service manager in charge of education of Perth and Kinross Council, which states:

"In terms of accommodation we currently have classrooms for each class but we have no spare capacity, particularly in Perth City. We do not anticipate that the anticipated reduction in primary pupils nationally will alter that situation in the next few years as this area continues to benefit from a growing population. Obviously any proposal to dramatically reduce class sizes would have serious implications for our accommodation stock—quite apart from the requirement for additional teaching staff."

There we have it; that man is not a Tory, but an official and he is saying that it would be quite difficult, if not impossible, for Perth and Kinross to deliver smaller classes of 18. The truth is that classes of 18 cannot be achieved without additional massive expenditure and, even then, without effectively removing parental choice by removing placing requests. I put it to the Parliament that that policy would be unworkable and undeliverable, and as such it is a deceit. It is a policy that should be removed.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

I commented earlier on Mike Russell's speech, and I will return to it in a moment, but first I will comment on Brian Monteith's opening remarks, rather than on the speech that he just gave.

I had a vision of Brian Monteith late at night scripting his words for this morning, desperate for good rhetoric and good analogies, and all that came into his mind—in fact, everything that came into his mind—was food. Brian Monteith is not restrictive in relation to his food; he knows no boundaries. He did not stick with vegan food; there were bacon rolls, there were onions and there were restaurant meals—the lot. Some of what he said, however, was sensible. It is important that we record that fact because it is, as we know, a rare occurrence and another such occurrence might not take place in the lifetime of this Parliament.

It was important that Brian Monteith focused on some of the shortcomings of the SNP policies. He focused on areas on which I would not have chosen to focus; for example, the impact of class sizes on placing requests. In his closing remarks he focused on the impact on catchment areas. Mike Russell is itching to respond to those points. Brian Monteith probed the SNP policy in a way that the SNP is not used to and is clearly not comfortable with—

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

Before I let Mr Russell in—as I will—I will focus on the key issue in relation to the SNP's class-size commitment. It does not relate to placing requests or catchment areas; it relates simply to the cost and the consequences of having to provide the additional classrooms that Mr Monteith spoke about. It is not a fair policy. It would not mean just one or two extra classrooms for P1; it would mean one or two extra classrooms for each of P1, P2 and P3, which would quickly add up to five, six or seven extra classrooms. Those extra classrooms would be required in many primary schools throughout Scotland. At the moment, that is completely uncosted, but such an uncosted upheaval must be clarified. We have to test the SNP on whether the policy has been properly thought out.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

It is rich for the minister to talk about costing when he would not give me an answer about the costing of his class-size proposals. The proposals are in our policy and have been debated in Parliament and I would be happy to give him chapter and verse. The Executive could set a target in its school estate review, but it refuses to do so.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

What is the figure?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Can I ask the minister one question?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Very quickly.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Why is it that although a class-size reduction programme has been put in place in Tennessee, California, Arkansas and most American states, such a programme is—according to some members—unachievable or impossible, which is nonsense? The Executive shows poverty of ambition.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

Although—from a sedentary position—I encouraged Michael Russell to give us the figure, members will note that he failed to do so, because his proposals are uncosted. [ Interruption. ] Mr Russell protests too much, so we know that we have struck a raw nerve.

What is important in Scottish education is that we move forwards sensibly, together and in partnership—Ian Jenkins referred to that—with proposals that can be delivered and that will allow us to see progress on class sizes, and on the introduction of additional teachers and additional classroom assistants. That is the approach that the Executive has taken in the past four years. We have worked with teacher organisations, local authorities, schools, teachers, parents and pupils. I hope that we can build on that consensus and partnership approach in the next four years.

As Ian Jenkins said, what we propose is more about evolution than revolution. We should not be dogmatic about education. We experienced the politically driven agenda for too long during the Conservative years. We want rounded individuals. In "Educating for Excellence", we take a rounded approach to education that does not concentrate only on exam results and attainment, but deals with issues such as citizenship and enterprise. Those matters are important.

"Educating for Excellence" is substantial and I wanted, in my summing-up speech, to review its substance, but time prevents me from doing that. I thank members for an interesting debate.

Irene McGugan (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

On Saturday, The Herald contained an interesting article that reported on a study that was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council, which showed that people in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are broadly disappointed with the impact of devolution. However, that emphatically does not mean that they want to lose their legislatures, because that disillusion resulted in a demand for more, not fewer, powers. Of the Scots who were surveyed, 70 per cent wanted the Scottish Parliament to become more important than the Westminster Parliament. That is interesting in itself, but I highlight from the same study the finding that only 27 per cent of those who were surveyed thought that the Scottish Parliament was increasing educational standards. That comment does not originate from the SNP; it is what a random selection of voters in Scotland think and it sets the context for the debate.

The national debate consultation exercise allowed many concerns to be expressed. Relentless target setting, over-assessment, league tables, the examination system and the unnecessary bureaucracy that stifles learning were criticised. However, the Executive's response does nothing to address those criticisms and I have heard nothing today to change my mind about that. The response refers merely to current policy initiatives. The document is weak on substance and it is selective about the topics for action.

What the document calls a "radical" step—a reduction in the exam burden—is merely an announcement of a future review of the system. The response offers no solution to the excess targets issue. Despite concerns about a massive rise in school violence—the number of recorded incidents has risen by 700 per cent since 1999—the Executive will simply continue with existing policies and take "further action where necessary". What action, and when will it become necessary?

In the past four years, we have heard Labour make numerous vague promises on education, but the document is its vaguest and poorest response yet. It contains nothing that will convince people that it is little more than a public relations exercise at taxpayers' expense.

The minister and the Executive have claimed—it has been much mentioned today—that the starting point is to improve literacy and numeracy, but the document says that the Executive will continue to implement current strategies.

Those current strategies have led to half of the children in S2 failing to achieve minimum levels of attainment in reading, writing and mathematics. That applies in West Dunbartonshire, so although I know that Jackie Baillie is very concerned about attainment, it is difficult to understand how she can justify the Executive's policies, given the statements that I have just made.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

rose—

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

rose—

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Order.

Irene McGugan (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

One of the Executive's social justice milestones was an increase in attainment levels in basic core skills, but statistics reveal that more and more pupils are not meeting the minimum levels as they progress through school.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Will the member give way?

Irene McGugan (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

No, thank you.

The document says nothing about the concern over the long-term decline in modern language learning, although such learning is one of the greatest tools for improving literacy. The number of entrants to French exams has decreased by 50 per cent in 20 years and the figure is now 11 per cent lower than it was when Labour took power.

A reduction in class sizes would improve literacy and numeracy skills and it would allow those skills to be properly developed with a new emphasis on core skills. The SNP's number 1 pledge in education is to reduce class sizes in primaries 1, 2 and 3 to the internationally recognised optimum of

18. The Executive boasts that it has reduced class sizes in primaries 1 to 3 to 30 or fewer, but that is a small drop. It was achieved late and aided by a fall of more than 10,000 in pupil numbers, and it makes little difference to attainment.

"It is often claimed that research results on class sizes are ambiguous. This is not true: small reductions have no measurable effect, but large reductions do. Reducing class sizes in primaries one to three to under 20 would increase attainment, strengthen pupils' self esteem and improve the quality of teachers' interactions with pupils."

If members have difficulty with that, they should take issue with Lindsay Paterson, who is the professor of educational policy at the University of Edinburgh, who wrote that in the Scottish Educational Journal in October last year. If there were smaller class sizes, teachers would have more time to teach according to pupils' needs and discipline would improve. Smaller classes would also meet the requests from many pupils for more of teachers' attention.

The consensus for change is almost universal among parents and teachers. At the beginning of the year, the Educational Institute of Scotland—the largest teaching union in Scotland—launched its campaign to reduce class sizes significantly. It has recognised—as all international experience shows—that such a reduction would be the most important improvement and investment that the Government could make in education. However, in the past four years, the Government has made no significant progress. The Executive's complacent attitude and its lack of ambition for our schools and children have meant that Scotland has slipped down the international class-size league tables to sit below Poland and many other European countries.

We have said that it would cost an additional £105 million a year over several years to build up the number of extra teachers that would be needed for class-size cuts in the early years. We have costed the expansion in teacher training provision over seven years. There is no doubt that changes to school accommodation would add to that cost.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

Will the member give way?

Irene McGugan (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I am closing.

We want new and refurbished schools—we take issue simply with the funding method. All the figures and our costings have been and will continue to be disputed, but the question is: can we afford not to offer our children the best possible education? The SNP will deliver class sizes that will allow teachers to teach effectively and that will allow children to reach their potential. I ask members to support our motion.

Economic Growth

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-3880, in the name of Andrew Wilson, on Scottish economic growth.

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

After reading the weekend's press, all of us could be forgiven for thinking that we would see Angus MacKay, Tom McCabe and Wendy Alexander on the front bench today for this debate on the economy. Unfortunately, that was not to be—with all good grace to Lewis Macdonald—as those members are nowhere to be seen. Were those press reports a chimera? Was the briefing a briefing too far from Jack McConnell? Is Labour still as split as we all thought that it has been for so long?

Despite opening on a bum note, I want to broker some agreement in the debate as well as make some challenges about the economy. At the core of what I will say is a fundamental desire for a shift in the conduct of the political debate in Scotland. I will contend that all the political parties have been guilty since devolution of failing to place the economy centre stage.

All the parties, bar none, have been guilty of focusing to an extent on the symptoms of economic underperformance rather than acting on its root cause. I want that to change. The SNP has worked hard to change that attitude internally and within the wider political, economic and media agenda in Scotland. Throughout, we have been honest in accepting where we need to change our conduct and we hope that that approach has helped to open some minds in other parties and in the wider public. It is an approach that we mean to continue.

The SNP motion is an attempt to secure consensus in the Parliament. I guess that it was too much to hope that all sides would support the motion so close to an election. The motion is simple: it says that we have a problem. After four years of complacency, I am glad that the Government now accepts that. That said, the Government still has a tendency for self-congratulation and complacency at times.

Everyone agrees that the problem is getting worse. All of us who lead in whatever field we work in have a national duty to find unity of purpose in our dealings with the issue. We have to do so for the sake of the future of our country. We recognise that good people can disagree on how to tackle the problem, but we call for no more than open minds on the issue of the policy powers that we need to tackle the problem. We want and need to work with other parties on the issue.

All that I am asking for from my political opponents this morning is active thinking on some of the points that I am seeking to make. There is nothing sacred in the reserved powers that are codified in the Scotland Act 1998. All that that act did was to codify the existing powers of administrative devolution. In a host of areas, political devolution has made the financial centralism that is inherent in all of it unsustainable. Nowhere is the imperative for reform seen more starkly than in the need for reform of the economy.

There is a need for much greater competitiveness in Scotland and in the regions of the United Kingdom. I am asking today for some reasoned arguments and open minds. I am also asking for any criticisms of our case to be based on what we say rather than on demeaning and fatuous misrepresentations, which have been all too common to date.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Andrew Wilson talks of competitiveness. What will the imminent increase in national insurance contributions do for competitiveness in Scotland and in the wider UK?

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

We can have arguments about the overall levels of taxation, but the key point that I want to make this morning to Phil Gallie and other members is that we need to keep a close eye on our relative competitiveness within the United Kingdom, as well as on the overall competitiveness of the UK—I will move on to address that point.

At least national insurance is a tax that is applied across the board, which means that it does not reduce Scotland's relative competitiveness in the UK. We need to ensure that we undercut the growth regions in respect of the taxes that count on growth. That is a point to which I will return later in my speech.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Will the member take an intervention?

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I want to move on, but I will take the member's intervention shortly.

As part of its contribution to a better debate on the subject, the SNP set out its support last week for much of what the Government is doing in this field. We might have expected an SNP press release that was headed "SNP back Labour" to have generated some coverage but, as Alf Young commented, the lack of coverage pointed to the need for both partners in the symbiotic relationship between politicians and the press to look to their conduct. Where there is agreement, perhaps there is scope to broadcast it so that we can build on the consensus and leave the arguments where they count.

Anyone who analyses the world economy knows that the broad thrust of the Government's strategy is correct, as far as it goes. We cannot compete on cheap labour and subsidies, so we must go up the value chain. The whole thrust of "A Smart, Successful Scotland" is correct and we will back it. The idea behind Scottish Development International is good. The technology institutes are a huge risk for the Government, but they are a risk that is worth taking and we will back them. Science, training and skills are all key issues. We will examine the detail of what the Government is doing—that is, of course, the job for the members of a democratic Opposition over the next few weeks before the Government replaces us in that role.

We will bring forward our own reform ideas about what more we have to do with the powers of the Parliament. The Government's approach to date has not, is not and will not be enough. In the words of an editorial in The Scotsman this week, the Government is using

"a pea-shooter firing into a hurricane".

Whichever view is taken of the Government, the evidence is clear and compelling that Scotland is not achieving its potential.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Mr Wilson is five minutes into his speech. Is the peashooter going to produce something positive by way of the Scottish National Party's proposals for the economy?

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I am surprised at Miss Goldie. First, I have to outline the areas on which I agree with the Government. In an election era, I cannot get more positive than to stand up and say that I agree. I try my best. I will examine my conscience tonight, but I make every effort to be positive.

If we examine the output of the Scottish economy, we will all agree that we have had a problem over the past 30 years and that the problem is getting worse. What we have to do to win the consensus across the political spectrum is to make the case that resources for investment in our public services come out of growth and wealth creation. We cannot increase the tax on a diminishing economic base and hope to succeed—that has been the record over the past 15 years. Over the past 12 months, as the economy shrank, the picture has become particularly grave for Scotland. Our economy grew at one thirteenth of the UK rate—the wealth gap is widening.

Recently, the Government pointed out that if electronics is stripped out, the economy is fine. I suggest to the Government with the greatest of respect that that sort of spin is wholly inappropriate. Energy, water, manufacturing, engineering, textiles, chemicals and petroleum products are all still in recession. Sectors producing less than they were one year ago include financial services, metal products, food, drink and tobacco, agriculture, forestry, fishing, and mining and quarrying. All of them are major sectors and all of them have deep problems.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Andrew Wilson highlights the problems that face the Scottish economy. Does he not agree that many other small, independent nations throughout Europe face exactly the same challenges?

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Mr Lyon makes a very reasonable point. It is true that European and world economies are under pressure. My response is that Scotland is under the greatest pressure. We seem to be exposed more than any other country. In the period since Labour and the Liberal Democrats came to power, Scotland's growth record has been the poorest of any European Union member state. Even the economy of Germany, which has been under massive pressures since reunification, has grown 25 per cent faster than that of Scotland and the economy of Ireland has done so by a factor of seven.

I agree that we are under pressure, but I repeat that the UK economy grew 13 times faster than the Scottish economy over the past year. We are living in a tough world, but our economic performance is much worse than it should be.

I also point to the fact that, although all the evidence is clear and compelling, what we do not know about Scotland should also worry us. We will not know until next week the detail of the monetary policy committee thinking behind its interest rate cut last week. Although we welcome that cut in interest rates, I would be surprised if its thinking were not based on the collapse in business and other investment in the UK over the past year. The situation is very grave as it affects future productivity.

We know nothing about the figures for investment in the Scottish economy, because the analysis is not available to us. However, all the anecdotal evidence suggests that the investment that is taking place is going into rationalisation and downsizing and that capital accumulation is taking place abroad.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

No, thanks. I must move on.

We have very deep-seated problems. I suggest that the long-term picture, which has got worse over the past five years, is set to get much worse in the future.

If we look at what we are doing right, we can see that, in our educational performance in many fields in further and higher education, we are making a lot of investment and producing a lot of outputs. That does not suggest that the problem is qualifications in certain segments of the labour force. Although investment in that area is critical, it is not the whole answer.

We have to overcome the gravitational and magnetic pull of the economy of the south-east of the UK. We cannot continue to have a growth model in which there is one high-growth area and Scotland and the regions of England are placated with higher public spending. That is to treat the symptoms and not the root cause. It is a model that does not work. The UK is the 19th most successful economy in the world and its ranking is falling. We need to make a change: we need to tilt the playing field in our direction and overcome the gravitational pull.

Taxes on growth are not the silver bullet, but the SNP's argument is that they are a key part of the whole. We have to encourage corporate headquarters to register in Scotland, to declare profits here and to bring their top staff here.

The bottom line is that we have to out-compete the rest of the UK. To do so, we need to get the same competitive powers that our competitors have. We have to change the culture and the way in which we conduct the debate inside the Parliament, inside Scottish politics and in general. We need to make that change because politicians need to lead the truth that no one owes Scotland its lunch and that we have to earn it by being more competitive.

Why is it that we have a Chancellor of the Exchequer who opposes tax harmonisation in Europe yet argues for tax harmonisation in the UK? Why do we have a chancellor who is in favour of tax competition across Europe yet imposes a centrist model on the UK economy? As promotion of the economy is somewhere approaching fifth in the Labour party's pecking order, the minister will have to answer the contention that, of the six key areas for improving British competitiveness that the chancellor gave in his speech to the Social Market Foundation this week, only one is presently within the ambit of the minister. The chancellor knows that he needs the full range of powers with which to sort Britain's problems. We need the same powers to sort Scotland's problems.

I recognise that much work has still to be done to broker consensus among the parties. We have made our contribution by saying on which points we will agree with other parties, and I look to the Liberals Democrats, the Conservatives and Labour for open minds to what we have to say. There are issues at stake and the situation is grave. We need open minds and a change of approach if we are to deliver. That is how we will conduct the election and ourselves in the chamber. I call on all members to back the SNP motion.

I move,

That the Parliament notes with concern the long-term underperformance of the Scottish economy and the growing gap in wealth created per head between Scotland and the rest of the UK and the south east of England in particular; recognises that the symptoms of economic underperformance cannot be dealt with on a sustainable basis until the root cause of economic underperformance is addressed directly; calls for all leaders in Scottish public life to work towards a national consensus around the drive to bridge the gap between Scotland's economic performance and economic potential, and, in working towards that consensus, further recognises that differences of opinion on policy prescriptions are a healthy part of the democratic debate but calls for an open mind on all sides in respect of the range of policy options that are, and should be, available to the Scottish Executive in working towards making Scotland as competitive as its competitors.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

I should like to begin in the spirit of Mr Wilson's welcome press release, rather than in that of his opening remarks today, because I want to begin with some agreement. Clearly, there are significant areas of agreement.

For example, we are agreed on the need for sustainable long-term growth in the Scottish economy. We are agreed that increased productivity is the key to such growth, and that only by generating more wealth can we pay for the public services that we want, create opportunities for all and lay the basis for sustainable development in the years ahead. A consensus within Scotland on how to achieve that growth, and sustain higher productivity, is certainly desirable. I welcome the SNP's recognition in its press release, which backs Labour, that—and I think I use its words, not mine—an enterprise strategy focused on science and skills, on global connectivity and on growing Scottish businesses provides a basis on which such a consensus can be built.

"A Smart, Successful Scotland" is that strategy for growth, but it does not stand in isolation from the wider economic and political context any more than Scotland's economy can grow in isolation from the wider world.

The political context of our enterprise strategy is the devolution settlement, which the SNP does not accept but which we see as critical to the successful delivery of our aims for sustainable future growth. The economic context is critical too, specifically the stable macroeconomic environment delivered by sound management of the UK economy.

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Can the minister refer the chamber to a single power that devolution has given us that we did not have previously under the Secretary of State for Scotland that can make a difference to the growth rate of the economy?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Devolution gives us the opportunity to concentrate on growth and skills, which is precisely what we need to do. We are able to address sustainable growth precisely because we are operating in a stable macroeconomic environment, which has delivered record low levels of inflation, record low interest rates and the lowest level of unemployment in a generation. Those indicators are significant in setting the context for growth and should not be taken for granted.

The debate is not just about the relationship with the rest of the UK, as important as that is. It is also about what kind of competitive advantage we should seek and where we should position ourselves in the global economy. We are clear about how we want Scotland to compete, which is as a high-skill, high-knowledge economy. That is why "A Smart, Successful Scotland" places such emphasis on investing in people and on the links between enterprise and lifelong learning. That is also why we do not want to depend in future on inward investment alone, or to make our pitch to overseas investors as a cheaper place to do business, be that on labour costs or tax rates on business profits.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I am sure that we all agree that key to stimulating growth is investment in lifelong learning and education. Does the minister accept that even after the increases that have been announced in the past two years, our investment in higher and further education in Scotland is a third less than that per head of our European competitors? If we are to grow, that gap must be closed.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

"Life Through Learning Through Life: The Lifelong Learning Strategy for Scotland", which was launched yesterday, points us in the direction of how we should be growing that sector of the economy and ensuring that it makes a contribution to the wider economic benefit.

I shall touch briefly on corporation tax rates, because the SNP has raised the issue in the past, although I was struck by the lack of direct reference to it in Andrew Wilson's introductory remarks this morning. Perhaps more light will be shed on that in due course. It is worth noting that the UK already has lower corporation tax rates than the United States and Japan, and the level is below the European Union average. The rates are competitive on the world stage and at the same time provide the revenues that we need to sustain investment in the wider economy.

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Yes.

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The minister is being very generous with his time. I agree with his comments on corporation tax, but it is one part of the whole. The point that we are making today is that our corporation tax rate is the same as the rate in the south-east of England. However the rate of growth in that part of the country is increasing exponentially faster than the growth rate in Scotland. We need to undercut our competitor regions.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

I do not agree. In fact, that is precisely the flaw at the heart of SNP policy. Instead, we need to sell Scotland as a high-quality, high-value, highly productive and enterprising economy. Seeking to undercut our competitors on labour or tax costs is the wrong direction to go in.

That argument is not abstract. After all, a penny on corporation tax means £90 million in tax take for the Scottish economy. We do not need to take many pennies off that tax to remove the budgets for training and skills, research and development and business start-up and growth that Alex Neil mentioned. Some might think that that is a price worth paying for a few big inward investors—we do not agree.

The same argument applies to business rates. Although business rate poundage in Scotland is higher, many comparable rateable values are lower. One could make a legitimate argument about the balance of burdens on individual businesses. However, complaining about differential tax rates in Scotland and England while in the same breath demanding full fiscal independence makes very little sense.

We will freeze business rates from 1 April, and will be delighted if that change results in increased business investment this year, next year and beyond. However, we do not concede the point that we should never diverge from England in devolved areas, and we recognise that there are opportunity costs in every measure we take that reduces public revenues.

It is self-evident that cutting business rates, as others intend to do, will impact on public spending. To meet its pledge, the SNP will have to take £150 million out of the enterprise budget; the Tories will require to take even more. Those are legitimate choices to place before the electorate, as no doubt will be done in the next few weeks. However, no one should pretend that it is possible to reduce public revenues while increasing public investment. That simply cannot be done.

Targeted public investment is part of our strategy for growth. For example, we are seeking to support business through the intermediary technology institutes that the First Minister announced a few weeks ago. With an energy institute in Aberdeen, a life sciences institute in Dundee and an information technology institute in Glasgow, we are focusing on the real strengths of Scotland's knowledge economy. The ITIs will focus work on those issues through the investment of public money. Such an approach is jeopardised by reducing the revenues that are available to the enterprise network.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Will the minister give way?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

I am afraid not.

Of course, we are also investing our tax revenues in the electronic infrastructure and the transport infrastructure to give Scottish companies a competitive edge. All those investments are part and parcel of our strategy for growth, which is designed to overcome the gap between where we are and where we want to be. We welcome support from all sides for that strategic approach.

I move amendment S1M-3880.2, to leave out from "notes" to end and insert:

"supports the Scottish Executive's aim of increasing sustainable economic growth over the long term; recognises that increasing Scotland's prosperity is essential to the fulfilment of the Executive's objectives of closing the opportunity gap, building first-class public services and ensuring sustainable development; calls for all leaders in Scottish public life to work towards a national consensus around the drive to bridge the gap between Scotland's economic performance and economic potential, and endorses the work being undertaken by the Executive to use the powers of the Parliament to help business grow and to secure a smart, successful Scotland by developing the science and skills base, improving global connections and investing in transport and communications infrastructure."

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Although I do not impugn the sincerity of Mr Andrew Wilson, it is difficult to take seriously an SNP motion on the economy. I say that for three reasons. First, enterprise and the economy do not seem to be political priorities for the SNP. In almost four years of the Parliament, it has managed to call only two debates on those matters—Mr MacAskill secured a debate in 2001 and Mr Wilson called one in 2002. That is hardly indicative of a pulsating interest in those topics. In contrast, the Conservatives have secured five debates on the economy.

Secondly, in so far as the SNP takes a passing glance at these issues—no doubt fuelled by some imminent boardroom visit—its understanding of the acute problems that currently confront Scottish business seems remote. The motion has all the urgency of watching paint dry. Indeed, it is akin to looking at a haemorrhaging patient and resolving to take immediate action by forming a committee to discuss coagulation.

What is happening to Scottish business at the moment is grim and menacing. Growth was stunted in 2002. The second quarter showed a rise of 0.2 per cent, and the third a rise of 0.6 per cent, and that after the first recession in 20 years. Furthermore, according to figures released today for the three months up to December 2002, we have higher unemployment than the rest of the UK. In 2002, we lost more than 7,000 jobs in manufacturing and, to date in 2003, total job losses are running at more than 2,400.

In the third quarter of 2002, the number of business start-ups showed a decrease of 22.6 per cent from the previous quarter. In 2002, the number of company insolvencies increased by 23.6 per cent. Business rates are almost 9 per cent higher than in England because of the higher Scottish business rate poundage. New regulations are piling on cost to business. According to the Institute of Directors, between 1997 and 2002, the annual cost to British business was £6 billion. Compared with when it came to power in 1997, Labour now takes nearly £2,000 a year more in tax for every man, woman and child in Britain.

That is a chronicle of economic epitaphs—a chilling thumbnail sketch of how not to create a competitive, vibrant economy.

What is the Scottish National Party's dynamic and practical response to that situation? Its response is a motion that—although it might aspire to be a record for verbosity—in 151 words offers not one specific remedy or solution to the beleaguered Scottish business community. For SNP, read, "Sorry, no proposals".

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

And sorry, no intervention. In Mr Wilson's speech of nine minutes and 18 seconds, we had diagnosis. For one minute and 35 seconds we had two specific proposals—more corporate headquarters should come to Scotland and we need to be more competitive. Well, that is a ringing aspiration for the business community—I bet that it derives small comfort from the modesty of that proposition.

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

From political leaders of all parties, the business community needs some unity of purpose on an issue that is too grave for bickering of that nature. We must focus on increasing growth and we have to give credit where it is due and find some agreement. Miss Goldie's approach is not good enough.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Those words could be spoken only by somebody who has never run a business. I will tell Mr Wilson what the business community needs now: it needs genuine solutions that can be delivered under the devolved settlement.

Even the most intrepid motion reader, persevering to the end of the SNP motion, would have cause for question because, remarkably, Mr Wilson never mentions the word independence, yet that is the Scottish National Party's fundamental credo.

Is Mr Wilson, recognising that independence finds little resonance with Scottish business, a duck-and-dive devolutionist? If he is, has he told the rest of his party? However, if he is, where are his specific proposals for improving the lot of Scottish business now, under the devolution settlement?

Mr Wilson is, of course, a devolution man, except he dare not speak the name—he has to pretend the cause of independence. He knows that that is a difficult product to market.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I do not have time. Mr Wilson's economic case is not helped by the Business Strategies forecast that, under devolution this year, growth in gross domestic product, if delivered, will be higher in Scotland than in the UK. So, there is no intrinsic devolution bar to higher Scottish GDP.

The third reason why it is difficult to take the motion seriously is what the Scottish National Party represents as a political entity. It is a party that has brought to debates on public expenditure all the infinite elasticity of bungee jumping. It is a party to which profit is repugnant. That is why the business community can expect no comfort from the Scottish National Party. That is why the amendment in my name excises the linguistic froth of the nationalists and offers Scottish business what it is crying out for now—specific solutions to restore competitiveness and to get business moving again, solutions deliverable now, solutions costed by the Conservatives and solutions that would help to address the very problems about which Mr Wilson purports to be so concerned.

I have pleasure in moving amendment S1M-3880.1, to leave out from "long-term" to end and insert:

"competitive disadvantage at which Scottish business is being placed as a consequence of an onerous taxation and regulatory regime aggravated by inadequate investment in transport infrastructure and calls on the Scottish Executive to reduce the business rate poundage to the same level that exists in England thereby re-establishing a uniform business rate and to pledge an additional £100 million per annum for investment in our transport infrastructure."

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I apologise to colleagues for having to leave before the end of the debate because of another engagement today.

In contemplating Miss Goldie's speech, I am struck by the fact that she spends longer on her soundbites than she does on analysis of the current position of the Scottish economy. How can the Tories say what Scottish business needs? We all recall their record—one business went bust every three minutes of every working day under the Tories and they had the worst-ever record for business start-ups. By 1997, investment in manufacturing was lower than when the Tories came to power. During 18 years, they presided over the two worst recessions since 1945. In Shetland, we all remember Lord Lamont—

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

rose—

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I have not finished yet. We all remember Lord Lamont of Lerwick spending £10 billion in the worst economic crisis caused by incompetence that the country can recall. I am very happy to give way to Miss Goldie so that she may defend that record.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I ask Mr Scott to confirm whether the Scottish Executive was happy to inherit the Tory creation of a prosperous economy upon which it frequently founds so many of its arguments for expenditure? Will Mr Scott confirm which party in government introduced uniform business rates to respond to the overwhelming plea of Scottish business?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Miss Goldie forgets that the Tories lost the election and that Scottish business—like everyone else in Scotland—voted no to the Tories, which is why they did not have one seat after the 1997 election. Their record was shown up by the electorate.

I take up Andrew Wilson's point about analysing the current position of the Scottish economy. It is entirely right to do that and the minister was right to illustrate what the Executive is doing in that regard. I share serious concern about the current situation, not just of Scotland, but of Europe and the world at this time, which is where I might differ from Mr Wilson. Any analysis of the figures that are currently available in the UK and international context is worrying, including the fact that one in five families is struggling to meet debt repayments at a time of high employment and when interest rates are at their lowest level since 1956. There is worrying financial frailty in the UK economy.

On the day when Alan Greenspan of the Federal Reserve in the United States cast doubt on the American Administration's strategy of vast tax cuts for the richest in US society, what indeed will fuel worldwide economic growth?

Therefore, it is right to consider these issues, but we should concentrate on the matters that come under the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament and what the Parliament and Government can do to promote those matters. That is where the SNP and the Liberal Democrats differ. Andrew Wilson would argue for further powers in that context. Those of us who believe in a federal United Kingdom would argue for the development of powers in that way.

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I am grateful to the member for giving way with perfect timing. Given what Mr Scott has just said about the development of Liberal thinking on greater powers, we know that the Liberal Democrats have open minds. I suggest they introduce some urgency to that thinking and present some specific proposals for growth because the powers as they stand have not worked, are not working and will not work. We need to find consensus on how we grow from here.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I am always thinking urgently, but I will introduce our proposals at the time when all parties introduce theirs in the coming election campaign.

I will pick up on two areas of competitiveness, as that is the focus of the debate. The first relates to the slow business take-up of broadband connections, particularly among small and medium-sized enterprises. A study from the Federation of Small Businesses last year illustrated that 54 per cent of small businesses had modem connections, only 14 per cent were using ISDN links, only 4 per cent used broadband and 15 per cent of surveyed businesses did not even have connection to a computer.

There is a challenge to take up the advantages of e-business. That is why the Scottish Executive strategy in that area is right. That is why the enterprise network must be at the heart of that. Incidentally, I noticed that neither the SNP nor the Tories were forthcoming on their proposals for the enterprise network. I understand that the Tories plan to abolish Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise and that the SNP plans to regionalise the current structure. Those are important issues when there are others among us who believe that the enterprise network is at the heart of delivering skills. The Tories do not agree, obviously, because they plan to abolish the very body that concentrates on skills.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I place on record the fact that the Scottish Conservatives will not abolish the enterprise network.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Oh well, their policy has just changed. We look forward to discussing that further.

I was disappointed by the evidence given to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee last week that a business park in Aberdeen, fully wired for broadband telecommunications access, had been unplugged because there was not enough business interest. That is one of the challenges that the Parliament, the Executive and the Government face.

I will finish with a couple of points on renewables. It is important to pull together the commercialisation of research in our universities and the engineering skills that we have throughout Scotland. That is a particular challenge for Aberdeen and the north-east in the context of the changes that are happening in the oil and gas sector. There are considerable opportunities for Scotland as a whole.

This is an important debate. It is an opportunity to discuss such matters properly. I promise that my party will give full vent to our thoughts on the matters in the coming weeks and months. I implore Parliament today to support the Executive amendment, which is the only reasonable amendment before it.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Annabel Goldie denigrates my colleague, Andrew Wilson, for his lack of business experience. Given that her experience as a city-centre senior partner in a law firm reflects mine, and I have never considered myself a business guru, I think that that is rather rich.

I want to make two specific points about the debate. We must recognise two matters: first, that there is a fundamental need for economic growth; and, secondly, that there is a need for political consensus around that. As other members have said, it is quite clear that nobody owes us a living. We are a small nation on the periphery of Europe and we need to punch our weight. We have not been doing so, and we have lagged behind as a consequence. As a result, we are paying the price in lowered living standards. We owe it not just to ourselves but to future generations to resolve that problem.

That leads me to my second point, on the creation of a cross-party consensus. There are historical lessons. Ireland and Finland have been referred to, not just by me but by other members. We must recognise that their structural difficulties, which were substantial and, arguably, far greater than the ones that we face, were addressed on the basis of national consensus built on political consensus. We must recognise that the matter will not be dealt with by one political party or in one term of Government. It needs longer-term action and it needs consensus across the board. We cannot continue to reflect the UK stop-start attitude, which got us into such difficulties and gave us the problems that we had in the latter part of the 20th century. A Labour Government came in to change what had been done by a Tory Government, and being replaced by another Government fundamentally undermined us.

We must recognise that economic growth will be delivered by members of the Scottish business community, large and small. It is for politicians to allow them to get on with running their businesses, not to lecture them or tell them how to run them. However, Government must provide the framework to allow those businesses to prosper and to achieve their full potential.

That leads me to the role of the state and the Government, whose remit falls in key areas. Education and infrastructure are two examples. I have made it clear in previous debates that it is not an employer's responsibility to ensure that their employees can read and write—sadly we have those difficulties in the present day. It is the Government's job to ensure that the work force is job ready—employers can give specific training, but addressing that problem is a state responsibility.

The points that Tavish Scott made about telecoms are also true. The difficulty is that we must have a national strategy. An attempt to leave market forces to deal with telecoms will not work. We must ensure that, in areas of Scotland, there is state intervention—

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Will Mr MacAskill give way?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I am sorry, but I am now into the final minute of my speech. I do not think that I would disagree with Tavish Scott in any way, but we must have intervention by the state in telecoms.

We must recognise that transport is important.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

Nationalisation!

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

It is a matter of getting our work force to their jobs and our goods to their markets. David McLetchie may shout, "Nationalisation!" but the fact is that privatisation of the railways was a failure that everyone in this country is paying for. It was brought about by a Tory Government and has brought misery to commuters, freight and the Scottish business sector in its entirety.

We must recognise that it is the job of the state to deal with those matters. That means that we must be proactive. We need transport authorities that can regulate the buses to ensure that we do not have the idiocy that we had in the City of Edinburgh, which resulted in the company that Mr McLetchie's firm supported losing £4.2 million. That is hardly a raving business success. We must ensure that we can get access to the markets, which means having influence and control over our rail network. Today, we have even found out that the Strategic Rail Authority is trying to instruct ScotRail to cut its services. It is time to take charge of our own railways.

I support the motion.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I welcome the recent SNP conversion to our policy for a smart, successful Scotland. It has taken nearly four years, but at last the SNP has admitted that its economic policies have been based on false, out-of-date premises that simply do not work in the kind of world that we now find ourselves in. We must acknowledge that conversion.

The Irish economy used to be the holy grail for the nationalists, but suddenly they have realised—apart from Kenny MacAskill—that exporting the Irish economy to Scotland is not the way forward. We could all have told them that a few years ago. Here are a few facts about the Irish economy that the SNP does not tell people. According to figures released on 31 January, national economic output has fallen in Ireland for the first time in 16 years. With growth falling in the third quartile of 2002, it is looking doubtful whether the increase in growth will top 2 per cent. The growth rate is plummeting compared with the 10 per cent growth rate of two years ago. Profit repatriation by multinational companies has soared to 41 per cent, while incomes available to Irish people have fallen.

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The troubles in the Irish economy are interesting, but I think that Rhona Brankin should focus on the troubles in the Scottish economy, which are exponentially worse than those in Ireland. We cannot import everything from Ireland, but I would really like to have had the problems that the Irish have had over the past 10 years, when their economy has grown at eight times the rate of the Scottish economy. Should not we be learning from their successes rather than demeaning them in times of trouble?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I thank Andrew Wilson for that speech, but it is important to recognise that the difficulties that are being experienced by many small nations in the global recession are not peculiar to Scotland. In fact, they are being experienced by many other small nations in the world, such as Ireland.

I want to highlight the difference between us and the Irish. Their January unemployment figures are the highest that they have been for three years. Inflation in Ireland is now twice the European average and, in recent months, €3 million of savings and cuts have been made in education, health and other areas. Let us contrast that with the management of the economy in the UK and in Scotland. With a UK Labour Government, interest rates in Scotland are 4 per cent, inflation is under 2 per cent and unemployment is at its lowest for a generation.

I began by welcoming the SNP conversion to our strategy for a smart, successful Scotland, but it is not a real conversion. At the heart of the SNP economic strategy there is a huge black hole, and that hole is skills training. To finance their business tax cuts, the nationalists have come up with the election gimmick of taking £150 million out of the Scottish Enterprise skills and training budget, at a time of emerging skill shortages in Scotland.

That is the fundamental difference. Our strategy for a smart, successful Scotland puts lifelong learning at the heart of our competitiveness. If we are to compete in a global marketplace against other advanced nations, we simply must invest in our infrastructure and, most important, in our people. It is simply not good enough to build a whole economic policy on business tax cuts. If different rates of business taxation made such a difference, why has not Northern Ireland been denuded of business? It is because running a successful business is about a lot more than cuts in business taxes.

What have we learned from the SNP's new economic policy? Lesson 1 is that independence is no defence against global recession. Lesson 2 is that cutting business rates is no defence against global recession. Lesson 3 is that the best defence at a time of global recession is to be part of a larger economy, as Scotland is part of the UK economy. Interest rates are at 4 per cent, inflation is under 2 per cent and unemployment is at its lowest for a generation.

We face serious challenges to our economy here in Scotland, as do many other nations in the world. The SNP's new economic policy has a huge black hole in it, and the SNP has now joined forces with the Tory party. It is a policy for a stupid, unsuccessful Scotland. How does Andrew Wilson think that we can build a consensus around that? I ask members to support the Executive amendment.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

After listening to that speech, I shall try to raise the tone of the debate. First, I suggest that Rhona Brankin reads the SNP manifesto from 1999, where we envisaged the establishment of Scottish Development International and promised the establishment of what we called "Come to Scotland", which the Executive has called VisitScotland. We also said that we wanted to make Scotland the science capital of Europe and that we wanted to use the powers of this Parliament to maximum effect for the Scottish economy. It is not a case of us being converted to Labour policy. Labour has simply stolen our policy. Let us rise above that.

An unemployed worker in Ayrshire, or one of the Boots workers who faces the prospect of redundancy in the next couple of years, listening to this debate will want to know what the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive will do for them. We are all signed up to the long-term strategy. We recognise the need to invest in science and skills as a way forward for Scotland. However, we also recognise the fact that we face short-term difficulty. One of the questions that the Parliament should address this morning is what we can do in the short term—until we realise the benefits of the long-term strategy—to improve job prospects for people in Scotland. I shall make several suggestions, which I hope the Executive will consider seriously.

First, there is an enormous latent demand in the building sector that is not being met either because of a lack of proper skills or because of a lack of appropriate land availability. One of the immediate things that the Executive can do to remove the barriers to growth in construction is to address the problem of the vested interests that run the Construction Industry Training Board in the UK and to ensure that we can go beyond the expansion of modern apprenticeships in construction skills. I would like the minister to address the fact that the expansion of modern apprenticeships in construction skills is not driven by employment-based traineeships, which is a problem. If that situation can be addressed, we will go a long way towards creating new jobs in the short term in the construction industry.

Secondly, there are problems with land availability and planning. I am currently dealing with a case in Ayrshire. The situation is nonsensical. A small, isolated piece of land that had planning permission for five houses no longer has planning permission because some bureaucrat in the council has decided that it has been rezoned. The land cannot be rezoned for anything other than housing, as it is too small for agriculture and is cut off by roads on each side. That is typical of what is happening the length and breadth of Scotland. Our planning laws are being implemented so restrictively that they are acting as a definite barrier to growth. We need to do something about that urgently.

Andrew Wilson has covered the issue of reducing business rates. That urgent measure is desperately needed to create a more even playing field between ourselves and the south of England.

Thirdly, there is an issue in relation to commercialisation. There is an underlying assumption that we need to wait for five or 10 years for that policy to work. Last week, I spoke to a company that specialises in, and has a successful track record in, the commercialisation of science throughout the United Kingdom. It told me that it has identified 60 projects that it could get up and running in the next two years, but that it cannot do so because of the slowness of decision making in our universities. I say to the Executive: for God's sake, do not just lie back and wait for Gordon Brown's budget—get some action today, so that we can be seen to be doing something about the Scottish economy pending the achievement of our independence in the period ahead.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

The problem with the SNP's approach to improving the performance of the Scottish economy is that it talks constantly about extending the powers of the Parliament as if that, in itself, would magically increase our prosperity. What it does not address is the much more important and difficult question of what the SNP would do with those new powers if it had them. That is the question that the Scottish National Party is desperate to avoid, as that is where the theory falls down.

That is perhaps why Andrew Wilson was so vague on his policy prescriptions beyond telling us how much he agreed with the Scottish Executive. That admission—which was underlined by Alex Neil, whose only quibble with Executive policy was who thought of it first—exposes the fact that the Scottish National Party offers a change of country but not a genuine change of policy. It offers only a more extreme version of the tax-and-waste strategy that is currently being pursued by Gordon Brown, and which is enthusiastically backed by the Labour-Liberal Executive in Scotland.

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The motion seeks to broker agreement across the chamber about where the country needs to be. We will bring our election ideas to the election, not to the Parliament. Why does not the Conservative party have the grace to back a strategy that can unify people rather than leave people disillusioned by politicians' failure to take a lead in this country?

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

Andrew Wilson's approach is an admission of defeat and of a poverty of ideas. It is interesting to hear of the SNP's latest strategy to reduce business rates. The SNP thought of that a month ago, but the Conservatives have been advocating that in the Parliament for the best part of two years. That is the fundamental difference between the two parties.

Reference has been made to Ireland and the need to match the level of economic growth there, which has long been a favourite topic of the SNP. However, the truth is that the SNP has no wish to emulate the Irish approach, which is based on charging lower taxes and constraining growth in Government spending. For SNP members to talk about adopting such a strategy is political deception of the worst kind.

Members of all parties want a dynamic economy combined with generous provision for public services. However, that is a policy circle that the Scottish National Party simply cannot square. Its answer to every problem in Scotland is to blame the Treasury and to call for ever-higher public expenditure, and to disparage—week after week, month after month—the contribution that the private sector can make to our overall prosperity and to partnership working and the development of our public services. No clear explanation is ever given of how all the SNP's spending commitments are to be met.

What is clear is the fact that an independent Scotland, run by the SNP, would be a high-tax country similar to one of the party's favourite Scandinavian models, Sweden—a country in which public spending accounted for 56 per cent of the gross domestic product in 2000 and which has one of the highest levels of taxation in the world. That is not much of a model. Despite what Mr Gordon Brown and the SNP might imagine, there is a real growth penalty in increasing public spending above the rate of growth in the economy as a whole. Recent research by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development—with which Andrew Wilson will be familiar—has shown that a 1 per cent increase in the tax take is associated with a growth penalty of around a 0.6 per cent to 0.7 per cent reduction in GDP. No wonder that is the outcome of such a failed strategy.

There is no policy prescription in the motion beyond the vague wish that we should all get together to improve Scotland's economic performance. The Conservatives are not ashamed to say where we differ from other parties, and we will not be ashamed to say that in the coming weeks. We believe that a reduction in business rates, a reduction in regulation and a switch of resources from the present distribution of the enterprise budget to the improvement of Scotland's transport infrastructure are significant contributions that the Parliament and the Executive could make to the prosperity of Scotland. We will have no hesitation in continuing boldly to advocate those much-needed prescriptions.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

We are all coming from a common view, in that we all want the Scottish economic growth rate to rise. We also recognise the fact that, over the past 20 or 30 years, that growth rate has not been as healthy as we would have wished it to be. The issue, then, is about what prescriptions the Government can or should make to influence the growth rate and to contribute to its rise. I will address some of the approaches that are advocated by members of other parties later, and will begin by considering the approach that has been taken by the Scottish Executive.

Back in September, the First Minister made it clear that the stimulation of economic growth would be central to the policies of the Scottish Executive. There are three planks to that: to accelerate Scotland's rate of economic growth; to provide opportunities to all and close the opportunity gap; and to ensure that economic development is sustainable in the medium to longer term. In driving towards those goals, we need to recognise—as Rhona Brankin recognised—the stability of economic growth that the UK Government has provided for us. We have had low interest rates, low inflation levels, high employment levels and low unemployment levels—the lowest levels of unemployment that we have seen for a whole generation.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

On the issue of low unemployment, research from the University of Sheffield and the University of Warwick shows that the real level of unemployment is well over 300,000, not the figure of 100,000 that is given in official statistics.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

Without referring to those specific figures, I acknowledge the fact that even the International Labour Organisation figures are well below the levels that we inherited from the previous Conservative Government. They are also well below the levels that we have seen in Scotland for a considerable time.

In the UK and in Scotland, our stable economic base provides us with the opportunity to resist some of the international challenges that our economy faces. Alex Neil raised the potential job losses that people face. I can give an example from my own constituency of Government policies that have helped to see people through economic difficulties. Major closures at Motorola and NEC resulted in thousands of job losses. Two years later, with the intervention of the Government and the strength of the Scottish economy, unemployment in my constituency currently stands at 3.1 per cent, which is exactly the same level at which it stood before the closures to which I referred.

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Mr Muldoon is generous with his time. He referred to the stability of our economic context. Will he reflect on the fact that, since Labour came to power in 1999, our growth rate has been one third of our long-term trend rate, which is dreadful? Is he aware of Calgacus's statement to his troops about the Romans in Scotland, which was that they made a desert and called it peace? What the Executive calls stability is actually contraction.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

A higher number of people are in employment now than we have seen for a generation and interest rates are low.

I have another example of success—let us talk about successes in Scotland. At the weekend, I read in the Sunday Herald that the second highest concentration of banking in Europe at the moment is not in Denmark, Ireland, or Sweden but in Scotland. Scotland comes ahead of France, Switzerland, Spain, Germany and many other large countries. Let us examine some of the successes as well as some of the problems that the Scottish economy has.

Undoubtedly the Scottish economy needs to diversify and we need to improve our growth rate. I welcome Mr Wilson's acknowledgement that the smart, successful Scotland strategy is the correct one for us to follow.

I will concentrate on one aspect of that strategy. I welcome in particular the Executive's investment in our transport infrastructure. The Conservatives' position on that matter is ludicrous because their party presided over economic decline in Scotland for 18 years and presided over the decline of our transport infrastructure for many years.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Will Mr Muldoon give way?

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

No. I am over my time.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Mr Muldoon is over his time.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

Because of the interventions I have taken, I have not had the opportunity to comment in detail on the SNP's contribution to the debate. I would welcome a mature debate about our economic future and how we use our powers to enhance the Scottish growth rate, but let us have a debate about using those powers to enhance Scotland's prosperity rather than another arid constitutional debate.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Economic growth is not just an abstract that allows economic or financial gurus to trade statistics; fundamentally, it is about what drives the agenda for investment in building a better nation for people. We should escape the arid arguments of the past and build a consensus for the future. We cannot tackle poverty unless we grow a high-wage, high-skill economy in which we can all share.

It is obvious that the size and growth of the economy affects Governments' ability to raise revenue, which in turn affects the amount that is available for public services. However, to acknowledge that truism simply at British state level is to fail to acknowledge the responsibilities that we have in Scotland to grow the economy to fund the future that I am sure we all desperately want for our children. Those who fail to address the issue of the powers that are needed for economic growth in Scotland are the ones who are wearing the constitutional blinkers.

I listened carefully to what the minister said. He concentrated on competition from the perspective of quality. For those of us who have worked in the private sector—and not in legal practice, I might add—quality is one aspect of competition, but to base a competition strategy purely and simply on quality is to ignore the other factors. Cost most definitely is another aspect of competition. We all know that we do not want to compete on a low-wage, low-skills basis, because that is not the future for Scotland. If competition is not based on the cost aspect, on what other aspect is it based? We must ensure that we can drive down the costs for businesses, but we can do that only if we have real economic powers for the Scottish Parliament.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

I take Ms Hyslop's point, but her party has described certain parliamentary powers. In what way and to what degree does the SNP propose to drive down the tax burden on business with powers other than those that the Scottish Parliament already has?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

We must consider business rates under devolution—my colleague Andrew Wilson spelled that out—but we must also acknowledge that 70 per cent of the Scottish people want financial independence for the Scottish Parliament. It is not a crazy economic analysis, but one that is sensible and has public support.

I would like to take on David McLetchie's point. He gave a narrow-minded, doom-laden analysis of public investment, which was that public investment inhibits economic growth. However, we must remember that economic growth supports greater public investment. For every £1 billion in the economy, the Government can raise an extra £400 million in revenue. To me, one of the starkest statistics in the whole debate is that if Scotland had matched the modest growth of the UK since Labour came to power, there would have been £2 billion more to invest in the public purse. Had we copied the Irish growth rates, there would have been £30 billion more.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

rose—

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Does Mr Monteith know what that means? It means that we would have invested in child care to allow women to get back to work and get better-paid employment; and it would have meant that in West Lothian, instead of waiting for a start date for the Bathgate to Airdrie line, such a line would be being built and would be opening up Scotland's infrastructure. We would be ensuring that we had a growth consensus.

Under devolution, there is a disincentive to taking on the growth agenda because, even if the smart, successful Scotland strategy was successful, the profits and benefits would not come directly to the Scottish Parliament, because they would go to Westminster in a greater tax take. If we were relying on performance-related pay, the Scottish Government would be giving money back to the public.

I say to Rhona Brankin that it is no good saying that, in a global downturn, we are better shielded by a greater union with England. That is counterproductive for the Executive. It reinforces how bad successive Tory and Labour Governments have been for the economy and means that the Scottish Government is not facing up to its responsibilities.

I detect in the minister's amendment some movement towards an open mind, to allow the factors and powers that we need to control to be identified. What business wants is not just political will from one party but political will and leadership from all parties. If we learn anything from any of our European competitors, it is that they succeed when they have a national consensus on growth. We have the opportunity to do that—please grasp it and support our motion.

Brian Fitzpatrick (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

I never thought that it would be appropriate to do so, but given recent interventions, perhaps I should declare my membership of the Faculty of Advocates, and intimate that I do not particularly want to intrude in a fight between Standard Life and the Law Society of Scotland. I suspect that that might be dangerous territory.

I have always been a self-propelling business. If I worked, I ate and could spend; if I did not work, I did not earn. I suspect that most country solicitors have a keen awareness of their clients' needs and demands. Sometimes I think that being a constituency MSP is a bit like being a country solicitor.

I hoped that we might have seen in the debate some of what Andrew Wilson promised in part of his motion. Given that May is on the horizon, I suspect that that was probably too ambitious; it could not be sustained in what I think were supposed to be the helpful and supportive contributions from those sitting behind Mr Wilson.

We should try to focus on where we disagree and where we agree—if not now or in the run-up to May, then thereafter. Therefore, I emphasise that I welcome what Andrew Wilson said in support of the smart, successful Scotland strategy. To be honest, I do not care where good ideas come from as long as they are moved on and put into practice. That should be the watchword for all of us, because the challenge of what we do under devolution is whether we add value or subtract value. Both are possible, and no one should argue otherwise. I suggest that we can do that through the policy drivers that are available to us. Andrew Wilson said that we can do only one thing. I hope that we all agree that we can do many things around the key policy drivers in the areas of health, skills, training, and higher and further education.

I suggest that there is unlikely to be much agreement about the figures on employment, unemployment and the like. I say to Alex Neil that I welcome the fact that, in my constituency, unemployment is currently at 2.5 per cent. People used to say that such a rate was impossible to sustain and that there was a natural rate of unemployment. I agree with Alex Neil that the low unemployment figures can mask other problems. I am conscious of the fact that, in some parts of my constituency, there are high-value-added, high-income, graduate jobs. The percentage of graduates in my constituency is higher than in any other part of the United Kingdom. However, there are people who are carrying out jobs that do not challenge them enough and do not pay them enough. At the same time, employers tell me that there are people whom they cannot employ because to call them employable is a bit of a joke. Some people show up for interviews with six gold earrings and a shell suit and think that, somehow, they are going to be given a job. That is because no one has ever taken the time to support them, to assist them into an understanding of what they need to do to get a job and to tell them what training is available. We can address those problems.

The real problem with the SNP's motion lies in the mystical, magical section in the middle. To understand what the SNP thinks the underlying problem is, we have to stop listening to Andrew Wilson, who wants to be nicey-nicey in the chamber, and start listening to Mr MacAskill, who preaches the SNP's gospel truth, which is, of course, the love that dare not speak its name, not even in the motion. I could have subscribed wholly to the aims of the motion if Andrew Wilson had had the courage to say what it is that he wants to speak about. I thought that SNP members would speak about independence today, because it is quite clear that that is what the middle part of the motion is about. However, for some odd reason Andrew Wilson did not mention it. Could it be because the Confederation of British Industry, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Scottish Trades Union Congress are listening that he would rather whisper about it then tiptoe off quietly?

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Rubbish.

Brian Fitzpatrick (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

Mr Wilson says from a sedentary position that I am speaking rubbish. Let us have an open debate, but let us also have some honesty. Because that is lacking, I cannot support the motion, although I support some of the warm words and prescriptions that it contains.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

After Brian Fitzpatrick's comments, I wondered whether I should remove my earrings before speaking. However, I will not do so, as I quite like them.

I do not often agree with Brian Fitzpatrick, but I agreed with him when he said that it does not matter where good ideas come from—what matters is that they are developed. That is absolutely correct. The problem is that good ideas that relate to dealing with symptoms will do nothing to address the core problem of the Scottish economy, which is low growth. As Andrew Wilson said, we have a shrinking economy—even according to the Executive's figures, the economy grew by only a miserable 0.1 per cent in the past year.

Of course, that has a direct impact on our ability to invest in our services and in the communities where we live and work. I will relate that to the city of Dundee. Every £1 billion that we could raise in the economy would give us another £400 million in revenues to invest. A sluggish economy means higher unemployment—in parts of Dundee, more than 7 per cent of males are unemployed. It also means low wages—the Dundee weekly average wage is even lower than the Scottish average.

A debate on the economy is not an abstract or arid constitutional debate. The issue impacts directly on the fortunes of cities such as Dundee. Dundee's traditionally large manufacturing base has been hit hard by inappropriate monetary policy. Dundee has huge potential in new industries such as the digital media and biosciences. It has a higher output per capita than Scotland and the UK. However, it also has a declining population, numerous factory closures and large areas of deprivation with poor health records and a life expectancy that is lower than the Scottish average.

I believe that only by tackling the underlying cause of our economic malaise—low growth—will we be able to tackle the problems that the Dundee economy and the Scottish economy face. Low growth is bad for Scottish living standards. Of course, in order to tackle that problem, we need the powers to do so, which we do not have. This Parliament has only 8 per cent control over the economic levers. Compare that with other devolved institutions: the Parliament in Catalonia has 33 per cent control and the one in Quebec has 80 per cent control. We need to be able to tackle the problems in the Scottish economy with home-grown solutions, not solutions designed for someone else's problems.

Higher growth delivers a higher tax take and less dependency, which is the SNP's objective. We know that that will be good for the people of Dundee and for the people of Scotland.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

We would all agree that Andrew Wilson's call for a debate on Scotland's economic performance is legitimate and that we all need to work towards a consensus on what the solutions might be. A good number of members have made suggestions in that regard. Unfortunately, Andrew Wilson undermined his position when he declared that giving more powers to the Scottish Parliament was the only solution to all Scotland's economic ills. That destroyed any prospect of consensus about his motion. He provided no evidence to show why what he suggests would work in Scotland. It would be interesting to see whether giving more powers to the Scottish Parliament would solve the many well-documented problems that the Scottish economy faces.

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Notwithstanding what Mr Lyon has just said, the Liberal Democrats' position seems to be—from what Tavish Scott said—that, in the election, they will suggest greater powers for the Scottish Parliament, which is in line with what I am saying. When specifically will we get those commitments and what might they be?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Like everyone else, Mr Wilson will just have to wait and see what we will say in the election campaign. I am sure that he will not be disappointed. It would be interesting to hear what the SNP would do with the extra powers, which is the fundamental question.

Brian Fitzpatrick (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

I am sure that, as some of us do, George Lyon speaks to Charles Kennedy. Would George Lyon like to share with Andrew Wilson details of the work that the Liberal Democrats at Westminster do in their shadow budget each and every time a budget is announced? Perhaps George Lyon could discuss with Mr Kennedy the paucity of such work from the Conservatives and the SNP—four years and no work.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I agree with that point. On many occasions, I have said to Andrew Wilson that we are still awaiting his first shadow budget. I expect that we will wait in vain for one in the next four years, which he will also spend in opposition.

As I said, it would be interesting to see whether giving more powers to the Scottish Parliament would solve the many well-documented problems that the Scottish economy faces. Currently, the downturn in the world economic situation is causing weak demand in virtually every country. That is hitting the Scottish economy hard. Would more powers insulate us from that? I think not.

It is surprising that no one has mentioned the fact that our strong currency is one of the reasons why our exports are uncompetitive. A strong currency hits hard at our manufacturing and primary sectors. Would more powers solve that problem? No. Indeed, if Andrew Wilson had his way and we were separated from the rest of the UK, the problem would be even worse—as a small oil-based economy, Scotland would have a strong currency, which would cause major problems for the rest of our industries. Tavish Scott and I were in Norway earlier in the year and saw that that was one of their fundamental concerns.

Our narrow economic base and our over-reliance on the electronics sector are further problems that would not be solved by our having more powers. We need to upskill our work force and to become more entrepreneurial. We must ensure that Scotland's industry moves up the value chain through the commercialisation of research in our universities. That is imperative. Do we need more powers to deliver those objectives? No. We have the powers to do so. If we examine the notion that all small independent countries must be doing better than Scotland, what do we find?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Will the member give way?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

We find, according to the Eurostat figures, that euro zone growth in the third quarter was 0.3 per cent while Scotland's was 0.6 per cent, Belgium's was 0.4 per cent, Denmark's was minus 0.7 per cent, Finland's was 0.5 per cent and Norway's was minus 0.2 per cent. The notion that a small independent county automatically enjoys growth is utter nonsense.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Has Mr Lyon sat down because he has finished speaking or because he is giving way?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I was giving way, but Fiona Hyslop can sit down again if she likes.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

That was probably just wishful thinking on my part. [MEMBERS: "Aw."] I am sorry, that was unkind.

Would George Lyon acknowledge that, in the past 30 years, small European economies have significantly outgrown larger European economies? The larger economies have grown at only 2.6 per cent a year while the smaller ones have grown at 3.2 per cent a year. In Europe, in many ways, small is beautiful.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

The example of Ireland from independence in 1921 through to 1986 can be considered. The figures would not support the member's proposition at all.

I want to make some headway. The Scottish economy faces huge challenges, but the constitutional argument is a complete distraction from the serious issues that businesses in Scotland face. Andrew Wilson's glib soundbites that more tools in the box are the answer to our economic woes find little support from company boardrooms in Scotland. Businesses' priorities are clear. They want more investment in our transport infrastructure, better connectivity in Scotland and more investment in our skills base. They support the commercialisation of research in our universities; they want Scotland to move away from its over-reliance on screwdriver jobs and to move up the value chain. Most important, they want to widen our economic base, the narrowness of which is one of Scotland's fundamental problems.

It is clear that the biggest challenge lies in encouraging Scots to become more enterprising, more willing to take risks and more willing to set up their own businesses. Business recognises that challenge, which is huge. Even Andrew Wilson would acknowledge that there are no easy answers in that respect.

I have talked about the priorities of business and the coalition. There are huge challenges that cannot be solved overnight. There are no easy and glib answers to our fundamental economic problems. We will turn around our economy and ensure success only by sticking with the coalition's long-term strategy, as outlined in "A Smart, Successful Scotland".

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Today, there has been a wonderful SNP, Labour and Liberal love-in, which I never thought that I would live to see. I cannot understand why the SNP proposed the debate. It seems to have totally given up on the idea that it is in opposition. Oppositions are about testing what Governments do, but I have never seen Lewis Macdonald having such an easy ride. Despite the fact that Andrew Wilson was on his feet for so long, we are still waiting to find out on what policy basis the debate was proposed.

We all agree that there are major problems in the Scottish economy. Fiona Hyslop said that more public spending is needed. Does she not understand that that has nothing to do with growth rates? There is already almost 20 per cent more public spending per head in Scotland. Kenny MacAskill nicely highlighted a difference. State intervention was his one contribution to the economy debate. That is where the SNP seems to come from. It fails to realise that, although the state has a role in the economy—we all agree that it does—that role is to provide highly skilled people for employment and to deal with the infrastructure for which it is responsible.

Everything comes down to one word that the SNP has not mentioned: profit. Profit is not a dirty word. I accept that taxation was mentioned.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Will the member take an intervention?

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Not yet.

If profits are taxed, there is a choice about what that money will be spent on. The money must benefit many things, but it cannot be spent before it is made, as my colleague David McLetchie said. Growth and profit are needed, so that there can be taxes and public services, but those things cannot be out of kilter. There is a fine balance, but that has not been recognised today.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

Will the member take an intervention?

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Not yet.

Andrew Wilson asked whether we would agree with him, but we have not been told what he wants us to agree to. We want to hear the policy lines. Alex Neil, who is no longer in the chamber and has been remarkably subdued today, echoed what Andrew Wilson said about rates relief. Will Mr Wilson tell us exactly what the rates relief package would be, how much the SNP would be prepared to put into it and where the money would come from? All I can hear is a long silence.

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The member has given way—I love it when interventions are invited rather than given. The SNP's policies are clear. We want business rates below the prevailing United Kingdom level. The motion shows that we seek to put the economy at the heart of the debate. Perhaps finding agreement was too much to hope for. The question deserves to be put back to David Davidson. As far as I can tell from the Conservatives' amendment, their proposal to reduce business rates will cost in excess of a quarter of a billion pounds. Where will that money come from?

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

We have made our policy clear. We heard lies from the Liberals today about our policy on Scottish Enterprise. We have said clearly and publicly over the past two weeks that £260 million from the enterprise budget should go into rates relief for business and infrastructure spending. That is what business wants.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Will Mr Davidson take an intervention?

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Not at the moment. We have stated our policy clearly. It is nonsensical for members to take odd comments for discussion by odd individual members—

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Odd individual members?

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

However, that is what SNP members have done this morning.

The debate should have involved the SNP stating honestly what it thinks we should address and how we should address it—perhaps the SNP could have asked us to join in. Brian Fitzpatrick made a good speech—it was honest and open—and I commend him for it. He is right. What is the point of members being asked to come to the chamber to debate the subject at the SNP's request—it called the debate in its time—if we have to listen to nothing? The SNP must spell out what it wants support for so that we can decide whether we agree with it and so that the public can have some faith in what is going on.

I look forward to hearing what Lewis Macdonald will come up with in his response. I suspect that we will hear much of what I heard on Monday morning at the Confederation of British Industry breakfast that we did together.

The fact of life is that the Government does not produce wealth. Government has a role in releasing business potential and creating an environment that encourages wealth and entrepreneurial activity. We have not heard from the SNP whether it wants a state-run economy or a marketplace, or whether it believes that there should be a mix. Will there be partnership between the public and private sectors? That is decidedly unclear from what the SNP has been saying over the past few weeks. To the SNP, it is always somebody else's fault; it is always nicer somewhere else. However, now that Ireland is perhaps dropping off and Sweden is dropping off, which country will be the SNP's next victim to use as evidence?

The debate has been a missed opportunity to spell out matters on which the parties might be able to agree. We agree that we need to improve the skills base in Scotland and we agree where the skills shortages are. We also agree that improvements must be made to the infrastructure, even though we might not have exactly the same priorities. We must spell out for the Scottish people the different means of delivering the successful economy that the Conservatives certainly believe in.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

From the Executive's point of view, the objective is clear: an economy that is based on competitive advantages. The advantages will be a highly skilled and flexible work force, a culture of enterprise and support for innovation. Those are the only ways in which to bring our productivity levels up to and beyond those that obtain elsewhere and to achieve sustained economic growth. I hope that we can build a consensus around our strategy for a smart, successful Scotland, although it is clear from the debate that that will be easier in some aspects of policy than in others.

We are rolling out our strategy for the medium to long term, while delivering the things that matter to business now. Our strategy is not based on promoting Scotland as a cheaper place in which to do business, although we certainly compete already on those terms; it is based on science and skills. Driving down costs is fine—any business will seek to do that—but undercutting the competition is not the primary basis on which Scotland will compete in the wider world.

I recognise the difficulties that sectors of the Scottish economy have faced in the recent past and the impact of global economic conditions on many of our exporters. We were hit particularly hard in the last reported quarter by the restructuring of the electronics sector, which has become so important to the wider economy in recent years.

Of course, I regret last week's announcement by Boots of its intention to close its manufacturing plant in Airdrie over the next two years. Our immediate priority in that case is to ensure that everything possible is done to assist the people who are likely to lose their jobs. Job losses are always regrettable, but, compared with a few short years ago, the Lanarkshire economy and labour market is now buoyant. As Bristow Muldoon said in reference to West Lothian, those who are affected can, with the right support, move quickly into other jobs or training.

Alex Neil raised some important points, but I disagree profoundly with his attempt to talk down the importance to the Scottish economy of increased employment. Today's labour market figures show that the number of jobs increased by 47,000 in the last quarter of 2002. Not just on the claimant count, but on the International Labour Organisation count, unemployment is down to just above 150,000, which means that unemployment in Scotland is lower than unemployment in London. I would not suggest for a moment that the gain in jobs is a ground for complacency, but I reject the suggestion that employment, interest rate and inflation levels are irrelevant to economic growth.