Scottish Parliament, 7 June 2007

453 contributions from 90 members. The official report.

Official Report 7 June 2007

Sustainable Public Transport

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S3M-127, in the name of Des McNulty, on sustainable public transport systems. I intend to keep all speakers strictly to time.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

A mountain of evidence was considered during nearly 200 hours of detailed parliamentary scrutiny of the Edinburgh tram and Edinburgh airport rail link schemes. The process of approval involved a vote of the whole Parliament. Both schemes also went through a full pre-expenditure appraisal process and will have been subject to gateway assessments prior to the commitment of funds.

Even if the minister believes that Parliament's previous decisions were incorrect, he cannot overturn decisions without parliamentary approval. To persuade us, he needs to demonstrate that his alternative proposals would deliver significantly better outcomes in meeting the key objectives of transport policies that have not shifted markedly under the new Administration. In the case of the tram scheme, which is well advanced, delay or cancellation would result in the waste of more than £100 million of public money. The minister needs to show that the wasted expenditure that would result from cancellation would be outweighed by the benefits of his preferred alternative.

We have had little detail from the SNP about its alternative to trams. In response to a question from Malcolm Chisholm, the First Minister mentioned

"guided busways on much of the tram alignment between Edinburgh airport and Haymarket; incentives for the use of hybrid fuel buses ... incentives to improve through-ticketing; real-time information at all Edinburgh bus stops; completion of the planned park-and-ride sites around the city ... and further bus-priority measures on the routes that are to be served by those park-and-ride facilities."—[Official Report, 31 May 2007; c 320-1.]

We have seen no costings, no business case and no evaluation. From the evidence that was taken previously, we know that we could expect longer journey times and more buses clogging up Princes Street.

Back in 2001, Kenny MacAskill slated guided busways as the technology not of the 21st century but of the latter part of the 20th century. In his earlier, visionary incarnation, Mr MacAskill argued:

"the route ahead for the City of Edinburgh is a light rail network ... It will be the basis upon which Edinburgh can grow and flourish."

How disappointing that the new Mr MacAskill—the sad, unambitious Mr MacAskill—no longer wants Edinburgh to have the public transport networks that are taken for granted in other European capitals such as Copenhagen, Helsinki and Dublin.

That is the SNP's view of trams. What does it think about EARL? In 2002, the same Mr MacAskill said:

"We need a commitment to build the rail link, which would be a fundamental factor not just in growing Edinburgh airport and the economy of the city of Edinburgh, but in boosting the economy of the whole of Scotland in the 21st century."—[Official Report, 28 February 2002; c 9887.]

However, what do we have from the SNP? Instead of a central Scotland rail interchange that would connect Fife to Glasgow and connect 62 different stations to the airport, ministers now favour a limited loop that would necessitate passengers on the main line from Glasgow disembarking a distance away from the airport and travelling to it on a coach or shuttle.

We have heard from Mr Swinney and Mr Stevenson that their primary interest is in preventing cost overruns and ensuring value for money. However, the detailed option appraisal exercise that was carried out for EARL by transport specialists Sinclair Knight Merz, which informed the parliamentary scrutiny process, recommended as offering best value for money the scheme that was subsequently approved by Parliament. As our motion makes clear, the responsibility for delivery of that best value for money scheme lies with ministers.

Ministers have under their control Transport Scotland, which was set up as a body with the engineering and other specialist skills that are needed to ensure effective procurement and delivery of major infrastructure projects. If ministers genuinely wanted further assurances about value for money and potential cost overruns, they could have asked Transport Scotland, as the body with the relevant expertise, to publish the benefit cost ratio for each project or to re-examine costings across the full range of current transport projects and to compile a prioritised list. They could have done that, but they did not. Audit Scotland has been asked to examine only the approach to financial and risk management of the two projects that Mr Salmond and Mr MacAskill want cancelled.

Last week, John Swinney took great offence at any suggestion that an SNP Administration would take arbitrary decisions. As we have seen, there are various definitions of the word arbitrary. However, let us be clear about the fact that the selection of the two projects that we are debating is bluntly and blatantly party political. Presumably, ministers hope that Audit Scotland will provide some evidence or finding that will help to justify the decisions that the SNP desperately wants to make. However, the cloak of Audit Scotland involvement cannot mask the fact that, for now, the SNP is defying not just previous decisions of Parliament but the majority view of members of Parliament in the current session.

I want to be clear about what our motion and the amendments would do. The Conservative amendment would require a debate to take place in the Government's own time—under the terms of the amendment, that could be delayed beyond the summer. The SNP amendment would require only a statement—not a debate—before the recess. Each week without a decision that is ratified by the Parliament means that costs—especially of the tram scheme—rack up and momentum is lost. The collapse of the tram scheme—for which contracts have already been let, but which has been put on hold this week as a result of the review—would have a devastating impact on the construction industry's confidence in public projects in Scotland. It would also have significant broader influence on confidence in the Parliament's commitment to deliver sustainable public transport in Scotland.

The Government should be made to act consistently by the Parliament, and should act on the basis of the outcomes of proper benefit cost analysis, not political prejudice. Those who want to prevent ministers reversing parliamentary decisions without recourse to Parliament, those who take seriously the arguments for sustainable public transport and, above all, those who are concerned about the effects of further delays on the Edinburgh tram project, in particular, should support the motion that I am pleased to have lodged.

I move,

That the Parliament believes that Scottish Executive ministers should respect decisions of this Parliament and, in keeping with that key principle, believes that ministers should not delay, substantially alter or cancel strategic transport projects, such as the Edinburgh Tram and Edinburgh Airport Rail Link schemes that have already been subject to parliamentary scrutiny and approval; further believes that any proposed departure from those agreed parliamentary consents should also be subject to parliamentary approval; notes the urgency given that considerable expenditure has already been committed on these schemes, and re-affirms that ministers bear the responsibility for the effective procurement and delivery of major infrastructure projects.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Accountability lies at the heart of this debate, and Government must be accountable to the people of Scotland for the decisions that it makes.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

It must be accountable to Parliament.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

We are accountable to Parliament and, of course, to the people of Scotland. The only way in which we can maintain the trust of the electorate is by ensuring that Parliament is answerable to the people of Scotland.

Government is responsible and accountable for the value of the money that it spends. Scottish taxpayers expect us to take that seriously and to take a hard look at the major spending programmes that we have inherited.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I note the minister's comments about taxpayers' money. Mr Swinney is quoted as saying that his priority

"is to protect the Scottish taxpayer and ensure that any major transport project is value for money".

Can the minister confirm that that statement is a true reflection of the Executive's priorities and that the intention to review the finances of transport projects is not limited to public transport? For example, will he give a commitment to review the finances of the M74 northern extension in Glasgow, which is already experiencing delays and cost increases, and of other road projects, such as the Aberdeen western peripheral route?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I trust that I will not damage Mr Patrick Harvie's prospects of becoming convener of the transport, infrastructure and climate change committee if I indicate that I look forward to working with him. I note that he has said today that

"Transport and infrastructure decisions will determine whether Scotland succeeds in tackling climate change."

It is important that we have a balanced approach. We are determined that overall we will make decisions that tackle climate change. We are examining all the commitments that we have inherited. Our priority is to protect the Scottish taxpayer by ensuring that all major transport projects deliver value for money. It is quite simple: we must build on solid foundations.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I will do so a wee bit later.

It is normal, natural and necessary to review projects. It is normal practice for all good clients to review projects regularly. Who would not want to be sure that they were getting the benefits that they expected at the price that had been promised? It is completely natural for the new Scottish Government to want to consider what we have inherited and to check whether it is fit for purpose—just as Sarah Boyack did, as she said in her statement to the Parliament in November 1999.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

If the minister wants to review projects, why is he reviewing only two? Why does he not review all projects?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

Exactly. Will the minister give way?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The important points about the two projects have been made: they are the biggest projects, they are running and we need to make decisions about them quickly. It is necessary to review projects. There are good examples of project delivery in Scotland but, sadly, not every project runs well. In March 2006, the Parliament heard that the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine railway would open in summer 2007 and would cost between £65 million and £70 million.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

Will the minister give way?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I have only six minutes. I have taken two interventions and I will take no more.

Within days of taking office, we were told that the cost of the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine railway had risen to £83 million. Against the background of the rising costs of that project, we needed to check the rest of the major public transport projects, starting with the two largest: the tram project and EARL.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

Will the minister give way?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

The minister has made it quite clear that he will take no more interventions.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

We are pleased that the Auditor General for Scotland has accepted our invitation—I stress "invitation", because he is independent and we cannot instruct him—to review the procedures that were used to forecast costs for the proposed Edinburgh tram and airport rail link projects.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

We issued that invitation precisely so that the necessary objectivity would be brought to the projects. Audit Scotland will report by 20 June and the findings shall be published. The report will form part of the review of major public transport projects that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth announced last week. We will consider the report swiftly and return to the Parliament before the summer recess, to set out our position clearly and concisely. We therefore accept the Conservative amendment to my amendment.

We are not in the business of taking arbitrary decisions. It is normal, natural and necessary to review projects at key stages in their development. It is even more normal, natural and necessary to review projects that have been inherited from a previous Administration—as the previous Administration did. Last week, we accepted an amendment that called on us not to make decisions arbitrarily, but this week the Opposition has called on us to make decisions in precisely that way—[Interruption.] We are acting responsibly, which is why we invited the Auditor General for Scotland to report on EARL and the trams. We are considering value for money objectively. We will take decisions in the interests of the Scottish taxpayer and involve the Parliament in the process.

I move amendment S3M-127.3, to leave out from first "believes" to end and insert:

"recognises the different policy positions of various political parties; notes that the Scottish Government has invited the Auditor General to consider the approach to financial and risk management taken in the preparation of the Edinburgh Tram and Edinburgh Airport Rail Link proposals, and welcomes the fact that ministers will report to the Parliament on this matter before the summer recess."

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Too many comments are being made from a sedentary position. I would like fewer, please.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The Conservative party supports the concept of sustainable public transport and the two projects that are mentioned in the Labour motion. We understand the importance of public transport to structured, long-term transport policy. However, as we have said many times, there can be no blank cheques. The Conservatives will always be concerned about the cost of projects, the danger that they might overrun and the potentially huge impact on other priorities of the Government and the Parliament. Therefore, the Conservatives will always be fiscally responsible.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Will the member give way?

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I am sorry, but I have only four minutes and I have a lot to get through.

Much has been said about the process of parliamentary democracy. The suggestion that it should not be possible for a Government to review the decisions of previous Governments was contained in the amendment that we debated during last week's debate on bridge tolls, and perhaps it reappears in the motion that we are debating today. That suggestion is a bit raw, coming as it does from the party whose Minister for Transport and the Environment, Sarah Boyack, arbitrarily froze all the Conservatives' road-building projects.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

Will the member take an intervention on that point?

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I am sorry, but I simply do not have time—[ Interruption. ] I have only four minutes and I need to get through my speech.

It is important that the Parliament takes decisions on such matters, but it is also important that the decisions are properly informed, therefore the Conservatives welcome the fact that Audit Scotland has been asked to consider the projects and report back to the Parliament before the summer recess. I am pleased that that concession has been made, but I hope that in his closing speech the minister will confirm that there will be a debate on the projects before the summer recess.

In last Thursday's debate on bridge tolls, we heard a great deal about the need to prioritise spending, and potentially we will hear more about that in this debate. I was pleased that in last week's debate the Parliament united around an amended motion that asked for transport projects to be prioritised and evaluated in the long term. The process that has been set out today satisfies that demand.

We agree with the Executive amendment and will support it at decision time, but it would be much easier for us to do so if the Executive fully explained the extent to which it concedes the point that we make in our amendment and if it accepted my additional request that the debate must take place before the summer recess. It is important that clarification is given.

Conservatives are fiscally responsible and think that the Parliament should have the opportunity to make decisions practically, properly and from a basis of being fully informed. We will not accept the principle that all Governments are tied by the decisions of previous Governments. We support sustainable public transport and believe in the projects, but there should be no blank cheques. We want to see the facts and make decisions constructively and positively. This debate is therefore somewhat premature.

I move, as an amendment to amendment S3M-127.3, amendment S3M-127.3.1, to insert at end:

"and calls on the Scottish Executive to bring forward a motion for parliamentary debate within its own time on these issues."

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Of course no Government is tied by the previous Government—Mr Johnstone is right to say so. That is why Mr Stevenson should review all the transport projects and not just two of them, as he would do if the amendment in his name or his position on transport were in any way credible.

As for Mr Stevenson's roads policy, he had better look at the answer that he has signed off to a recent parliamentary question on roads, which I suspect contradicts his response to Patrick Harvie's intervention. Mr Stevenson said that he will review every roads project. Charlie Gordon, who I cannot see in the chamber, asked a parliamentary question about the M74. The minister has just said that he will review that project. I hope that he will confirm that in his closing speech. I hope that Mr Gordon and other members for Glasgow, including my colleague Robert Brown, have heard that.

The Tories will prop up the Government today, so let us be clear about what the Tories are doing. They appear to be a bit lukewarm about the trams and EARL. They do not really support them. However, they believe that the Government should tell the Auditor General for Scotland what to do. That is the Tory position.

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

No. Sit down, Mr Brownlee—the Conservative party's speaker would not give way to anyone.

The Tories' position shows Mr David Cameron's green credentials for what they are: fraudulent and opportunistic. The Parliament and the public will clearly see what the Tories are truly like. In last week's debate, the Tories did not mention trams or EARL, because they do not care about those projects at all. My party cares about those projects, as does the Labour Party. The Greens used to care about them, but goodness knows what the Greens believe now. I saw Stewart Stevenson cuddling up to Patrick Harvie. Mr Stevenson might come to rue the day.

Mr Stevenson and the First Minister, Mr Salmond, are here, as is Mr Swinney. In the past week, each of them has stated—on the record and as ministers, with everything that that entails and everything that goes with their positions of office—that the Edinburgh trams and EARL projects have cost overruns. Last week, I challenged Mr Swinney to come up with any evidence for that whatever, and not one jot of evidence has been published.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Mr Scott knows full well that the cost estimates that I have in front of me represent a difference from where the two projects started out. I have other evidence, which Mr Stevenson has mentioned, relating to the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine line. I would be utterly irresponsible if I did not reflect on the costs of those projects, to protect the taxpayers of Scotland.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I would have considerable sympathy for the views of the cabinet secretary, Mr Swinney, and of the First Minister, Mr Salmond, who is speaking from a sedentary position, if they published all the information, not just the information on the Edinburgh trams and EARL projects. The decision that is being made is a political one, and the Government is trying to find the evidence to support it.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

Does the member agree that it is utterly irresponsible of the minister to claim, as he has done today, that the Auditor General is examining value for money? The Government knows that the Auditor General will confirm that value for money is not part of his remit. It is dishonest to pretend that it is. It is an attempt to politicise the Auditor General, which is wrong—

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

Ask the Auditor General. Value for money is not part of his study, and we wish that to be confirmed by the Government in the winding-up speech.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Indeed. Another important point about the Auditor General relates to what the SNP spin doctor said in The Scotsman yesterday. It reported that

"A spokesman for Alex Salmond"

stated

"we want to bring order, rigour and robustness to the decision-making process."

The spokesman said that it would therefore be important to introduce the Auditor General. The report continued:

"However, when asked about whether there was any evidence of cost overruns, he"—

that is, the SNP spin doctor, whom we are told is now on £100,000 a year—

"said this was for the review to investigate."

As for Mr Swinney's line that the information is all available, it appears that the Government is using the forthcoming review to cover up for the fact that it has no information whatever to justify its decisions.

There appears to be a new definition of consensus in the Parliament. If the Tories agree with the SNP, that is consensus. If the other parties back the SNP, preferably after a highly charged subject debate, that is consensus. However, if the Opposition parties agree with each other but not with the SNP, that is apparently not consensus, and Mr Salmond opposes it. He clearly said on the record last Thursday that the SNP is going to ignore votes that it loses. The SNP does not care about Parliament's view unless Parliament is consensual and agrees with it. Well, we do not agree.

I move amendment S3M-127.2, to insert at end:

"and notes with concern the decision to involve Audit Scotland in reviewing the Edinburgh Trams and Edinburgh Airport Rail Link projects, particularly given the short timescale in which Audit Scotland is to undertake the review, the lack of detail provided to the Parliament on the terms of reference for the review and the possible implications for the independence of Audit Scotland."

George (Labour, Lothians)

I must be a real masochist—this is my third maiden speech. I made my first about 28 years ago, and there are a lot of striking parallels. Then, I was a surprising victor. Then, a Labour Government lost office. It had better stop there—I spent 18 years in Opposition, and I do not think that I could stand that again.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Hooray!

George (Labour, Lothians)

Wait for it. I am coming to his lot later.

I am really proud to be a member of the Scottish Parliament, for which I campaigned for more than three decades. I would have stood in 1999, but I was busy helping to set up the new Department for International Development. I am proud that, under a Labour Government, that department has doubled aid to the third world. I am also proud to represent this city and this region, which I love so much. I served this city on the old Edinburgh Corporation, as a councillor and a bailie, and I also chaired Lothian Regional Council education committee. It is great to be back.

I recognise that the Scottish Parliament is very different from the House of Commons and the House of Lords. I am going through a conversion. I hope that it is not too immodest to say that I think that I am doing so rather more effectively than Alex Salmond—for all his rhetoric about consensus. Someone told me that, at the Muslim community dinner in Renfrew last Sunday, Alex Salmond spent almost all his speech making an intemperate attack on the Labour Government. It is about time that our First Minister recognised that he is now leading a devolved Government, not a protest movement. In relation to his answer at First Minister's question time last week, Alex Salmond should also recognise that, unlike Donald Dewar, he is leading a minority Government.

There has been talk of parliamentary arrangements called confidence and supply. Although it would be unwise of Opposition parties to seek an early vote of no confidence, it is perfectly proper for us to deny supply if we disagree with the purpose of it, and I hope that we will do so.

That brings me to the Edinburgh trams and EARL schemes. My strong predisposition is to support the trams, for the environmental and other reasons that were outlined so well by Des McNulty, although I am ready to listen to the other side of the argument—I am converted to the spirit of Holyrood. However, it is a pity that the Executive has embarked upon such an anti-Edinburgh agenda in transport, led by Edinburgh East and Musselburgh MSP Kenny MacAskill, who is like a kamikaze pilot—kamikaze Kenny. We know what happens to kamikaze pilots.

I was pleased to read that my old friend, Chris Harvie, is sticking to his principles. He will not be dragooned in a Pavlovian way into scrapping the trams. I hope that Ian McKee and other Lothians members will also have the courage to stand up for the area that they represent. The EARL project will benefit not just Lothian, but many towns and cities. It will link 62 stations directly to Edinburgh airport. Many members ought to think carefully before abandoning the project.

I look forward to joining Mary Mulligan, Sarah Boyack, Malcolm Chisholm, Rhona Brankin and, indeed, Margo MacDonald in fighting for our region and our capital city over the next four years and for many more years to come, first in opposition, but then, I hope before long, in government.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

I congratulate George Foulkes on making his third maiden speech. He did not tell Parliament about some of his other antecedents in the north-east. Like him, I am a former pupil of Keith grammar school. We are not the only ones—Maureen Watt is also a former pupil.

We might think that the Labour Party, or at least Des McNulty, has an obsession with Edinburgh transportation, given that at his behest we have within less than a week debated trams and EARL. He is more than welcome to that, but perhaps—given his successful amendment last week—Des McNulty ought to be satisfied with the outcome. Last week, we gave him precisely what he asked for but, this week, he has come back to ask for something a little different. Last week, Des McNulty asked us not to do things "arbitrarily". As Stewart Stevenson rightly pointed out, he is doing precisely that this week: he is now asking us to do things arbitrarily. Either he is satisfied with what he got last week or he is not satisfied. I point out to Mr Tavish Scott that, having achieved consensus last week, we are now being asked to arrive at a different consensus. I presume that that is because the author of last week's consensus is not satisfied with it.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Perhaps Brian Adam should read today's motion. The key question that it raises is whether or not—after we have read the Audit Scotland report and heard the results of anything else that the Executive wants to do in the next two to three weeks—the SNP will follow the will of Parliament. What does Brian Adam think about that? Will he ask his minister to respond to that key point in his winding-up speech?

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

If that is what the member wants, I will leave it to the minister to respond to that in winding up. Although the needs of Edinburgh and its public transport are undoubtedly important, not just to the city but to the surrounding area and to Scotland, the rest of Scotland also has public transport needs.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member give way?

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

I ask the member to let me develop the point. I would be interested to know the views of members who represent Glasgow, who have a particular interest in the crossrail scheme there, as well as those of members who represent North East Scotland. We have here in the chamber the previous chairperson of the north-east Scotland transport partnership—NESTRANS—which has ambitions to set up an Aberdeen crossrail scheme.

There are implications for public transportation across the board. As Mr Stevenson was right to point out, the financial commitment is major and we need to consider the overall budget to ensure that all Scotland's public transport needs are taken care of.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

Will the member take an intervention?

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

rose—

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

I give way to Dr Simpson.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The member referred to links for Edinburgh and the Lothians before he developed his point about other transport issues. Am I correct in thinking that if EARL is cancelled, connections to Edinburgh airport from Stirling, Ochil and the rest of Fife will be lost? Does he join me in suggesting that the new members for Stirling, Ochil and Central Fife should think carefully before voting down the EARL project? Their constituents need an airport connection.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

No one in the SNP wishes to deny people a connection to Edinburgh airport; at issue is the type of connection. As a direct consequence of the EARL project, my constituents in Aberdeen North will be on the slow train to Edinburgh airport. Significant financial constraints also relate directly to the type of project that is under consideration.

I commend the Government's approach. To look closely at finances in the context of a sustainable public transport system is precisely what any responsible Government would do. That is normal and acceptable—I hope that Parliament will agree to it later.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

The Scottish Green Party believes that we should base transport policy on tackling climate change, ensuring financial prudence and meeting passengers' needs. We note that although the Edinburgh tram project clearly meets all three of those principles, the Edinburgh airport rail link would encourage short-haul flying, be massively expensive for no noticeable return on investment and serve a route that a bus link and the planned trams would cover well.

Given what is happening outside here at the G8 summit and in all the discussions on how to tackle climate change worldwide, it is bizarre that we have a project that is designed to assist in trebling the movement of aircraft in and out of Edinburgh airport in the next 10 to 20 years, whereas on a full-life costing, another project's lifelong contribution to reducing the effects of carbon dioxide on global warming would prove to be incredibly advantageous as we rolled out renewable electricity throughout Scotland and linked that to an electrically driven tram system in Edinburgh. The tram system would be two to three times more efficient than buses on the routes that it would serve—research backs that. It would be popular with older people, young people and disabled people.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Will the member give way?

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

I will take no interventions yet.

TIE has no fears about a report on the tram project's financial projections, but on any reasonable carbon costing of EARL, it may fail—as the Green party feels it should.

Sustainable public transport systems that meet the needs of communities and businesses are essential for Scotland's economic development. We acknowledge the case for the Edinburgh tram scheme, which is supported by Scotland's businesses, by environmental and sustainable transport organisations and by a majority in Parliament. We note, however, that environmental and sustainable transport organisations have heavily criticised the Edinburgh airport rail link and that the report by the consultant Ove Arup & Partners Scotland Ltd suggests that EARL poses a threat to the business case for the trams.

We also acknowledge that significant environmental, technical and financial problems are associated with other transport infrastructure projects, such as the M74 extension, which is why Patrick Harvie intervened on the minister. A short review process would be acceptable to resolve those issues. Consequently, we will support the SNP's amendment—

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

rose—

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

I will take Johann Lamont's intervention, although I am in my last minute.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Does the Green party believe that, following the review, the ultimate decision should be taken by a vote in Parliament? As my colleague Malcolm Chisholm said, the decision should be made here. We should have not a ministerial statement but a debate and a vote, by which Parliament's will can be determined. Does the member support that?

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

Absolutely—we support the supremacy of Parliament and the idea that the decision should come to Parliament. However, that does not preclude us from backing the SNP's amendment. It is perfectly proper and sensible to consider the two projects' costs. We have said that we would prefer the review to go further, but we will support the SNP amendment at 5 o'clock.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

The proposition that Parliament cannot bind its successors is a key principle of our constitution. Although the famous 19 th century jurist Professor Albert Dicey enunciated it in relation to Scotland's other Parliament, at Westminster, we should embrace the principle whole-heartedly in this Parliament for the matters for which we are responsible. It is a sound constitutional principle that I thought the Labour Party had embraced, although we would not think so from the dog's breakfast of a motion that that party has lodged, which is more Losealot than Winalot and gives clear evidence of its civil-service withdrawal symptoms.

When incoming Labour Governments have repealed legislation that Conservative Governments passed, we have heard nothing from the Labour Party about the so-called key principle of respecting previous decisions of Parliament. When an incoming Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer reordered a Conservative predecessor's spending priorities, the Labour Party never suggested that such prior decisions should be honoured. Accordingly, the so-called key principle that is set out in Mr McNulty's motion is constitutional nonsense. For that reason alone, the motion deserves to fail.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Will the member give way?

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Will the member give way?

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

I give way to Mr Scott.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I agree with the principle that Mr McLetchie has outlined to Parliament, but surely the logic of it is that the SNP Government should review every project and not just two.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

I have no objection to a wide-ranging review of projects. It is unfortunate that when Mr Scott was responsible for transport, he failed time and again to prioritise major projects. That major error is coming to light because of the emergent need for a new Forth crossing.

The proposition that the incoming Executive should be able to review its predecessor's spending commitments is perfectly reasonable, particularly given the scale of public expenditure on the trams and EARL. The cost of tramlines 1 and 2 is often quoted at £592 million, but when another £17 million of parliamentary costs are taken into account, the cost is £609 million.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Will the member give way?

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

No, thank you.

EARL is likely to have a £700 million price tag. As we said repeatedly in debates on the projects, they were both conceived before the need had emerged for a new Forth crossing, whose cost is likely to dwarf that of the two other projects together.

The Parliament starts its business every week with time for reflection. The Scottish Executive asks us to support the proposition that the independent Auditor General should bring his expertise to bear in examining the robustness of the business cases that were presented to Parliament, which I hope will cover not just the capital costs of construction but operational costs. We are content to await publication of the Auditor General's report in a couple of weeks—we welcome the fact that the matter will be publicised and we would like the report to be debated in Parliament before the summer recess. I hope that a commitment will be made to that.

As the debate and their public statements have shown, Labour and the Liberal Democrats want us to sign a blank cheque for trams and EARL, which is the height of financial irresponsibility on their part. If I am asked whether, at the end of the day, we are for or against the projects, I can do no better than echo the wise words of that great and inscrutable Scottish philosopher, Kenny Dalglish: maybe yes or maybe no. However, any decision that we make will be better informed as a result of the Auditor General's report. I, for one, think that it is worth the short delay to see what he has to say.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

The SNP Government has inherited a far-from-strategic public transport strategy for Edinburgh, let alone the rest of Scotland, and we should dig into what we have inherited. The idea of the motion is that we should accept that TIE's approach is the only way to build transport infrastructure around Edinburgh. Perhaps the majority of MSPs voted for the proposals that are in front of us, but there is a lot of logic in reconsidering their value. Given that we could have got an airport link for about a third of the price that we are being asked to pay, without building a tunnel that goes into a canyon underneath a live airport runway, it must make some sense to audit the present proposals.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Will Rob Gibson give way?

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I am not taking any interventions just now.

EARL was not the only way to provide a link, and Audit Scotland's methodology will be able to dig into that. In the past, ministers have used the Scottish transport appraisal guidance to arrive at a cost benefit ratio. We must be able to apply that approach throughout Scotland, but the problem with the EARL proposal is that people who wanted it to be built sought support throughout Scotland by saying that it would provide a link to the airport for all Scotland but did not say that there were better ways of doing that. As my colleague Brian Adam said, there are better ways of ensuring investment for the many other parts of Scotland that have been denied it by that central-belt approach. It is not anti-Edinburgh to say that we could, while achieving value for money, have developed many more projects throughout the rest of Scotland at the same time. That is what the Government has inherited.

I turn to trams. I was on the Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Bill Committee and I can see that the outcome has failed the less well-off area of Pilton.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Will Rob Gibson give way?

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

The tramline 1 plan has failed to integrate Ravelston and to stop it becoming a rat run and it has failed to approach the Western general hospital. As far as I am concerned, it failed because the Government decided not to proceed with tramline 3, which would have integrated the east of Edinburgh with the centre.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Will Rob Gibson give way?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Will Rob Gibson give way?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

The member has made it quite clear that he is not giving way.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Tramline 3 would have ensured a tram system in which people could believe, but we are left with a system that was cut up into small sections as it became more and more expensive.

The SNP championed the improvement of Waverley station and of access to it. Let us compare the strategy with those in other countries, such as Ireland, under which new routes have been built. Ireland set up anti-congestion measures, freed up routes for commuters and built a link to Shannon airport, but that was done through an integrated programme that did not pick two prestige projects and end up with the rest of the country being left in the cold.

In this parliamentary session, transport must become an all-Scotland issue, so I am delighted that the First Minister has said that this is a Government for the whole of Scotland. Des McNulty's motion harps on about failed prestige projects without looking at the total picture, which the previous Administration also ignored. I am glad to say that John Swinney will be able to bring to us some idea of the value for money that we could get to enable us to start investing money fairly throughout the country. As far as I am concerned, we have never created a proper strategy in Scotland. This is the first chance for us to do so.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

I welcome the chance to speak in this important debate. I congratulate Stewart Stevenson on his role, although I am sorely tempted to say that I would rather have Chris Harvie in the post right now, given his background and his view that trams are vital to the central belt.

Rob Gibson has just given us a tirade about failure, but I have to say that he failed the people of west Edinburgh by voting for something with which he clearly did not agree and that he clearly did not scrutinise properly. He had a job to do, as did the other members of Parliament's private bill committees. However, in Rob Gibson's comments, the people of Edinburgh and Scotland can see exactly what is going on: it is about the SNP taking funding away from Edinburgh and supposedly distributing it fairly, as he has just said, throughout the country.

Members who followed the tram scheme's progress through Parliament over the past few years know that I have been a critical friend, rather than an unquestioning supporter, of the project. I have questioned the route of the trams and have had amendments included in the bill. However, I believe that, in the end, the trams and EARL represent the best way forward for Edinburgh. That does not mean that we should approach the project with a blank cheque. The reality is, and always was, that the Executive and the City of Edinburgh Council still have to give the go-ahead for the full business case on the back of the final tenders that are received. That would mean Transport Scotland doing its job and ministers doing theirs—which is to ensure that projects such as the trams continue to come in on budget and on time.

I have some issues with the announcement of a review by Audit Scotland, because to some extent it calls Audit Scotland's independence into question. That is certainly the impression that the Auditor General himself has given me in the past. In response to a question from me on real-time evaluation of the tram and EARL projects, Mr Black said at an Audit Committee meeting in February:

"I would not want to step into it without reaching a well-informed understanding with the Scottish ministers and the Executive, and the Parliament, about an appropriate role for Audit Scotland in such matters."

He went on to say that his consideration of the Parliament building project

"was probably an exceptional case and we are certainly not resourced to carry out such work for other major capital schemes. We must consider carefully the proper accountabilities of the Executive versus those of the audit process."

He then said:

"I am reluctant to get into real-time evaluations. We are not resourced to do so, and doing so would confuse accountabilities."—[Official Report, Audit Committee, 13 February 2007; c 2026-2027.]

I also question the Auditor General's acceptance of a remit that allows him only a matter of days to scrutinise such important schemes, which have previously been scrutinised by three parliamentary committees that spent many years considering them in detail.

I do not have time to cover all the reasons why the two Edinburgh projects should be pursued. However, the Dublin experience is that, at weekends, almost 50 per cent of people who previously travelled into the city centre by car choose instead to take the tram. Worldwide, 50 countries operate more than 400 tram and light rail systems and another 120 are under construction. We have spent eight years being given geography lessons by the SNP, usually along the lines of how well our European competitors are doing compared to us. Now it is my turn: why is it that trams are the way forward for Strasbourg, Dublin, London, Paris and Manchester but not for the capital of Scotland? Is it because it is not in the north-east?

The SNP tells us to get on the bus instead, but that is not what it said in the past. In 2000, Kenny MacAskill said that trams were the basis upon which Edinburgh could grow and flourish. Chris Harvie, writing only last month on the Scottish futures website, said:

"The 'cheap and cheerful' bus isn't in itself a solution ... There are limitations to the bus ..."

and he continued by saying that trams are

"timetabled, fast, segregated, predictable ... Trams last, which justifies their cost."

Alex Salmond told us last week that the Government does not have to be bound by Parliament. He may be right by the rule book, but he is morally wrong. The SNP has no democratic mandate to scrap the tram and airport rail link projects, both of which Parliament scrutinised. If it ignores the voice of the Parliament, it ignores the voice of the people of Scotland.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I speak as a representative not of north-east Scotland but of that other great SNP stronghold: central Scotland.

It can hardly come as a surprise to our colleagues—although it seems to—that our new SNP Government has serious concerns about the Edinburgh tram and EARL projects. After all, those concerns were clearly and prominently featured in the SNP campaign message in the recent election. The Labour Party might want to remember that election—it is the one that it lost. It seems more than a little disingenuous for the Labour Party to display such righteous indignation now that our new Government is pursuing the agenda that it put to the country.

Although I speak in support of our new Government, I am also a great supporter of investment in our rail infrastructure. I believe that one of the greatest misfortunes to befall our country was the savage Beeching cuts to our railways in the 1960s—I point out that they occurred way before I was even conceived of—the effects of which are felt to this day. However, that is not to say that I support all projects blindly. For a project to receive my backing, it has to be right and proper for the country and for the area that it is proposed it will serve.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Will the member give way?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

No. I will not give way, thanks very much.

I have serious concerns about both the Edinburgh tramlines and EARL in its current guise.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Will the member give way?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

No. I have already said that I will not give way.

Des McNulty's motion seeks to make a virtue of the fact that £100 million of public money has already been spent on the Edinburgh trams project; he turns that into a reason to back it unswervingly. I suggest that such enormous investment without a single piece of track's having been laid is a serious cause for concern. Why does the former Administration support such an expensive rail link to Edinburgh airport? We can all accept the benefits to Edinburgh and Scotland of a rail link to the airport, but why are the Labour group and others determined about the need for a tunnel?

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Will the member give way?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

No, I will not.

Why not support an overground rail link? Is a new type of tunnel fetishism emerging?

I support fully the Government's decision to call on the Auditor General to review the projects. As my colleague Brian Adam did, I note Labour's lack of comment and, perhaps, concern about other vital transport projects for Scotland, many of which would affect central Scotland. Where is its concern for the electrification of the main line between Glasgow and Edinburgh? It is an embarrassment to Scotland that only roughly a quarter of our railways are electrified and it is a scandal that the line between our two main cities is not electrified.

Where has the Labour Party been in relation to the need for an improved car park for Croy train station? Although Wendy Alexander, the then transport minister, promised it in 2002, not a single brick has been laid. I am sure that the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change will join me in welcoming the assurances that I have received from Strathclyde Partnership for Transport that that vital project will—at long last—go ahead.

Where are the calls from Labour for vital road projects in Lanarkshire? We urgently need the Raith interchange. In Falkirk, people are crying out for improvements at Avon Gorge, which have been called for for many years. Nevertheless, today the Labour Party is insisting on the pursuit of projects that cost millions more than is necessary and are of limited benefit and use to us. That might just come back to haunt it—I hope that it does.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

I thank the Labour Party for using its debating time to explore this issue further. As Brian Adam rightly pointed out, it is about more than Edinburgh, which is why a strategic transport project review would be the objective way forward. To single out two projects is just not fair.

We heard from the Green party that the use of global footprinting to measure our impact on the environment is gaining support. The north-east of Scotland has been taking part in a three-year pilot project with the WWF to measure its footprint, the results of which were announced at an event in my home town of Ellon a few months ago.

We are taking far more than our fair share of the world's resources. If everyone in the world consumed resources at the rate at which we in Scotland do, we would need three planets to support us. However, none of the people who attended that event was down heartened by the results; those people were galvanised by it and are determined to tackle some of the issues that contribute to that big footprint. Local schemes that involve the whole community are now being developed in Ellon and Huntly. It is commendable that the people at the event did not say that the problem is too big for us to do anything about, but I am clear that they expect us here in Parliament also to pay heed to it and to face the fact that a three-planet lifestyle is not sustainable We can work on three main areas to shrink our footprint: energy use, food production and transport. Given that around 15 per cent of carbon emissions are land-transport related, we can make a difference: we can reduce the impact of transport. We know what the solutions are: faster trains, second-generation park and rides, new railways, trams and demand-responsive transport. There are lots of sustainable transport solutions, but they need consistent support and some certainty to make them a reality.

For decades, Scotland suffered because of a lack of vision, co-ordination and investment in transport, which the previous Government took bold steps to counter. During the previous session, there were radical changes to transport delivery, a step-change in how transport was planned for and a new optimism and growing ambition throughout Scotland as local authorities worked with other stakeholders to plan ahead. I thought that the SNP shared that ambition, given that its manifesto said, "let us build a more successful Scotland", "Let Scotland Flourish" and that it is time to move Scotland forward. However, we are not moving forward; the SNP is taking us backward to the old stop-start, will-we-won't-we school of transport planning, which I thought was a thing of the past.

The Liberal Democrats recognise that planning for a sustainable Scotland needs us all to work together. The Government, local councils, communities and the business sector should all have a voice. That is why I set such great store by the finalised national and regional strategies and the emerging local transport strategies, on all of which the key stakeholders were consulted less than a year ago.

Building an integrated transport system for Scotland will not happen overnight. Indeed, it cannot happen in one term of government—although, with an SNP Government it looks like plans can disappear overnight and for no good reason, other than to fund unsustainable promises that were made during the election.

Stewart Stevenson's amendment would lead to more cost, and to delay and uncertainty. He talked about accountability and balance, but there is nothing balanced about his approach. He said that he would start with the two biggest projects, so we can expect even more uncertainty.

The Tories' amendment is no better. They should be big enough to admit that they do not want the projects. "Mibbes aye, mibbes no"—where have the Tories been during all the hundreds of hours of committee scrutiny and debate in the previous session of Parliament?

We can have ambitious but costed and deliverable projects throughout Scotland, which join up the country, make us competitive in Europe, create new jobs and support tourism, or we can ditch them for uncosted, undeliverable daydreams of bullet trains and road-building schemes. It is clear what the majority view in the chamber is: the SNP must stop prevaricating and let the projects go ahead as planned.

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

We should congratulate the Labour Party on using its first debate in opposition to discuss this important subject. I hope that it has the opportunity to bring forward many more debates in opposition.

It is a pleasure to take part in the debate and it was a pleasure to listen to the remarks of Tavish Scott. During the election campaign, he was running round the country telling anybody who would listen that there was no point in supporting the Conservatives because we were not going to be in government and would have no influence; now his criticism seems to be that we have too much influence. Given that he said one thing before the election and now believes the complete opposite, we can conclude only that it is a fine apprenticeship for the leadership of the Liberal Democrats.

Alex Johnstone has spoken to our amendment and David McLetchie took to pieces the Labour motion. Let me have a look at the Liberal Democrat amendment. We are asked to note with concern the decision to involve Audit Scotland. Tavish Scott was quoted by the BBC as suggesting that it was "unprecedented" for ministers to ask Audit Scotland to carry out an inquiry

"purely to fix a political problem of their own making".

That did not concern him last year when he said that he would

"welcome an Audit Scotland investigation"

into the tendering of ferry services between Gourock and Dunoon. He also said that last year's Audit Scotland report on transport which, among other things, looked at the tram project and the Edinburgh airport rail link, was "very fair". What exactly is the problem?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Will the member give way?

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Unlike Mr Scott, I will give way.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

The difference between me and the SNP is that I did not instruct Audit Scotland to carry out such an inquiry.

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

If Mr Scott is suggesting that ministers instructed the Auditor General, that is a serious allegation, because they do not have the power to do so. How can the SNP have instructed him?

I have some sympathy with the part of the Liberal Democrat amendment that says that the timescale that has been given to Audit Scotland to undertake the review is too short. However, only last week—and again today—the Liberal Democrats said that there should not be a delay. Given that the tram project is already behind schedule, it is a bit rich for them to be so concerned about a two-week delay, particularly one that arises because ministers are doing what the Liberal Democrats demanded last week and are bringing forward evidence on the costs of the two projects.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Is it "maybe yes" or "maybe no"?

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I have given way to Mr Scott already, but if he has something to say, he should stand up and say it.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Following Mr McLetchie's point, will the Conservatives tell us whether their position today is "maybe yes" or "maybe no"?

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Is it not sensible to look at what the Auditor General says rather than pre-empt that? Maybe the reason why the projects have gone so over budget and been so delayed is that ministers did not look at the costs and timescales and did not take the care that they should have taken.

If everything is fine with the tram and EARL projects, what do their supporters have to fear? Last year, the former Minister for Transport was challenged, in relation to the tram project,

"to convince us that budgets are being managed effectively and that projects are being considered effectively."

Who issued that challenge? It was Des McNulty. What did the minister say in response? He said:

"quarterly reviews of project progress against cost and time targets have been established".—[Official Report, 16 March 2006; c 24058-59.]

If the process was as robust as Mr Scott seems to think, what is the problem with Audit Scotland looking at it? What problems are going to emerge? There is nothing to fear from a review of the projects if they are fine. That is the key point.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

More delay.

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

A two-week delay is hardly the end of the world.

We are happy to support an independent look at the process. If Mr Scott had any confidence in the decisions that he took as a minister, he would not be scared of that.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I will address one or two issues that arose in the debate. I will start by quoting the letter from Robert Black to Mr Swinney. It says:

"In response to your request".

Next, I will read from the terms of reference that the Auditor General issued yesterday. They say:

"The Auditor General has already made a commitment that Audit Scotland will undertake a review of major capital projects in Scotland in its current work programme. This project was strongly supported by the Parliament's Audit Committee when the Auditor General presented the forward work programme to them in February 2007. That project is currently being scoped and we expect to publish a report in spring 2008. The Auditor General has agreed to bring forward a more focused review of Edinburgh trams and EARL as part of the planned work, and that is the subject of this brief."

The issue of value for money arose a number of times during the debate. It is important that we understand what value for money means. It is not just about cost. It is about securing value for the expenditure. We cannot achieve that without the robust management of projects. It is precisely an investigation into the management of the projects—and the risk management in particular—that Audit Scotland will focus on.

Much has been made of the risks to the tram project. Let me gently point something out to Labour members. In 2004, tram projects were scrapped in Liverpool, Leeds and Portsmouth with no consultation of any kind. Who scrapped those projects? We may well ask. The answer is, of course, Alistair Darling—a Labour minister at Westminster.

Some remarks have been made about buses clogging up Princes Street. There are no cars on Princes Street, but there are buses. Interestingly, in 1960, twice as many passengers were carried on buses in Edinburgh compared with today, yet Princes Street was not clogged with buses. Some of the symptoms that we require to address might have causes that are more complex than the simple-minded approach that has been taken so far.

I thank Tavish Scott for acknowledging that Governments are not tied by the decisions of previous Administrations. That is clear. Wendy Alexander suggested that we were looking at costs, but I have said "process and management". I welcome the fact that George Foulkes is prepared to listen.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I have very little time in this very short debate, for which the Labour Party is responsible.

Margaret Smith identified that we have further steps to take in the tram project. That is important. However, I simply come back to what the Government is doing. Our priority is to protect the Scottish taxpayer and ensure that major transport projects deliver value for money, real benefit to the travelling public and real benefit to the Scottish economy. I repeat—I have not yet heard anyone convincingly suggest that it should be otherwise—that it is normal, natural and necessary to review projects at key points. One such point is when an Administration has come into office and has to look at what it is faced with. We have to be absolutely sure about the calculation of costs of projects and to assess the risks before they progress further.

Audit Scotland will report by 20 June and we will make time available for a debate on what emerges from that. It would be arbitrary indeed to pre-empt the outcome of that process. The debate has been useful, but I hope that members will recognise that the Government has to take stock and involve the Parliament and wider Scotland in important decisions that will be made.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

I do not know the precise origin of the saying, "You can run, but you can't hide," but it seems particularly apt in relation to the SNP's position on a new transport infrastructure for Scotland's capital. Sooner or later, the SNP will have to decide whether it is going to back the schemes. On the Labour side, we will keep on demanding a decision in favour of Edinburgh because, as the business community in Edinburgh said, if we do not see the projects through, we will be the laughing stock of Europe.

So, where do we stand? The Auditor General is not going to make up the SNP's mind for it. Will the wishes of Parliament or those of the SNP's manifesto prevail? We are witnessing an unedifying power struggle within the SNP about the schemes. On one side, we have Alex "deep misgivings" Salmond, Kenny "trash the trams" MacAskill, and Stewart "costs out of control" Stevenson. On the other side, we have a public transport professor and his allies, who dare not speak out in the chamber. So much for the new politics.

Where is Mr Swinney? He is hoping that Mr Black will offer him deliverance so that he can come back to the Parliament and say, "Sorry—we just couldn't manage to deliver it on time or on budget." Mr Swinney is asking Transport Scotland to deliver a tunnel a mile long under the Forth but he cannot deliver a tunnel less than one twentieth of that length under the runway at Edinburgh airport. So much for an advert for leadership.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Will Wendy Alexander clarify the position? As I understand it, the tram project is at the stage of a draft final business case. My understanding of what the former Minister for Transport said in the Parliament is that final approval of the Scottish Executive's financial commitment depended on the content of the final business case. Is it still Labour's position that the project might not have been approved if the terms of the final business case were not satisfactory, or is Labour so in favour of the project that it would approve it irrespective of what the business case said?

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

Our position is that the Parliament decides and it is the Government's job to deliver on time and on budget. It is crazy to ask for a mile-long tunnel in one place but say that it is impossible to deliver one a twentieth of its length somewhere else.

Bob Black will doubtless suggest some management changes, as he always does, but he will not change the fundamentals of the scheme and he will not tell the SNP to cancel the projects, so the Government will have to decide what to do. Rhetoric is fine for opposition, but government is about responsibility. The SNP's internal power struggle is now costing the nation millions. It is racking up the bills—the costs of delay, dithering and indecision. If the SNP had the slightest interest in transparency, it would have at least admitted today that it has now instructed, via Transport Scotland, that there should be no further expenditure. In short, TIE has had its hands firmly tied.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Will Wendy Alexander explain why it is unreasonable for this Government, which came into office just three weeks ago, to test the fundamentals of the projects to determine whether there is a need for change? Will she also explain what was unreasonable about the Labour Government dumping lots of things that the Conservative Government did because it did not agree with them and they did not represent good value for money?

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

I return to the point that the SNP is not telling us whether it wants to proceed with the schemes. It has to decide—it will either deliver them or not.

As I say, we have had "trash the trams" and "deep misgivings", but the SNP has provided not a shred of supporting evidence. A minister who promised efficiency savings is now racking up the bills of his prevarication. The Government owes us an explanation for the cash-burn rate of the delay. We estimate that the delays are now costing at least £3.5 million per month on trams and at least £1.5 million per month on EARL. That is £5 million a month down the drain of delay, but we have not had even a commitment to a debate and decision before the Parliament rises for the summer. Without a decision, we will be looking at £15 million of additional cost through delay from a Government that said that it was interested in efficiency savings.

That all speaks to the wider pattern that the SNP is good at the easy decisions and playing to the populist gallery but baulks at the tough decisions. It is racking up the bills of delay, dithering and indecision. It can run, but it can't hide. Decision time is fast approaching, and the Labour Party is determined to come back week after week until the SNP is forced to recognise the will of Parliament, accept the need for the projects and deliver them in the interests of the nation.

Skills and Vocational Education

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-126, in the name of Hugh Henry, on skills and vocational education.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

I congratulate Fiona Hyslop, Maureen Watt and Adam Ingram and wish them well in a portfolio that is critical to Scotland's future.

I am disappointed that Labour has had to use its parliamentary time to facilitate a debate on education. I suppose that that reflects the relative priorities of Labour and the Scottish National Party.

When Gordon Brown unveiled his budget in March, he delivered nearly £2 billion for Scotland in the next three years. Jack McConnell committed Labour to investing all of that in education. By contrast, the SNP pledged only that the money would be spent on front-line services, with no special commitment to education. During the election campaign, Jack McConnell spelled out Labour's commitment to education. He promised additional resources for education, even if that meant squeezing other budgets. By contrast, the SNP has refused to say whether it will give education that priority. Labour promised an education bill within 100 days if re-elected. By contrast, all that we have had from the SNP is a series of press releases and statements, many of which had no substance—such as that on ship-to-ship oil transfer—or were simply a regurgitation of what was started by the previous Executive. At least today, we have forced the SNP to say something about education.

I believe that there is a consensus in the Parliament and beyond that 21st century Scotland needs a highly motivated and highly skilled workforce if it is to compete in the global market. There is general agreement that we cannot afford to compete on the basis of low wages and low skills. There is also general agreement that, although many of our young people are achieving to high levels, still too many are failing, for a variety of reasons, to develop to their full potential. They lose interest in school, they lack personal ambition or they end up in a depressing environment of bad behaviour and alcohol and/or drug abuse, and they are often lost to society.

I am glad that there is now general recognition that more has to be done to prevent young people from reaching that critical point of failure. I acknowledge that, at least in its rhetoric, the new Administration is committed to early intervention, but it needs to recognise that that will require significant additional investment for the areas that need to be addressed, rather than the application of universality throughout Scotland.

If we consider our motion and each amendment, we see that there is probably more that unites us than divides us. There is a broad understanding of the concerns of business and an acknowledgement that there is much that is good in our schools and further education colleges. However, there is also a recognition that the present situation cannot be allowed to continue and that more needs to be done to address the challenge that confronts us.

I do not disagree with the amendment in the name of Fiona Hyslop. I accept that we need a strategy. However, we also need action—and early action at that. The scale and severity of the problem has been well documented, so there is no need to dwell on the details.

In its manifesto, Labour proposed radical, imaginative and challenging ideas to tackle the problems. For us, more of the same is unacceptable. There are some who bridled at the idea of skills academies, but we wanted better motivation and more relevance for young people who are disengaged from school and for whom academic development holds little interest. We wanted to engage with them to develop the skills that they need to be employable. Frankly, we also wanted to give those young people some interest in life, which would allow them to develop their potential and personality.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Will the member explain how the establishment of skills academies and science centres of excellence could help people in my constituency and the great swathes of rural north Scotland where people currently have to travel many miles to go to normal comprehensive schools? Would skills academies not be a complete irrelevance to them?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

We have not been prescriptive about where the centres would develop. There are further education colleges in north-east Scotland and the FE skills and talents that are already available in the member's area could be extended.

We wanted to widen young people's choice and study options. We wanted to add significant status and prestige to vocational learning options for pupils and to expand significantly skills for work courses. We wanted to build on the work being done to improve the links between schools and colleges, and we pledged in our manifesto to increase the number of modern apprenticeships to 50,000 per year by the end of the parliamentary session. Our skills academies are intended to deliver that.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

There is a genuine shared concern to improve skills opportunities. What the rest of us would like to hear about is where the skills academies would be sited. If they involve enhanced technical departments in schools and better use of links between schools and colleges, we can agree, but if they involve 100 separate and segregated institutions, we cannot.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

The plans were never designed nor stated to involve 100 separate institutions. Had the minister read our proposals in more detail, she would have seen that we were talking about developing much of the infrastructure that already existed.

Our proposals should not be dismissed out of hand. We envisage skills academies widening pupils' options. Academies would be located in either schools or colleges, depending on local opportunities and needs. Indeed, as Fiona Hyslop accepted in January's debate on skills academies, if the schools of ambition programme were extended as a means of extending skills academies,

"perhaps that would be something else that we could agree on."—[Official Report, 11 January 2007; c 30937.]

So let us not concentrate on our differences; rather, let us build on what we can achieve together. We should build on our different ideas for a common purpose.

The same applies to our proposals for science centres of excellence. We already have centres of excellence to encourage those with special talents in sport, music or dance. We want the same opportunities to exist for those with special talents in science. We want Scotland to lead the world in invention and innovation, so why should we not nurture the special talents that are needed to do so? The centres would concentrate on excellence in science without ignoring broader educational development. They would be within the comprehensive context but would deliver breadth and balance, as our current centres of excellence do.

Labour promised a stimulating, radical and challenging agenda. I accept that we are not in government and that it therefore falls to others to progress the skills agenda. I offer our support to Fiona Hyslop in confronting the decisions that must be taken to challenge the depressing reality for too many of our children, but I make it clear that we will challenge the new Administration at every turn if it fails to take the early and difficult decisions that need to be taken to start to make a real difference.

I move,

That the Parliament recognises the concerns in the business community about the shortage of school leavers proficient in science and technical subjects; believes that there is a role for academic institutions concentrating on vocational skills and science, and calls for the introduction of skills academies and science centres of excellence as a contribution to improving both the skills needed for 21st Century Scotland and the life opportunities for our young people.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I welcome the opportunity that the Labour Party has provided to discuss skills and vocational education, following the many speeches—including my own—that have been made on education as part of the Government's debate on the objective of a wealthier and fairer Scotland. I also welcome the support for the terms of our amendment, if not necessarily for the amendment itself.

The Government will support learning for life and learning throughout life—from early education to supporting children, families and communities; improving learning in schools; developing skills for and in work; and promoting excellence, innovation, science and research. We know that our teaching and learning are world class and that people can and do take advantage of them to improve their life chances, but there are key challenges that we must address. We must make it clear that learning truly is for everyone. We must demonstrate how it can have a lasting and positive impact on many areas of life and we must develop policies and processes that make things easy for everyone to understand and make use of Scotland's learning systems to improve their contribution to people's work, lives and communities.

We intend to start the process by developing a Scottish skills strategy that covers early years provision, schools, further and higher education, work-related learning and informal learning opportunities. The new strategy will outline our aims, ambitions and plans for making Scotland's skills base truly world class. I hope that it will be warmly received not only in the chamber but outside it.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

We will, of course, be interested in seeing the proposals that are made as the strategy progresses, but the strategy will be effective only if it is funded. Will the cabinet secretary give a guarantee that, in the spending review period, funding for the tertiary education sector in Scotland will increase in real terms under the SNP Administration?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I recognise that the Liberal Democrats have spent the money in the comprehensive spending review before it has taken place, but responsible government means that we must have processes. This morning, I will invite the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council to provide more detailed proposals from the universities for the comprehensive spending review bid.

We have started work on the Scottish skills strategy. We intend to have a draft strategy available to take forward by the end of our Administration's first 100 days. It is important to us that we develop the strategy co-operatively, using structures such as the skills committee of the Scottish funding council and working with employers and trade unions so that the strategy becomes a vision that we can all champion for the benefit of Scotland.

The review of skills that was led by Lord Leitch was published in December 2006. That review sought to make the United Kingdom a world leader in skills by 2020. The Scottish skills strategy will be our response to that review. Scotland has distinct institutions, qualifications and experience and how we achieve our vision for skills will necessarily reflect that. With the exception of London, Scotland has fewer lower-skilled people and more higher-skilled people than anywhere else in the UK. However, there are productivity challenges that we must address. We will focus on Scottish approaches to Scottish issues—that will drive our strategy.

The modern Scottish workforce must be dynamic, responsive, creative and innovative. A wider learning culture is the foundation on which our future prosperity and success must be built. All learning must be relevant, exciting and inspirational. Learning is about more than teaching content and subjects. We must ensure that it develops young people who are excited by it to be creative, ambitious and conscious of their own health and well-being, and that it equips them with the core skills that they need—not only literacy and numeracy but team-working, communication and adaptability skills.

All our young people should have the opportunity to develop awareness of the world of work and the practical skills that they may need to succeed in it. I do not agree that there should be a segregated approach to skills for work, as presented in the motion.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I am conscious of the time and must move on.

We will place science, modern languages and technology at the heart of education. We must enthuse young people about science from the earliest ages and not deal with the matter post-16, as the motion suggests. It is not a matter of making structural changes through creating skills academies or science centres of excellence—it is about challenging the perception that vocational qualifications are for the less able or that there should be only a post-16 focus on science.

I do not want a two-tier education system. I believe in vocational opportunities and active choices for all, based on individual aspirations and abilities. Everyone needs vocational skills, regardless of the industry in which they work or their occupation. There should be parity of esteem for all qualifications.

Learning does not stop when we leave school; every stage of life brings opportunities to participate in it. College learning opportunities in particular can help to tackle the biggest challenge that we face in education, which is improving the experience and performance of the lowest-attaining young people in our society.

We must harness the energies of our learning and education partners better so that we can become more adept at providing effective and relevant opportunities. That is why improved school-college links are the way forward. The Opposition parties must not underrate the ability of colleges or sideline them in the skills agenda.

In conclusion, our vision of a smarter Scotland is one in which educational and academic achievements throughout life make a real and measurable difference to the lives of all our people. We believe that skills are the key to unlocking the potential of all our people. The Scottish skills strategy that the Government has announced today will help us to do that. We look forward to developing the strategy with the Parliament.

I move amendment S3M-126.3, to leave out from "recognises" to end and insert:

"notes the concerns raised by the business community about the shortage of school leavers proficient in science and technical subjects; believes that there is a need for more vocational skills experience for 14 to 18-year-olds, including improvements in school/college links and increased focus on the teaching of science in schools, and notes the Scottish Government's decision to develop a Scottish skills strategy to help deliver the skills needed for 21st century Scotland."

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I welcome Fiona Hyslop to her new position as the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning and her team of Maureen Watt and Adam Ingram. We look forward to engaging energetically with them in the years ahead.

The Conservatives welcome the opportunity to discuss skills and vocational education in the first education debate of the new session. We have long championed the cause of greater vocational education. As far back as 2002, a Conservative amendment was passed in the Parliament that urged the Executive to extend access to further education courses to school pupils from the age of 14. That position has often been restated in the Parliament, with support from all sides.

The Conservative party does not believe in a one-size-fits-all approach to education. We believe that a system that means that all children must concentrate fully on academic subjects after the age of 14 is increasingly out of date. Such an approach is failing to meet the needs of our economy, as the Labour motion recognises. The current system also fails too many youngsters, who are simply turned off by academic subjects but might welcome the opportunity for more vocational learning. Such learning might help to motivate them to engage more fully within the school environment, with all the benefits that that would bring.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Will the member answer the question that I asked Hugh Henry? What possible advantage would vocational schools have for my constituents in West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, who must currently travel many miles to schools?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I will address that point later, if I may, but will make two brief comments now. As Mr Henry said, existing units in schools could be used. We must also recognise that urban areas have a higher concentration of schools and that those schools will have greater opportunities to develop specialisations than will schools in rural and remote areas—that is inevitable.

I am pleased that the Labour Party's motion recognises the business community's concern about

"the shortage of school leavers proficient in science and technical subjects".

I am sorry that it has taken the transition to opposition for Labour to become aware of it, but its concern is welcome.

I am pleased that Labour is again talking about the creation of skills academies. In January, the Conservatives lodged a motion supporting the principle of skills academies and we were rather disappointed that Labour members did not support us on that occasion. The idea is attractive in principle, but we are still waiting for further detail from Labour about how skills academies might operate in practice.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

Will the member give way?

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

Will the member take an intervention?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Given that I was talking about Labour, it is only fair to allow Mr Macintosh to intervene.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

We welcomed in spirit the debate in January, but we are still concerned that ideas, such as that in the Conservative amendment, on

"the introduction of specialist vocational schools",

would mean a return to selection. Will Murdo Fraser reassure us that that is not implied?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

That would be English Labour.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I have no wish to intrude on a debate on this subject that is taking place in my party south of the border. I reassure Mr Macintosh that it is not the policy of the Scottish Conservatives to support selection.

Labour's new approach, which I commend, recognises the realities of modern Scotland and stands in stark contrast to the antediluvian approach of the SNP. As a party, the SNP has set its face against specialist schools and skills academies. SNP members must recognise the realities of 21st century Scotland. As a nation, we must be more ambitious and must set about creating an education system that meets the needs of modern Scotland, rather than, for purely ideological reasons, clinging to a system that is past its sell-by date.

Our amendment says that we should recognise the need for new specialist vocational schools—such as the skills academies that Labour is talking about—as well as the need to develop links between schools and colleges, which is what Miss Hyslop referred to in her remarks. Every Scottish youngster from the age of 14 should have the opportunity to access vocational education. That might not necessarily be done at a specialist school, which might answer Mr Rumbles's point. We do not support a two-tier system because every child should have the opportunity. A lot of good work has already been done in developing links between schools and local further education colleges, and much more could be done in that field.

I am aware that I am already over my time. Scottish education has reached a consensus that we should encourage more vocational courses. I believe that many in this chamber want to go further than that and encourage more specialist schools such as skills academies or science centres of excellence, although I have not had time to talk about those this morning. Scottish education should be going that way and we look forward to working with other parties to bring about those changes.

I move amendment S3M-126.1, to insert at end:

"but also appreciates the excellent facilities and expertise in further education colleges and believes that more use must be made of these for educating school-age pupils so that, taken together with the introduction of specialist vocational schools, this ensures that every young person can readily access vocational education courses from the age of 14, and further believes that each local authority should work with head teachers and local further education institutions to produce a strategy for teaching science and technology."

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

I welcome the chance to outline Liberal Democrat views on secondary education, skills and learning.

I commend Mr Macintosh for calling on the Conservatives not to promote in Scotland Labour's policy in England. If this is the new politics in Scotland, I want to return to the old.

In last week's debate on Scotland's economy, the Liberal Democrats took the opportunity to outline our disappointment that the SNP had not placed education, skills and training at the heart of its economic future. I wish the new Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning well. She is starting from the strong base of the statistics that have just been sent to all members, and which make for encouraging reading, showing 1,400 more teachers this year than last year and the lowest teacher to pupil ratio in primary schools since 1990. That is the strong record of the Liberal Democrats and Labour in Government. The cabinet secretary has received a dowry of success and I hope that she will carry on building up the quality of education in Scotland.

This is a good time for education in Scotland. We already have strong university, college and school links. As Mr Henry said, there is much that unites the parties. We have heard considerable agreement about developing those links and developing science in schools. I doubt that any MSP would argue against stronger relationships between colleges and schools. However, we are tasked with debating and voting on a motion that proposes skills academies—and it is welcome that it is not an SNP motion. We look forward to the new Government deciding at some stage—in the near future—on its spending and funding proposals and on the priorities that it will be setting. The mebbes-aye-mebbes-no approach that we heard in the earlier debate is not good enough to give direction to further and higher education in Scotland with the spending review coming up.

The Liberal Democrats do not share Labour's view that skills academies should be introduced in Scotland. Our view is shared by the two local education authorities that I represent. Scottish Borders Council and Midlothian Council have rejected the policy and, interestingly, one week after the former First Minister outlined his policy for developing skills academies in Scotland, Labour- controlled Midlothian Council rejected it, and for good reason.

I understand that there is a need for learning centres that create excellence, but we should be ambitious for every college and school in Scotland to be a centre of excellence. I do not agree that the way forward is through the essentially private-sector academies that are being developed in England. We need only look at the prospectus for the third round of the skills academies in England, which says that the role of the sponsors, the employers or the leaders of those academies will be to

"shape all aspects of the design of National Skills Academies and the delivery of the training they will provide".

Although Mr Henry said that there might be flexibility in how the academies are put together and where they are placed, we can look to what Labour has done south of the border. Paragraph 3.2 of the prospectus says about the relationship between the academies and the public sector in setting educational standards:

"We would normally expect the formal support of the relevant SSC"

—sector skills council—

"but there may be exceptions."

Private sector sponsors accepting support from the local sector skills council in not only paying for the academies but potentially setting fees and academic standards is not the appropriate approach for Scotland.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

Does Mr Purvis accept that the English education system is quite radically different from ours and that it faces a range of different problems? Scotland has an almost entirely comprehensive system and the private sector is very small, although we have specialist schools in Scotland such as St Mary's music school.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

I am most grateful to Mr Macintosh for illustrating my point. We do not wish to import an English model.

Mr Rumbles's earlier point was absolutely appropriate. We want all colleges to have incubator units for business and to be able to develop skills training for their local areas. We do not want the specialism that will exacerbate a situation such as that in my constituency, where someone wanting to get training to introduce a renewables technology has to travel to Caithness College to get it. Developing separate skills academies could cost up to £1 billion and will detract. We do not want separate, specialist institutions; we want all colleges in all parts of Scotland to be centres of excellence. We do not want a situation such as that in England, where fees are back on the agenda. We want to move away from that.

Our amendment is clear and specific. It is precisely because we want all parts of Scotland to develop, because we want a comprehensive secondary, tertiary and skills system, and because we want all learners, young and old, to benefit, that we do not want private-sector, fee-paying academies, following the English model. That is why we have proposed the positive alternatives that I hope Parliament will support this afternoon.

I move amendment S3M-126.2, to leave out from "about the shortage" to end and insert:

"that opportunities should exist for school pupils to gain vocational and educational skills from the age of 14 through both school and college; believes that there should be closer links between schools, colleges and local businesses building on the highly successful school and college partnerships and the Skills for Work and Determined to Succeed initiatives; reaffirms its support for comprehensive secondary education; rejects the establishment of skills academies, and rather believes that Scotland's colleges should receive an annual 3% real terms increase in funding to help support partnerships with schools, that there should be a new target of 50,000 Modern Apprenticeships by 2011 to widen training opportunities for young people, that secondary schools and colleges should have business incubators to develop entrepreneurial skills and to ensure that Scotland remains competitive in delivering high-level skills and research and that the Scottish Executive should meet the funding bid from Universities Scotland for an additional £168 million funding over the next spending review period."

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I am sure that each of John Paul academy in Glasgow's Maryhill, Oban high school and Greenfaulds high in Cumbernauld deliver a vital service to students, parents and the wider community. Those schools are but three of 381 publicly funded secondary schools in Scotland. I am confident that every one of those schools is an asset to its community. Indeed, I am happy to describe them all as skills academies.

The Labour Party manifesto had a commitment to provide 100 skills academies. That is roughly a quarter of the overall number of secondary schools in Scotland—a significant proportion. It is important that the new Labour Opposition tells us whether the 100 schools that would have made the cut would have been the lucky ones at the expense of the others, or whether 281 schools would have been lucky to escape untouched. Who are the lucky ones, and who are the losers?

There is a sneaking suspicion that what is really being served up by new Labour in its motion is an end to the comprehensive education system. If so, the Labour Party should be deeply ashamed.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

Will the member give way?

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

No thank you.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

Do you not want a dialogue?

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

If Mr Henry does not mind, I would like to continue without being shouted down.

Only recently, the Conservatives in England got their cravats in a twist over grammar schools, and now new Labour in Scotland may be offering us the converse—ghetto grammars by stealth in some of our most vulnerable communities. Labour's ghetto grammars would not be about selection but about deselection by social class.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

No thank you.

New Labour's motion could even be a TARDIS to take us back to the dreaded days of junior secondaries and the "quali".

If the Labour Opposition wishes to work constructively with our new SNP Government, I am sure that it will want to engage with the Scottish skills strategy. If so, I am sure that we will see an expansion of the school-college partnerships and links, and that we will ensure that an increased number of suitable courses are brought on line for 14 to 16-year-olds to address the skills gap and best meet the needs of our youngsters.

There is a real need to tackle the issue of the number of youngsters in the group that is now described as NEET—youngsters who are not in education, employment or training. The Labour Opposition needs to be careful that it does not confuse the acronym NEET with another demonised acronym—ned. I was alarmed during the election campaign by Labour's idea of compulsion—keeping 16 and 17-year-olds in schools unless they were in employment or training. Why is that not mentioned in the new Labour motion today? May I suggest that a few Labour MSPs pop into a few random staff rooms across the country and run the idea past the teaching staff? Indeed, they should gauge the opinions of the pupils who make a positive choice to stay on beyond 16. The MSPs would quickly learn that their idea is not popular. It is not reasonable, it is unworkable and, more important, it completely admits Labour's defeat.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

Will the member give way?

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Yes.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

I am grateful. The chamber has noticed that the one member who has not followed the cabinet secretary's mode and tone happens to be an SNP member.

When in opposition, the SNP said before every spending round that further and higher education had to be a clear priority for funding. The SNP has now made funding commitments for road tolls and for accident and emergency centres. Why is it not prepared to make commitments for education?

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I am sure that Mr Purvis will put his views forward strongly during the spending review that is about to take place. Of course, we would all like more funding for schools; indeed, some funding might be available if we do not go ahead with the tram system in Edinburgh.

If, right now, youngsters had access to a worthwhile training course or job, they would be accessing that training course or job; and if any youngsters refused to do so, I could not think of a worse thing to do than to shoehorn them back into a classroom. We need imaginative and innovative plans to improve, expand or indeed replace existing training schemes—whether it is skillseekers, the modern apprenticeship scheme or the get ready for work initiative.

Let us work in an improved and more effective fashion with schools, local authorities, further education colleges, private companies and Government agencies, and let us improve the lot of our students and our business community. However, in doing so, we must ensure that no two-tier system is created whereby our most vulnerable, poor and disaffected youngsters are told, "You're off to the skills academy," while others from more affluent backgrounds can head off to the universities and be the professionals of tomorrow. Our Parliament must raise the aspirations of our youngsters, not stifle them. I fear that that would be the result of letting the Labour Party loose on our schools.

Let us reject the new Labour motion at decision time, and let us back our new Government's skills strategy, which is based on the needs of youngsters and businesses, and is based on fairness for all.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

We will engage with the skills strategy—but, yet again, for the SNP the idea of engagement seems to be one-sided. It is already rejecting Scottish Labour's proposals and, indeed, misrepresenting them.

It is fitting that Parliament's first debate on education in this session has been brought forward by Scottish Labour, because our party has put education and skills at the heart of the success of devolution. It is also a pleasure to make my first speech in this session. It hardly seems four years since I made my maiden speech as the Parliament's youngest member, but now I look around me and see that I appear to be one of the older members. The last four years have clearly taken a very heavy toll.

I would like to welcome the new ministers to their positions. There is much on which Fiona Hyslop and I disagree, but I wish her every success in her new role. We have worked constructively together on keeping open rural schools that are sustainable; I hope that we will see progress on that issue.

As a fellow MSP for North East Scotland, I would like in particular to welcome Maureen Watt to her new role and to wish her every success in it. She will be acutely aware of the great concern in Aberdeen at the council's £2 million cuts in schools' budgets, despite extra funding for schools from the previous Executive. The SNP is now part of the administration in Aberdeen, implementing that decision. I hope that that will also be an issue that ministers can address.

There is much to do. When we consider national issues such as creating a knowledge economy and fostering excellence in education and skills, Labour's record in the coalition Executive is one of which we are proud. The SNP will have to live up to it. However, we want even more progress in key areas. We need more school leavers who are proficient in science and technology, and more opportunities for young people to gain vocational skills. That is why we want more science teaching in schools—which has never been simply a post-16 agenda—and it is why we created modern apprenticeships and wanted 50,000 people to benefit from them every year.

A skills agenda is crucial. It can give young people better life opportunities and enable them to contribute to a successful Scotland. Our motion is not about denying opportunities; it is about creating more of them. The link between lifelong learning and economic success in the previous Executive worked, and it is regrettable that this Executive has broken that link. However, adopting some of our proposals today would go at least some way in mitigation.

Our proposals for skills academies have been widely welcomed by people who are concerned about the skills gaps in our workforce, which represent an opportunity cost for thousands of people who could take up those skilled jobs.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

Does Richard Baker agree that a principle behind funding for education should be that it should go where it is needed? In other words, funding should be provided school by school and area by area. As has already been said, a danger is inherent in Labour's proposals: they would undermine the comprehensive system of education that we are all so dedicated to.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

Mr Harper is rector of the University of Aberdeen and I know about his interest in these issues. We are certainly not seeking to undermine the comprehensive system, but extra funding is needed to give more people more skills and to encourage them to take up education and training.

In Aberdeen, employers, educators and trade unions are backing the proposal for a skills academy for energy and for oil and gas. Public agencies are taking those plans forward, and I agree with much of what Mr Purvis said, particularly the important points about higher and tertiary education funding. Some of the spectres raised about our proposals for skills academies do not apply. The skills academy proposed for Aberdeen will help to ensure that the city has a knowledge and skills base so that it can continue to be the energy capital of Europe. I would like to hear how this Executive will make progress with that initiative, as well as with proposals for skills academies in other areas.

I am proud that in the previous Executive, Labour and the Liberals hugely increased the funding for our universities and colleges, giving them a £1 billion budget for the first time. When will we hear about this Executive's budget for tertiary education?

I am proud that we put teaching and quality first. That must continue, because education is the key. Giving young Scots the skills to succeed, thus enabling Scotland to succeed, was the right priority for the previous Executive. We will do all that we can to ensure that it is a priority in this Parliament too.

Christopher Harvie (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I imagine that our whips are relieved that my maiden speech is on education. Although I have been a teacher all my life, I am a frustrated engineer. I was brought up in and around mines, coal cutter works, shipyards and steel works, and although there was not much chance of that continuing after the 1960s, the mark of the skilled man remains. For a decade after 1969, I was technologising learning in the Open University. People such as Jennie Lee, Walter Perry, Arthur Marwick and a very young me put together the world's first distance-learning institute from planning group to taught students in 18 months—think of that. It was substantially a Scots achievement.

Latterly, I have lived by teaching regional studies to young German economists who, in the words of that notorious Scottish teacher, Miss Jean Brodie, are the crème de la crème from the best economics faculty in Germany. That does and does not make us nostalgic for the Scots past. My students' fathers work for Bosch and Daimler-Benz and are much the same men—wee men wi a micrometer in one pocket an a file in the other—as those who ran the Clyde, and colonised the North Sea in the 1970s and 1980s, which was best described then as outer space with bad weather. I wrote about that incredible achievement in my book, Fool's Gold, on North Sea oil.

When thinking about the future of technologised manpower, we must bear it in mind that we have a 30,000-strong engineering workforce out there in oil fields worldwide. They have gone offshore, but they are still skilled Scots. One of our objects must be to bring them back to teach our people here. It is only by using ecological high tech and combining knowledge systems with skilled metal bashing that we will survive—hence my repeated stress on the need to get high technology from Europe back into Scotland. What are the educational implications of that?

Two summers ago I was in the Tübingen clinic for a minor operation. I shared a room with Joachim, a skilled worker from a huge plant called Schwörers on the Swabian Alb. His job might have been right out of the Grimm brothers' tales—he was a woodcutter. However, he was a woodcutter in charge of a sophisticated laser cutter and his work was concerned with programming and adapting an enormously expensive box of tricks to do different jobs every day. He was a grandfather at 49, well educated, he cycled 14 km to work every day, voted for the Greens, got Der Spiegel every week and was well read.

Something about him struck me and gave me my argument for this morning. What language did that German skilled worker speak? He spoke German. The fachsprache, or shop language, of sophisticated engineering in Europe is not English; it is German. English is probably spoken less in that context than previously because Britain and America are no longer industrial nations in the same sense—we do not do the metal bashing that gives Germany its industrial culture. Our universal English is much more restricted than we think—it does not reach the wee man in the overalls. On the red Clyde before 1914, that man's equivalents would have had a good knowledge of French and German. They might have had an unorthodox knowledge of conventional English, but they knew those languages.

We do not get anywhere with the mentality of "shout louder and they will understand"—although that tends to be a southern English mentality. Nor do we adapt by having a purely specialised education that does not extend to understanding and learning from other systems. Joachim benefited from the German dual system of education, which provided from the ages of 14 to 18, half by a firm and half by the education authority, a combination of technical and humanistic education. His wages were low during that period because the surplus was spent on his technical training. That was the best that Europe could provide. At the beginning of this decade, only 9 per cent of young Germans reached 18 without such training. In Scotland, the figure was nearer 25 per cent.

If people want a programme for such education and training, I recommend that they look in a little-known book called Where There's Greed: Margaret Thatcher and the Betrayal of Britain's Future. I wonder how many people in the chamber have read it. It is a sensible book about how manufacturing creates productivity and social gains. Its theme is that we must manufacture or die and we must have appropriate investment and training. Thank you, Gordon Brown. He wrote that book in 1989, but Where There's Greed seems to have long vanished from the Chancellor's memory. Under Gordon Brown, United Kingdom manufacturing declined from being 21 per cent of gross domestic product in 1997 to 15 per cent in 2003. Manufacturing in unfashionable, metal-bashing Germany contributed 24 per cent of GDP in 2004. The numbers of people employed in metal bashing in Britain fell by 30 per cent between 1997 and 2005. Hot money sloshing into the City and takeovers have been the compensation. What results do we see? Think who owns the Clyde shipyards. Think of this morning's headline about the billion-pound bribes.

It gets more exciting. The intelligent German worker who reads Der Spiegel will tell us that we are on the edge of peak oil when world reserves will not match demand. Oil was sold at $10 a barrel during the 1999 elections and we are at $65 a barrel now. Peak oil will take us to $182 for the barrel. Although we can expect great changes in what we have to teach, it will not be so great if we do not have the industry, transportation and, above all, the training to do it.

We have a weather window, as the oil men would say, but only just. That is what has brought me back to Scotland and that is why I am speaking to members today.

Ian McKee (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The last time that I spoke in the chamber, in the wealthier and fairer debate, I made the case that the people of Scotland are potentially our most valuable asset, but that if we do not help them to reach their full potential, we will lessen everybody's chances of becoming wealthier. I used the word "potential" deliberately. Today, we are not using that asset efficiently; indeed, in many cases, we are not using it at all. Scotland has the highest proportion in the developed world of teenagers not in education or employment. There are several reasons for that sad and shameful state of affairs, but first among them is the way in which our education system has not catered for the needs of those children.

We have spent so much time pressing the advantages of university education and opening the experience to as many people as possible that we have, by default, denigrated the career ambitions of those who neither want nor need the university experience. There have been two unfortunate consequences. Those who fall into the latter category often feel second rate. Many become demotivated and drop out of education and their job prospects suffer accordingly. Many of those who go to university also suffer. Pushed into degree courses that are sometimes inappropriate, although they end up with a degree, they have little chance of relevant employment. The car hire employee who recently drove me from my garage had a degree in media studies, but no hope of getting related employment. Her current job was her permanent job and she felt frustrated and let down by her experience.

In the widespread spirit of concord and co-operation that seems to permeate the Scottish Parliament these days, I welcome the intention behind new Labour's motion even if I cannot agree entirely with its content. By removing a cohort of children from mainstream general education and segregating them from others, as is implied in the motion, we would risk doing two things. We may give their schools a posh-sounding name such as skills academies, but the chances are that in a year or two they would gain the unfair and degrading reputation of being academic dustbins for those who are not university material. When I was a young pupil in England, the old secondary moderns had just that reputation. We do not want to take that risk and neither do the relevant trade organisations that are fed up with having their trades categorised as suitable only for those who are not bright enough to do anything else.

Bright, young would-be scientists, creamed off into science centres of excellence, would also suffer from not rubbing educational shoulders with their peers, whose abilities lie in other directions.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

Would the member apply the same logic to the existing centres of excellence that do exactly that, such as those in Plockton and Knightswood, but which still retain a good comprehensive education? Does he favour their abolition?

Ian McKee (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I am not in favour of abolishing any institution that is working. I cannot comment specifically on the institutions that the member has mentioned. My point is that if we had a major policy that involved the creation of 100 centres of excellence or skills academies, we would alter the course of education in Scotland so radically that the consequences could not easily be foreseen.

To enter medicine, I studied science at school, but a parallel course in English literature certainly enhanced my educational experience. I doubt that that would have been possible if I had been transferred into one of new Labour's institutions. We do not need such educational apartheid. It is far better to keep all pupils in mainstream education, but to enhance the importance of vocational education by expanding school-college partnerships and emphasising the parity of esteem of vocational and academic qualifications. Anyone who wants to find a good plumber, electrician or joiner in Edinburgh knows that to be the case.

Such is the importance of science and technology to the future of all of us that we need a much higher standard of teaching of those subjects in all our schools. Far from segregating potential scientists, we need to ensure that every child is enthused by science. How to attract and keep suitable science and technology teachers in our mainstream schools is the main challenge, and it will not be solved by the proposals that new Labour has put forward today.

Hugh O'Donnell (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

The debate has been excellent and it is clear from all the speeches that we have heard that everyone recognises—albeit from slightly differing perspectives—the importance of skills training and education. There is undoubtedly a skills shortage in Scotland and the latest report from the Scottish technology survey reinforces the fact that work still needs to be done in that sector if it is to succeed. However, the same issue is faced elsewhere in industry and commerce.

No one would argue against the essential role that education plays in the success of our economy, the social development of our communities and the personal development of arguably the most valuable asset that our country has—our children and our young people. Sadly, in recent years there has been a tendency for some politicians and sections of the media to demonise our young people and portray them as a problem and, ofttimes, to offer solutions that are just a step away from house arrest for everyone until they are 21.

I am pleased to say that Liberal Democrats have not been party to that knee-jerk reaction and have been at the forefront of supporting the reality that our progress as a nation can be no faster than our progress in education. Nothing else has the power of education to inspire and enable people and to equip them to reach their potential. Liberal Democrats reject the English model of reform that the Labour Party seems to be offering. In England, excellence is trumpeted, but the city academies involve just 0.1 per cent of English schools. Like the Association of Scotland's Colleges, we are unsure how skills academies would differ from the academies of the English model. As members have said, schools already have the ability to become specialists in specific subject areas—St Maurice's high school in Cumbernauld, which has chosen to focus on sport, is a fine example. In my view, skills academies would add little value and might exclude many.

That said, in focusing on skills, the debate undoubtedly addresses, at least in part, one of the most challenging areas in education.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

Does the member agree that there is another set of skills that is just as important as the technical skills that have been mentioned? Does he agree that self-confidence, social awareness, adaptability, empathy and the ability to communicate and to perform risk assessment should be treated with equal importance in our education system?

Hugh O'Donnell (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

As a member who is making only his second speech in the Parliament, I am slightly disturbed that Robin Harper has pinched some of my next lines; I will address his point.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

He must be a clairvoyant.

Hugh O'Donnell (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

He may well be.

We must ensure that the prospect of learning enthuses our young people and that everyone who is involved in educational provision offers a curriculum that not only enthuses our young people, but equips them with skills for work and life. Around 14 per cent of the young people in Scotland between the ages of 16 and 18 face significant obstacles in education, employment and training, and many of them have been deprived of encouragement and positive role models throughout their lives. They might have been brought up not to expect too much and might think that the prospect of going to college or university, or even that of getting a decent job, is well beyond them.

Much of that disaffection is born during their time at school, which is why, in our 2003 manifesto, Liberal Democrats explored the idea of expanding and formalising school-college partnerships for 14 to 16-year-olds. Indeed, the Scottish Qualifications Authority supported that approach through the development of new courses to enable young people to understand the needs of prospective employers. The employability skills that they acquire help candidates to become successful learners, confident individuals, responsible citizens and effective contributors.

A number of issues remain to be addressed, but unfortunately I do not have time to consider them all. However, as my colleague Jeremy Purvis said, much of the progress that was made by the previous Administration was made in the context of a clear strategic framework. I was pleased to hear what the cabinet secretary said and look forward to reading the strategy that will be produced.

Education must go beyond being just the provision of a production line of drones suitably equipped to provide employees for sectors of industry and commerce, regardless of their value to the economy. The aim of education should be to teach us how to think rather than what to think. It must encompass, from cradle to grave, support for the development of the individual as a participating, functioning person whose value to Scotland and sense of self-worth go beyond a decimal point on a balance sheet.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The Scottish Conservatives are delighted to have had an early opportunity to debate what is undoubtedly one of the most important policy issues that will determine the future progress of Scotland. In the Parliament's third session, it is important that we focus less on the ideology of education and far more on the practicalities that schools, colleges and universities face, of which there are many.

As Murdo Fraser said, the Scottish Conservatives have long been concerned about the need to develop a more consistent and coherent strategy on training in vocational skills, and we welcome Fiona Hyslop's recognition that the present situation is unsatisfactory.

In our view, future policy should be driven by three key themes. First, the overriding objective must be to provide a workforce that is fit for the challenges of the 21st century and which will allow Scotland to develop its full economic potential and its ability to compete successfully in the international community. We cannot ignore the concern of around a third of employers in Scotland—including many members of the Confederation of British Industry—that many school leavers are poorly prepared for work.

Secondly, the education system must be as flexible as possible so that it is better suited to the individual needs of youngsters whose aspirations may differ considerably. That means ensuring that youngsters at the age of 14 will have the opportunity to enter vocational training if they feel that pursuing full-time academic courses is not relevant to their abilities.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

Last night I attended a sixth formers leaving ceremony at Beeslack high school, at which the catering was provided by third-year students who are doing a vocational catering course. Tomorrow, students will be operating at the community school's creche. Does the member acknowledge that instead of separating out such training, which I think would divert funds away from what she is arguing for, we can provide it in our schools?

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I agree that the practices to which Mr Purvis refers are important, but I do not think that what we suggest would divert resources from them—that would not be appropriate at all.

A vocational approach to Scotland's education system would provide our young people with a career-focused programme that was designed to give secondary pupils a head start in their post-secondary careers. The Conservatives support the introduction of skills academies and science centres of excellence, although we acknowledge that there must be much more discussion of them. We regard such schools as an important milestone on the path away from a one-size-fits-all system towards having a much more diverse range of schools that would operate with much lighter state direction.

As well as specialising in vocational education and science, it is only logical that schools should be encouraged to specialise in music, drama, art, sports and other areas for which there is demand, such as technology. However, the idea that our young people should, in effect, be forced to stay on at school until they are 18 is, at best, reactionary. The notion that we can solve the problems of those many young people who want to escape from an educational environment in which they do not perform well by making them, through law, stay on at school is, in our opinion, ill thought out. It will do nothing to help solve the educational issues that many pupils face.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

Will the member take an intervention?

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Not on this one, thank you.

We must look at the practice in other European countries such as the Netherlands, Germany and Ireland, in which vocational training is incorporated in the education system. That removes the possible stigma of vocational skills being thought of as low-level skills, which they are not. Apprenticeships in such systems have a positive effect on youngsters' self-discipline. In that regard, I agree with Mr Harper's point about developing well-rounded individuals.

We should support much of the blue-skies thinking that is emerging from the curriculum for excellence programme. Much work remains to be done to put flesh on the bones, but there is a welcome recognition that more focus is needed on the teaching of life skills.

Thirdly, a coherent national framework that involves all levels of a youngster's educational experience must be developed. Many good initiatives exist throughout the country, but there is not always a national framework in which to fit them together, especially for the teaching of basic skills in reading, writing and arithmetic.

I restate my party's commitment to putting skills and vocational training at the top of the political agenda. We welcome much of what the minister said.

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I thank Hugh Henry for bringing the debate to Parliament. I also thank members from around the chamber who expressed their good wishes to Fiona Hyslop, Adam Ingram and me.

I support the points that were made by my colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, Fiona Hyslop. I look forward to the work ahead in developing the skills strategy for Scotland. We are committed to building on the existing strengths of the Scottish education system and to making changes only when they will enhance the learning experience of individuals, regardless of their stage of life. As members have said, to grow our economy we must strengthen our skills. Scotland is below the UK level in GDP per head and output per hour—that must be remedied. The conundrum is that although our workforce is better educated than that in many other countries, the strength of our economy does not reflect that. The Government is determined to remedy that situation, which is why we must develop a skills strategy to release the workforce's potential, for the benefit of all.

I agree with Elizabeth Smith that the job-for-life era is long gone. We need a workforce with a high level of general education that is capable and flexible and which can meet the demand for multiskilled workers, whether in the offshore industries or the medical profession. We must develop a culture in Scotland in which learning and continuous professional development are an integral part of a person's career. Training courses should result in universally recognised qualifications and develop transferable skills.

On my first visit to Germany as a 15-year-old, I was mightily impressed that a hairdresser whom I met had many qualifications that showed what she had done in her training. On later visits, I worked in hotels and restaurants and saw how everyone, from waiters to cleaning staff, had their skills recognised. In that context, I welcome the contribution that was made by Christopher Harvie in his maiden speech. We would all do well to remember its content.

People must be so equipped that they do not fear changing jobs, but accept that as a challenge with which they can cope. We must rekindle in people the excitement of learning, whether that means someone becoming competent in a new language as their company expands its markets overseas or a joiner adding wood-turning to his list of skills. We must ensure that those who re-enter the job market, full time or part time, after leaving their main employment feel that they have access to relevant training courses.

I come from the same constituency area as Mike Rumbles and I agree that we must be mindful of the needs of rural Scotland. Members will be aware that, in the previous parliamentary session, Stewart Stevenson and his Westminster colleague at the time, Alex Salmond, had to ensure that courses for the fishing industry were retained at Banff and Buchan College of Further Education in Fraserburgh. We must not get into a situation in which rural industries are at a disadvantage because local colleges do not run certain courses.

As Mike Rumbles knows, there are many educational opportunities in his constituency. For example, the secondary schools there access the skills of professionals from Aberdeen colleges, who go out to the schools. Such initiatives must be enhanced to ensure that education in urban and rural areas does not develop into a two-tier system.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

What is the SNP Government's position now on specialist schools? Does it favour the creation of more such schools, or does it just want to keep the ones we have?

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Perhaps there has been a mix-up in the debate about what skills academies and centres of excellence are. Their different aspects will be taken into account when we put together our skills strategy.

We must ensure that we do not return to the old secondary modern model. However, such a system is exactly what many Labour members have suggested is about to happen. They want to return to having secondary moderns, but the last thing that we should do is to pigeonhole and categorise children at a young age.

I remind members that the SNP does not reject Labour's proposals. However, I feel that the electorate rejected them at the election. We will look at the proposals and take them on board when we develop our skills strategy.

We believe that we must increase the opportunities for work-related education and strengthen links between schools and colleges, universities and businesses. We must create new chances for everyone to flourish personally in education and employment. We will involve the trade unions, because we recognise their vital role in driving the development of the workforce's skills and encouraging employers to utilise the potential of their workforce. We want better management of the workforce, in industry and the public sector, to ensure that job satisfaction is increased.

The stakeholders to whom we have spoken would be appalled at the prospect of the SNP amendment being voted down, because that would mean a vote against a skills strategy for Scotland. Is that really the message that the Parliament wants to send out?

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

I welcome the opportunity to wind up the debate. I also welcome what Christopher Harvie said in his opening speech, although I think that there are questions over the German education system—perhaps we will return to that another time. I warmly welcome the new ministerial team and I wish them well for the coming session.

I do not mind admitting that, many times over the past eight years, I dreamed of opening or closing a debate from the front benches; I also do not mind admitting that in none of those dreams was I standing on this side of the chamber. I intend no offence to the new ministerial team, but my dream was not to be the Parliament's next Adam Ingram—no offence to Adam. However, this morning, as I have done for the past five weeks, I woke up, looked at myself in the mirror and said, "Embrace the new politics." That mantra is repeated every day by my Labour colleagues, particularly my friend Hugh Henry, as members would have been able to tell from his opening remarks. In that spirit, I welcome all the speeches that have been made. Indeed, we probably could not have picked a better debate to allow us to embrace the new politics and reach agreement across party lines.

To echo a comment that my colleague Richard Baker made, my one disappointment—sorry, I am slipping into the old ways again; I mean my one surprise—is that, one month into the new Administration, it is the Labour Party that has introduced the first debate on education. I am genuinely perplexed by that. It was extraordinary that the First Minister did not mention education at all in his priorities for government speech. On growing the economy, two of the biggest weapons in the Parliament's armoury are the devolved control over transport infrastructure and the control over the key supply-side measure of developing skills through education, which we are debating. If I had been waiting all my life for the opportunity to govern Scotland, I would be a man in a hurry and would be desperate to put my policies in place. However, this morning we have had an announcement that we are going to develop a strategy. That is welcome, but I thought that we would have more dynamism.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I do not know whether the member was in the chamber when we debated the Government's wealthier and fairer objective, but if he was he would know that every speech in the open debate, and my closing speech, addressed exactly the points that he raises. We have put the education and lifelong learning portfolios together because we want a lifelong learning approach to skills, which, unfortunately, we have not had in the past. We want to build on the previous Executive's work. If we believe genuinely in the new politics, let us embrace it and have the Labour Party's contribution to the Scottish skills strategy.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

On a positive note, there is little in the SNP's amendment with which we disagree, so we have an opportunity for consensus. I reassure Fiona Hyslop, Bob Doris, Ian McKee and others that our proposals are not about segregation or separation. There is a difficult argument to be had about choice, but our proposals are not about selection.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will the member give way?

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

In a second.

I reassure the SNP that we have no intention of sidelining colleges, as they are one of Scotland's success stories and are at the heart of the skills agenda. However, from all the speeches that we have heard in the debate and from the views that we have heard from throughout Scotland, there is no doubt that we have a pressing skills shortage in Scotland, although there is also no doubt that we can address it. Of course, there will be pitfalls in any approach that we take. Many members, including Jeremy Purvis and Hugh O'Donnell, have flagged up pitfalls in our approach. I do not accept the comparisons with the situation in England, but I accept the fear, which Fiona Hyslop and Maureen Watt expressed, about creating a two-tier system. We must not promote one agenda—the needs of employers—over another agenda, which is the need to enthuse and motivate pupils and to engage those who are not engaged.

I have even been reassured that the Tories are making the right noises on the issue. Grammar schools, of course, are the flip-side of secondary modern schools, but we know from the debate of the past few weeks that there is absolutely, totally, finally no intention to return to grammar schools—unless, of course, they already exist or local parents want them. So that is absolutely clear. However, in the spirit of the new politics, I assure Murdo Fraser that we will support his amendment.

Another pitfall is that employers and tradespeople do not want the vocational option to be second best or to be used to provide schools for the disruptive, for academic rejects or for any other rejects. They want young people to choose the vocational route as a proper option and they want equity. I believe that skills academies and science centres of excellence address that. All sides have agreed for many years that the key to making the policy a success lies in driving up the status of vocational education. Young people must grasp such education as a genuine opportunity—to use the popular expression, they must have buy-in—and they must see the option as truly equitable.

The beauty of skills academies is that they achieve just that. They attract extra resources and build on the success of the skills for work programme. Labour has a range of policies to address the issue and the needs of the age group that we are talking about, such as the policies on skills academies and science centres of excellence and a full employment agency. We also have what has been called the policy of raising the school leaving age to 18, although it is actually about ensuring that all 16 and 17-year-olds are not allowed to drift, but are given a job, voluntary work, education or training. Those policies address young people's individual needs and the skills shortage that is being experienced throughout the economy. In the spirit of the new politics, I ask the new Administration to embrace Labour's manifesto.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — General Questions

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

To ask the Scottish Executive what its priorities are for culture in Scotland. (S3O-123)

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Our priority is to do whatever we can to help Scotland's varied and vibrant culture continue to flourish. I plan to meet a wide range of interested people soon to gather ideas about exactly how we make progress on that.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

I wish the minister all the very best in what I know is an enjoyable but challenging portfolio.

Investment in culture in Scotland has doubled since devolution and the previous Administration agreed a £20 million increase in funding. Will the minister assure me that her Administration will continue that record funding of the arts in Scotland? If she cannot assure me of that, will she tell the Parliament what she intends to cut?

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I have inherited many good things from the previous Executive, for which I thank Patricia Ferguson. However, a new and fresh Administration obviously wants to look anew at how it progresses. I intend to do that in the next few weeks, after which I will happily come back to the Parliament with ideas and plans. I hope that, on many issues, we can make progress together for the benefit of the arts and culture in Scotland.

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Western Isles)

In the Government's cultural policy, what place will be given to the future of Gaelic? Given the worrying situation in which tiny numbers of children in Scotland use Gaelic in everyday life, will an element of urgency on the issue now enter Government policy?

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I understand Mr Allan's concerns. At present, we provide local authorities with Gaelic-specific grant funding toward the cost of providing Gaelic education in their areas. Gaelic may be studied by learners in primary school through the Gaelic language in the primary school programme. Bòrd na Gàidhlig recently published its education strategy as part of the national plan for Gaelic. Among other things, the strategy seeks to expand the availability of Gaelic language in primary schools and the availability of suitably qualified teachers throughout Scotland. I look forward to further discussions with Bòrd na Gàidhlig, as soon as I can have them, about how the Government can best support the implementation of the national plan. I intend to consider a range of options for improving access to Gaelic for learners and to Gaelic-medium education, including the creation of a right to Gaelic-medium education where reasonable demand exists. I also intend to consider how we might increase support for Gaelic in the home and in communities.

Ted Brocklebank (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I welcome Linda Fabiani to her first question time and look forward to hearing her develop her views on the arts in Scotland.

Will the minister get involved personally in helping to further Scotland's cultural heritage, in line with the Scottish National Party's manifesto? I ask the question in the light of a letter, which I have here, dated 19 October 2005, from one Alex Salmond, a distinguished graduate of the University of St Andrews, in which he offers his personal support for the campaign to achieve world heritage site status for the ancient city of St Andrews. Will the minister meet me to discuss how she and, I hope, the First Minister might help to advance the St Andrews bid?

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I admire the perseverance with which Ted Brocklebank has for some time pursued that admirable aim of his. I am always happy to meet my opposite numbers to advance Scotland's culture and heritage. I look forward to meeting him to discuss the issue further.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

I congratulate the minister on her appointment.

Will the minister acknowledge the success of the previous Government's youth music initiative, which allows local authorities such as mine—North Lanarkshire—to invest in free specialist music tuition for children? Will she confirm that the initiative will continue? Does she agree that the initiative is important, not only in nurturing our young people's talents, but in building their confidence and self-esteem, as can be seen vividly each year at North Lanarkshire's schools concert, when approximately 1,000 young people play the Glasgow royal concert hall?

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I agree with Karen Whitefield, with whom I have attended those concerts many times. North Lanarkshire Council has an extremely vibrant and forward-looking way of dealing with music tuition in schools, which is summed up every year in the concert.

I am considering the youth music initiative, which was supported by the SNP when it was introduced. I would be happy for access to be widened even further in schools so that all children can have the opportunity to learn to play musical instruments. Cathy Peattie, who is sitting beside Karen Whitefield, had a bugbear about the importance of the voice as a musical instrument. I am looking forward to learning much more about the initiative and how we can use it to best advantage.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I, too, welcome Linda Fabiani to her new role. It was not that many years ago that we sat together on the Holyrood progress group, which I thought took considerable bravery on her part. I am pleased to see her in her new job.

Is Linda Fabiani aware of the importance of commercial film and television production in Scotland, which has the potential to be a great economic activity? Does she acknowledge the particularly important part played by the Scottish Highlands and Islands Film Commission in attracting new films and television productions to Scotland? Will she undertake to ensure that Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the other agencies involved with the commission work together constructively to achieve more in this important area of work for the country?

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Tavish Scott is absolutely right. Scotland has a potentially great film industry, which is why the Executive will examine how well the United Kingdom tax incentive works in attracting films to Scotland. Depending on the outcome, and after examining similar schemes in other countries, we will proceed with our plans to develop a new scheme, to ensure that Scotland can compete on equal terms to attract and produce high-quality items.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, West of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what progress is being made with the proposal to implement a local income tax. (S3O-94)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The Government is committed to abolishing the unfair council tax as part of our agenda to create a wealthier and fairer Scotland. We will announce in due course detailed proposals to introduce a local income tax.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Does the cabinet secretary recognise that there is no inherent, popular public support for that dangerous policy? If there were, surely the former junior partners in the previous coalition would be standing where he is standing, instead of withering on the vine and contemplating some judicious summer pruning. Does he recall that last week, in response to a question from Annabel Goldie, the First Minister said merely that he saw a "difficulty" with our proposal to give pensioner households a 50 per cent council tax rebate? A difficulty is not an objection in principle. Surely he will not let a little difficulty stand in the way. Will he commit now to work with the Conservatives to secure that vital relief for Scotland's pensioners, whatever the torrid fate of his local income tax plans?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Mr Carlaw misjudges the situation. On my left and my right, I am surrounded by the former junior partners in the coalition, who enthusiastically support the local income tax and the abolition of the council tax. He should explore the new politics a tad further before he jumps to such conclusions.

To reinforce what the First Minister said last week, we do not support the Conservatives' proposal to discount the council tax for all pensioners, because it does not take into account the ability to pay. One of the fundamental points in the Government's approach to local taxation is that we want to make it affordable for everyone in Scotland and to relate it to the ability to pay. In the short term, we will concentrate minds on freezing the council tax and on moving to the abolition of the council tax and the introduction of a fair system of local income tax, which of course will require support for legislation from Parliament. I look forward to enthusiastic support for that legislation from those sitting on my left and my right.

Marilyn Livingstone (Labour, Kirkcaldy)

To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to increase the number of students training as British Sign Language interpreters. (S3O-135)

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

The Scottish Government is committed to increasing the number of British Sign Language interpreters in Scotland. Our approach is focused on developing and supporting the infrastructure to deliver long-term change, including supporting a graduate diploma in teaching British Sign Language tutors at Heriot-Watt University. However, we recognise that we also need to encourage students to come forward to undertake training as interpreters and have provided funding to the Scottish Association of Sign Language Interpreters to explore additional and innovative routes for the training of BSL/English interpreters, such as apprentice schemes and work-based learning.

The Government's BSL and linguistic access working group is also specifically looking at how to increase the number of BSL interpreters working in Scotland. The working group will deliver its recommendations early next year.

Marilyn Livingstone (Labour, Kirkcaldy)

I have recently held public consultations in the Fife sensory impairment centre, at which the shortage of BSL interpreters, which the minister mentioned, was raised continually. Does the Executive have any plans to address the issue by including BSL as part of the secondary school curriculum?

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

The Government accepts the need to explore additional ways in which it can further increase the number of registered BSL/English interpreters. In the previous session of Parliament, the previous First Minister promised to double the number of BSL interpreters, but there has been an increase of only about 20 per cent. Clearly, there is much further to go on the issue. The Scottish Executive's equality unit has recruited a BSL and linguistic access project manager with expertise in BSL to develop a detailed plan for improving linguistic access for deaf, deaf-blind and hard of hearing people.

The member mentioned the curriculum, which, in Scotland, is not prescribed by statute. However, it is important that we help children in school who have such difficulties to communicate effectively. I will certainly encourage as much as possible the ability of children to use BSL in and outwith school.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Executive what progress is being made on the development of new renewable energy schemes. (S3O-115)

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Support is provided to renewable energy projects through the renewables obligation Scotland and though grant support. Grant offers have been made to a range of companies to help them develop wave, tidal, biomass and hydrogen projects throughout Scotland, and I will consider what further support is necessary.

In addition, we recognise the importance of grid access and suitable transmission charging and will raise those issues with the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets, National Grid and the Department of Trade and Industry. In all that work, I will listen carefully to the views of the energy sector and other stakeholders. Those views will inform our energy strategy for Scotland.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

How will the minister encourage the use of renewable power sources—including on-site generation—in new public buildings, such as schools? How will he ensure that local Scottish renewables companies—such as Burntisland Fabrications Ltd in Fife, whose Methil facility produces wind turbines—will benefit?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

We will build on the success of the Scottish community and household renewables initiative, which I am told has played a significant role in transforming the small-scale market. We will make it clear that we will push more local community microgeneration. That will help the majority of smaller Scottish businesses; encourage more investment; contribute to the sustainable economic growth that we seek; and increase not only competitiveness in Scotland but competitiveness in exporting those technologies. That will mean that more wealth is retained in Scotland, ensure a cleaner, safer environment and put more people in compelling, rewarding and sustainable work.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

The minister will be aware of the Scottish biomass support scheme, which is now closed, with all the money having been committed. Many companies with excellent schemes were disappointed, not least one or two in my constituency. Is he aware that there is concern in parts of the industry that a number of the schemes to which money was already awarded will not go ahead? If that turns out to be the case, will he explain what will happen if there is an underspend on that SBSS funding? Will the funding go back into biomass schemes?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I am considerably less worried about an underspend, given the recent DTI proposals on renewables obligation certificate banding and the potential for those proposals to be implemented. The prospect of double ROCs for combined heat and power biomass projects will make an enormous difference to the bankability of such projects. Early modelling indicates that they will be very much more viable, very much more bankable and very much more likely to attract further investment.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether the remuneration of foster carers will be included in its fostering strategy. (S3O-167)

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

A fostering and kinship care strategy will be published later in 2007 and a range of measures to support children in foster care and their carers will be addressed. Those will include remuneration.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I refer the minister to motion S3M-80 in my name, which addresses the fact that 37 per cent of foster carers receive no remuneration and that two thirds of them receive less than the minimum wage. I advise him that, although full-time foster carers receive a lump sum of up to £500 for replacement of appliances, such as washing machines, as a result of wear and tear, respite carers receive nothing. Will he consider introducing a sliding scale of payment, so that respite carers, who provide vital support to full-time foster carers, are not disadvantaged?

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Christine Grahame is right to identify an anomaly affecting respite carers in the current allowances scheme for carers. That example highlights the general lack of a level playing field for carers in respect of the support that they are currently able to access from local authorities. Respite carers, who look after children who need to live apart from their birth families temporarily, deserve to be supported properly. I assure the member that the strategy that I will bring forward later this year will address the issues of allowances and other support for all carers, whatever their official designation.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I call Margo MacDonald.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

I do not need to ask my question because, happily, the minister has already answered it.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Feel free not to ask it.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Because people who foster their grandchildren, often in difficult circumstances, are classed as kinship carers, rather than foster carers, many of them receive little or no support, which leads to hardship. What steps will the Executive take to ensure that local authorities provide grandparents with the same level of support that they provide to other foster carers?

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

We fully intend that the national fostering and kinship strategy will live up to its name in a meaningful way. I am examining ways of developing support for kinship carers, including grandparents. There are two fundamental problems that we need to address in the fostering strategy. First, as more and more children come into the system for care and protection, demand is running ahead of supply. We need to attack that problem both by increasing the number of carers and by developing early interventions to reduce the number of children entering the system. Secondly, we must improve the quality of provision for looked-after children, whose outcomes remain poor: we can and must do better. Training for carers will be a key aspect of the strategy.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

To ask the Scottish Executive how it will ensure that peaceful protest does not hinder access to roadways. (S3O-113)

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

Police forces and local authorities, working with other agencies, as appropriate, are responsible for ensuring that protest events result in the minimum level of disruption to the local community. Issues such as maintaining public safety and managing access to the road network are key elements of police and local authority activity during such events.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

The cabinet secretary will be aware of the significant disruption that is caused to people living on the Rosneath peninsula by the illegal blockades that are being carried out by Faslane 365 protestors. Students are missing examinations, carers are unable to get to older people, and other people are unable to get to work. He will also be aware that the SNP supports Faslane 365, the organisation that is responsible for the blockades. Imagine my surprise when I was told in a letter from Alex Salmond's office that the SNP's support does not extend to blockades of adjacent roads. There is only one road into and out of the peninsula, and supporters of Faslane 365 are blockading it quite deliberately. Will the cabinet secretary therefore encourage the First Minister to withdraw his support for that illegal action?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

The member will be aware from yesterday's debate that this Government believes in rights and responsibilities. There is a right to protest and to march, but, equally, there is a responsibility to take account of the rights of individual citizens and communities. It might be de rigueur or appropriate elsewhere to seek to abandon or abrogate rights that are viewed as sacrosanct, but that is not something that this Government will support. People have rights, but we ask people to acknowledge that they have a responsibility to other citizens and to communities.

First Minister's Question Time

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-27)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I have a number of important engagements that I am prepared to speak about, and an important meeting on the Commonwealth games, which I know will have Jack McConnell's support and the support of all parties in the Parliament.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The campaign by Glasgow and Scotland to win the 2014 Commonwealth games has the full support of all members on the Labour benches.

Does the First Minister agree that one of the first responsibilities of a Government is to ensure public safety and to protect the innocent and convict the guilty? Does he agree that Governments should take all possible steps to achieve that?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Yes. That is exactly why the Cabinet Secretary for Justice set out our strategy for crime and reoffending, to make Scotland not just a stronger place but a safer place for all in society.