Scottish Parliament, 31 January 2008

509 contributions from 90 members. The official report.

Official Report 31 January 2008

Passenger Transport

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S3M-1246, in the name of Des McNulty, on accessible passenger transport and the national concessionary fares scheme.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

Yesterday, Mr Brownlee and Mr McLetchie met the Scottish National Party high command—another day, another dirty deal from the right-wing alliance. Recently, Tory concerns over the bus service operators grant were deemed so important that they were raised at First Minister's question time, but the Tory trumpet was laid aside as soon as the walls of Jericho looked like being breached. Even being generous, one could hardly describe the Conservative amendment as being forward looking, but perhaps—just perhaps—other parties have priorities that mean that disabled people and fare-paying passengers can be neglected for the moment.

The Government claims to be at the forefront of reducing carbon emissions, which in transport can best be achieved through modal shift—encouraging people out of their cars and on to public transport. Buses are the most widely used form of passenger transport. They are vital for those who do not have ready access to a private car, and they are the most flexible alternative to car use for those who do. Over the past 10 years, more than £400 million has been invested in new vehicles that are in service in Scotland—more than 4,000 cleaner, more accessible buses for Scotland's passengers. In 2006-07, bus operators increased commercial bus service mileage by 8.8 per cent over the previous year, travelling an additional 16 million miles.

Continuation of that investment and service growth is vital if progress is to be made in addressing climate change. Why, when the United Kingdom Government is providing support to maintain services and hold down fares south of the border, is the SNP Government tilting the playing field against bus users and bus operators by capping the bus service operators grant north of the border? Why are the Tories and the Greens supporting the Government?

There should be incentives for those who provide more accessible services or who invest in more environmentally friendly vehicles. However, newer, Euro-standard engines, which emit fewer pollutants, use more fuel, and wheelchair-accessible buses are typically heavier and also use more fuel. If the Scottish Government withholds money to offset fuel duty, national operators will have a perverse incentive to put into service in other parts of the UK vehicles that are newer or more accessible or which have lower emissions, resulting in poorer-quality services, unhappy passengers and an ageing fleet in Scotland.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Will the member tell me the average fuel consumption of a Euro 4 bus and a Euro 1 bus, to justify his claim that they use more fuel?

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

I refer the minister to the technical experts and the operators, who are clear that that is the case.

The Government has produced allocations for the bus service operators grant that it knows are inadequate. It anticipates legitimate audited claims totalling £5 million in excess of budget in 2007-08 and 2008-09. However, it is the refusal to match the UK Government's support for the bus industry that makes it more likely that fares will be jacked up, frequency of services reduced and routes cut in Scotland than in other parts of the UK. Further, rural Scotland will suffer most.

It is not just the bus service operators grant allocation that is inadequate. The provision to fund the concessionary fares scheme is well below current funding levels, despite evidence of increasing passenger uptake. I have no problem with the Government seeking to drive a hard bargain with bus operators, but all the evidence suggests that those allocations will precipitate a funding crisis for the concessionary fares scheme, if not this year then next. If the Scottish Government is unwilling to make adequate financial provision for the scheme, it must take responsibility, not pass the costs on to fare-paying passengers.

It is arguable that the concessionary travel scheme for elderly and disabled people that was pioneered by the Labour-Liberal Democrat Administration is, along with the smoking ban, the greatest achievement of devolved government. It is being copied elsewhere in Britain.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Would the member care to identify any difference between the concessionary fares scheme that is operating now and the one that his party introduced?

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

The point is to change it and to improve it.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

So Labour got it wrong.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

No. We want to see it improved.

The success of the scheme has raised the hopes not only of SNP backbenchers but of members on this side of the chamber that the scheme could be extended to cover those who are on the lower rate of disability living allowance. They are currently excluded, even though people in that category were previously eligible for free travel under regional schemes in some parts of the country.

Mr Salmond's customary smirk turned into a scowl yesterday when he was questioned about the abolition of the Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland. Perhaps he knew that members of that body would be among those arguing most strongly in favour of the change that is proposed in the motion. They are joined by organisations such as Enable Scotland and Capability Scotland, which were mentioned in a motion on concessionary travel in the name of Angela Constance, which many members from all sides of the chamber signed. My colleague Charlie Gordon lodged a similar motion, once again attracting substantial cross-party support. Why, then, will the minister not accept the views of those behind him as well as those in front of him—I am thinking of the disability organisations to which the First Minister said yesterday he would be responsive—and extend the scheme to all those who qualify for disability living allowance. While the minister is considering that reasonable request, he may wish to reflect on the terms of a motion that he lodged in 2006, which called for community transport to be brought within the concessionary travel scheme, allowing older and disabled people in rural areas where there are few alternatives the vital opportunity to get around.

I am sure that there are other opportunities for improving the scheme at little or no extra cost. In view of the subsidies that are already paid by the Government in support of rail services, what would be the marginal cost of allowing older and disabled people off-peak access to local train services, filling empty seats, as happens in greater Manchester? The chance to build on one of the solid achievements of devolution, while contributing significantly to social inclusion and climate control, should be grasped. Regrettably, the dance between the SNP, the Tories and the Greens over who can claim what when their deal over the budget is clinched means that disabled people must wait and bus passengers must suffer.

I hope that Parliament will support the motion. Labour will support the Liberal Democrat amendment. Members should give careful consideration not just to my views but to the arguments of passengers, operators, disability groups, representatives of rural areas and other MSPs. If the minister cares to re-read the speech that he gave in 2006 on community transport, he may even agree with himself.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the importance of accessible passenger transport to achieving the Scottish Government's climate change objectives and in tackling the significant inequalities in Scottish society; expresses concern over capped allocations for reimbursement for concessionary travel and the Bus Service Operators Grant over the next three years and the implications for fare-paying passengers; urges ministers to reconsider their decision not to increase the Bus Service Operators Grant in line with the support given by the UK Government to bus service providers in England and Wales; calls on ministers to urgently review the national concessionary travel scheme to extend eligibility to disabled people in receipt of the lower rate of disability allowance and to older and disabled people using community transport in rural areas, enabling these extensions to be introduced by the parliamentary summer recess, and invites ministers to consult users, passenger service operators and the Parliament on other desirable changes to the scheme.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

I welcome the opportunity to debate these important and interlinked issues. Greater accessibility for all will best be delivered by co-operation among and joint initiatives involving the voluntary sector, commercial bus operators, local authorities and the Government. That was the approach of the previous Administration, and it resulted in more investment in new routes, cleaner engines and more accessible buses. It brought greater access, freer movement, less isolation and modal shift. Investment from local authorities and the Government in bus infrastructure, such as bus priority measures, real-time information and park and ride, has demonstrably led to improved provision. We have heard from Des McNulty about the investment of £450 million in new vehicles and the 8.8 per cent increase in the mileage covered by buses.

Buses are often the best and most cost-effective public transport solution in many parts of Scotland. Flexible and responsive, they reach the parts that other heavy infrastructure does not. Community transport and demand-responsive transport weave a web, joining it all up and providing cost-effective solutions in remote and rural areas and areas that are ill-served by commercial services. For a truly integrated public transport system, we need to support community transport and DRT. The Government's proposed changes to DRT support have unsettled those who work in the sector. The 2006 review of DRT services, which the previous Executive commissioned, recommended that the rules for the BSOG should be amended to include more DRT operations and that there should be increased support for community transport. Moves by Tavish Scott to respond to those recommendations and to build capacity at a regional level have been undone by the decision to remove responsibility from regional partnerships and end the ring fencing that secured that valuable service.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Will the member take an intervention?

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

No. I am sorry, but I have lots to say this morning.

DRT is the flexible friend of the traditional bus; it helps to tackle dispersed demand in a cost-effective way. The day-to-day service is influenced by the demands of the users, which ensures that long, tortuous routes do not need to be developed to pick up everyone who might want to travel and that people are more encouraged to use the bus. It is a bespoke service—the Savile Row of bus services.

Using new technology, such as the global positioning system, routing software and call centres, provides opportunities to increase the benefits of community transport and local authority transport in a more coherent way. We should do more of that.

The SNP professes to be in favour of public transport, but the draft budget tells a different story and reveals a distinct lack of support for it. We see cuts in the bus service operators grant and concessionary fares and the ending of schemes such as the DRT grant, the rural public transport grant, the bus route development grant, the public transport fund and the integrated transport fund. Over the next three years, the Government is cutting funding for bus services by 9.2 per cent in real terms. There is not one mention of support for local bus services in its spending priorities for local government in the budget document.

The SNP is uncomfortable this morning, because the reality is that it has raided the budget for support for buses and concessionary fares to pay for big promises elsewhere; it is short-changing passengers and undermining investment.

As Mr McNulty said, the concessionary fares scheme has been a great success. With Lib Dem transport ministers in the previous Executive, we led the United Kingdom with a free travel scheme for elderly and disabled passengers that benefits more than a million Scots. That groundbreaking initiative was rolled out to include discounted fares for young people, which benefits a further 200,000 Scots. The scheme has been due to have a review, and it is time to embark on it.

The full benefits of concessionary fares are not felt in rural areas and areas that are less well served by traditional bus services because community transport services are not currently eligible to take part in the scheme. I would like that to be resolved sooner rather than later.

Changing the eligibility of lower mobility claimants is also something to be aspired to, and that, too, must be resolved.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Will the member take an intervention?

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

No, I will not. I have lots to say.

I recognise that such changes will require extra provision in the budget. The agreement with bus operators for the first three years is that they should be no better off, and no worse off, as a result of the scheme. An extension of eligibility will mean that further funding will have to be made available to ensure that that remains the case.

We know that the Government's decisions mean that the budget is under pressure, and I have already heard talk of how the Government is planning to restrict demand. Sadly, it is possible that we will see less eligibility, not more.

During the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee's investigations into the Government's budget, I revealed that bus operators in England and Wales are now benefiting from compensation for the higher fuel duty bills that they face, but that there are no plans to introduce a similar proposal in Scotland.

The BSOG helps bus operators to assist passengers by keeping fares down and retaining marginally viable routes. The grant is mileage based and is therefore especially important for rural areas.

Bus operators have planned and budgeted for a fair deal on fuel duty compensation in line with the rest of the United Kingdom. Some of the improvements that bus operators have invested in, such as Euro-standard engines and wheelchair-accessible buses, use more fuel, thus increasing costs.

Operators and passengers are entitled to feel let down by this Government. The situation will be particularly damaging for small rural service operators, which are already at full stretch financially. If bus operators are not adequately compensated for the fuel duty that they pay, their only options are to cut services or raise fares. The result will be greater pressure on local authorities to pick up services that are no longer commercial.

The bus industry cannot be expected to continue to deliver patronage growth and modal shift and contribute to a reduction in emissions if the Government increases the tax on fuel and squeezes the concessionary travel reimbursement. Sadly, the evidence points to a Government that is willing to pass on to others responsibility and costs for the provision of a sustainable public transport network. The losers will be bus passengers and the environment.

I move amendment S3M-1246.2, to insert at end:

"recognises the valuable contribution that Demand Responsive Transport (DRT) can make to social inclusion and accessibility, particularly in rural areas and for disabled and elderly passengers; notes with concern that the Scottish Government's budget has caused uncertainty over the future of DRT provision; considers that expansion of DRT is an essential aspect of improving accessibility in Scotland, and therefore calls on ministers to end the uncertainty and develop DRT services in Scotland."

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I welcome this Labour debate on transport, even if it seemed that Mr McNulty had not read the Green amendment before he accused us of supporting the Government on the level of the BSOG.

The debate gives us an opportunity to examine some comments that have been made by Labour and Liberal Democrat MSPs on transport. For example, during the budget debate last week, Iain Gray said:

"we suggest that the Government invest a little less in Scotland's tarmac and a little more in Scotland's talent".

In the same debate, Des McNulty said that he hoped that the Greens were listening as he complained that

"This Government is putting more money into roads and diverting money away from rail and other public transport."—[Official Report, 23 January; c 5304, 5359.]

Alison McInnes has been quoted in the press making many of the same criticisms.

That is interesting and even exciting. If we got an answer to the question of which road projects Labour and the Liberal Democrats now want to be scrapped—I have a list to choose from—we would be really on to something. If we got agreement on that, we could set the cat among the pigeons. However, I suspect that we will not reach an agreement. I suspect that Labour and the Liberal Democrats, Scotland's finest purveyors of climate-wrecking road projects since 1999, are being the tiniest bit disingenuous in those attacks. I want to see less road building, and I have to say that the Greens are the only party that is doing anything about that.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

I notice that Brian Adam has moved away from Patrick Harvie, but, in crafting his amendment, did the SNP come to Patrick Harvie, or did he go to the SNP? How much of it is his words and how much of it is the SNP's words?

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Brian Adam's movements are no concern of mine, and the words in the amendment are my own.

It is clear that real changes are needed in the SNP's spending plans on transport. Even if there is not a majority for scrapping the more ludicrous road projects, I hope that there will be a majority for improving the public transport offer.

A real-terms cut in the BSOG, which is indicated by the SNP's current plans, would feed through to higher fares and reduced services for passengers throughout the spending review period. If members in the Parliament are remotely serious about the familiar aspiration of modal shift, we cannot tolerate that.

Throughout my lifetime, there has been a long-term trend towards ever more expensive public transport, while the cost of owning and running a car has stayed pretty much the same in real terms and is much more affordable. It should be clear that if we want the transport sector to pull its weight in the transformation that climate change demands, we must reverse that trend. If the sector does not pull its weight in moving towards the 80 per cent cut and we get, for example, only a 50 per cent cut from it, we will need a 90 per cent cut from the rest of the economy. That option is unacceptable.

We need to do more than express concern about the level of the BSOG; we need to make a clear call for a substantial increase, and my amendment does that, although only for 2008-09. We must also take a longer-term look at the grant. It is still basically fuel-related, so we are potentially subsidising less efficient vehicles. I hope that we will take a more thorough look at potential restructuring, so that we pay to move passengers rather than to burn fuel.

As for concessionary travel, there is a strong case for reviews not only by Government but by Parliament, with the objectives of maximising public benefit, making public transport more accessible, getting the best value for public money and ensuring that our systems for delivering the scheme do not replicate all that is worst about many information technology systems in Government. There are privacy issues, as the scheme mirrors aspects of the UK's identity register scheme. Such measures are not necessary for the provision of bus passes.

I hope that the Government and all political parties are willing to take those ideas on board.

I move amendment S3M-1246.1, to leave out from "expresses concern" to end and insert:

"recognises that it is vital that accessible and affordable public transport is available to help the Scottish Government to meet its climate change objectives and to ensure the continuation of vital urban and rural services; calls on the Scottish Government to provide a substantial increase in the budget for the Bus Service Operators Grant in 2008-09 and to consider keeping fares more affordable for the longer term; notes the Scottish Government's intention to review the national concessionary travel scheme, and calls on ministers during that review to ensure that they maximise the benefits for the public throughout Scotland while guaranteeing the best return on a scheme which represents a significant investment of public money."

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

It is my pleasure to speak in the debate, essentially to support the Greens' amendment and to move a small amendment to it.

The process that we now go through in this Parliament is different from the one that existed in recent years. I am delighted that I have the full and undivided attention of the Labour Party, because I will address Labour members in the first instance. I remind them that something happened last May and that they are no longer in government. That means that, regardless of what they may think, they are no longer in a position to force—belligerently—their views on the Parliament.

Now, with a minority Government, when we debate subjects such as this, each of us in the Parliament must seek to take possession of the issues in proportion to our efforts and the work that we have done previously—whether the motion is lodged by the Labour Party, the minority Government, the Liberals or even the Greens. That means that Des McNulty this morning is in the unique position of having managed to isolate himself on a subject on which most of us agree with him.

Today, we are trying to build a composite amendment—a term that Labour members should understand well, as the Scottish Trades Union Congress and Labour Party conferences usually work on that basis—that will deliver a majority vote in the Parliament. That is why I, as a Conservative, find myself in the unusual position of supporting a Green party amendment. That amendment makes two key recommendations that the Conservative party supports.

Annabel Goldie raised the issue of the bus service operators grant at First Minister's question time before Christmas, and we continue to work to overcome the problems with the grant. We continue to be strong on that issue.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

Will the member take an intervention?

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I have only four minutes.

The second issue is the need for a Government review of the provision of concessionary fares. We would support such a review because we believe in the concessionary fares system and want it to work as it was intended to work. Need I point out that it was the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats, in government, who introduced the present scheme? That scheme, which levelled up in some areas and down in other areas, has left me with a full mailbag and queues at some of my constituency surgeries of people who used to be entitled to concessionary travel but who are no longer entitled to it under the national scheme.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Will the member take an intervention?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

The member is in his last minute, I am afraid.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

My constituents, who were previously entitled to concessionary travel but are no longer entitled to it—those who are on the lower rate of disability living allowance—want the issue to be addressed. I hope that the Government will review the scheme.

Our amendment will, if it is agreed to, improve the Green amendment. If it is not agreed to, we will support the amendment in the name of Patrick Harvie because we believe that that will produce an appropriate response by Parliament on this important issue. I have considerable sympathy for the Liberal amendment and will consider the possibility of finding a way to support it at decision time.

I move amendment S3M-1246.1.1, to insert at end:

"and notes that Labour and Liberal Democrat ministers in the previous administration chose not to grant eligibility to disabled people in receipt of the lower rate of disability allowance and to older and disabled people using community transport in rural areas when they created the National Concessionary Fares Scheme."

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I personally use sustainable mass transport—the bus—whenever I can. I have made 55 journeys in that way since May, and I am among the 87 per cent of users who have expressed satisfaction with the level of service.

Buses support economic growth and accessibility and reduce emissions, contributing to a wealthier, fairer and greener Scotland. We have around 1.1 million national entitlement card holders, which represents a major success, and we have maintained the agreement with the Confederation of Passenger Transport to conduct a major review of the scheme in its third year of operation—the review will start later this year. We will consider the eligibility criteria that were established by the Labour/Liberal Administration in the light of some current difficulties, to which members have already referred. I can announce today that, with the collaboration of Epilepsy Scotland, we are able to make a change in some of the administrative arrangements, which will shortly give epilepsy sufferers who cannot be issued with a driving licence faster and easier access to the concessionary card.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I welcome the minister's administrative changes for those who suffer from epilepsy. Will he tell the chamber how long it will be before he commences a review on extending the other eligibility criteria?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I have already said that the review will start this year.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

So—three years on.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

It has been three years since you introduced the scheme about which you are complaining.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Minister, I did not introduce any scheme. Please do not address members directly.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Buses are part of an array of sustainable transport solutions that we will need in the future, and we will help local transport authorities and operators to ease congestion, free up bus lanes for their proper purpose and deliver the transport planning tools that are required. Those include bus priority measures, park-and-ride facilities, traffic management policies, traffic regulation conditions, punctuality improvement partnerships, quality partnerships and affordable parking. The Scottish Government, the bus industry and local authorities are working together through the action plan for buses.

I am pleased to advise the chamber that we are also working with the industry to create a more environmentally focused bus service operators grant, which is moving away from a mere fuel subsidy. We are also considering tying payments to actions that reduce emissions, improve access, increase passenger numbers and improve quality on our network. We are working to improve accessibility on the rail network, too, with a major shift to electric traction on the railways and the long-term aim of complete electrification by about 2030. We are driving forward our climate change objectives for 2050 and improving access to public transport.

The Scottish Government will support bus transport with around £260 million this year to help with the cost of fares, to encourage bus route development, to enable older and disabled people to gain access to bus services and to enable transport authorities to support essential services that are not commercially viable. We are providing local government with record levels of funding to enable each local authority to deliver bus provision to meet local needs and priorities, including DRT, which is something that Alison McInnes advocated when she was the chair of the north east of Scotland transport partnership. The focus is on local decisions to meet local needs.

Buses are an important part of the transport solutions that we need to deliver on our climate change agenda. They are accessible to passengers and will continue to be supported by the Scottish Government.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

That concludes the opening speeches and we now come to the open debate. Speeches should be kept to four minutes. Members will have picked up that the time for debate is pretty tight.

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Improving access to safe, reliable public transport is vital to cutting social exclusion, especially among the disabled and the older generations. The SNP Government recognises the valuable contribution that has been made by the national concessionary travel scheme in widening travel opportunities, increasing independence and reducing isolation. The Government is all about improving the well-being of Scotland's population, and I must admit that the initiative is one of the more welcome things that we have inherited from the previous Executive.

I also welcome Labour's recognition of the significant inequalities that exist in Scottish society, which worsened under the previous Administration's watch. There is merit in the motion's proposal to review the decision to exclude people on the lower rate of disability living allowance from the national concessionary travel scheme. However, let us bear in mind the fact that the decision to exclude that group was made by the previous Administration. Always striving to fix the mistakes of the past, the SNP Government will review the scheme as the minister has suggested, and I am sure that the matter will be given due consideration at that time.

I wonder when Labour decided that the issue needed urgent attention. It was obviously not when Labour was in government, when it could have made the change at any time. It was not during the analysis of the budget by the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee, as no amendment was forthcoming. The matter was not tabled at the Finance Committee, nor was it mentioned in the stage 1 debate. However, I suppose that it is a case of better late than never.

In the spirit of consensus, I note that there is a case for the provision of additional support for bus operators. I am pleased that the minister has announced that there will be changes and that the Government is seeking to review the scheme. Nevertheless, it is worth re-emphasising that the most severe financial pressure that affects operators around the country is the high level of duty that they have to pay on fuel, which is set by the Labour Government at Westminster. Just as with the proposed changes to the concessionary travel scheme, Labour members are demanding urgent action now from the Scottish Government on the issue, even though no attempt was made to amend the budget in that respect either. That is further proof that the Labour Party is all talk and very little action.

Putting the issue of timing aside, I presume that the members on the Opposition benches are aware of the fact that increasing the bus service operators grant and extending the entitlement to concessionary fares to potentially 11,500 more people will have a financial cost at a time when we face the toughest financial settlement since devolution.

Even at this late stage, there is still time for Labour to let us know how it would fund those proposals. I have a suggestion. We could save £500 million by scrapping the scheme to build a single tram line on Edinburgh's number 22 bus route. I look forward to hearing members from all parties who voted for the scheme, especially those who were elected from outwith Edinburgh, explain to their constituents why it is better to spend £500 million on such a folly of a project rather using that money to improve public transport in their area. I also look forward to hearing the same members explain to the disability groups that were mentioned earlier why that decision was made.

There are many other significant barriers to accessing public transport for Scotland's older and disabled population. That is why the SNP is investing heavily across the country to improve our neglected and struggling transport infrastructure. That is why the transport budget represents the biggest spending portfolio outside local government. That is also why Scotland's transport network will flourish under the SNP Government, which is investing wisely for our future.

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate and to highlight the benefits of bus travel to the economy. However, as I was walking down to the Parliament this morning, a passing bus went through a large puddle and splashed me with water, so my enthusiasm for buses dimmed somewhat at that moment.

Transport is a major issue in my constituency of Rutherglen, partly because we have a larger than average number of pensioners and also because some people do not have cars—in fact, a third of Scots do not have cars. Bus and other transport links are very important in allowing people to access major centres such as Glasgow and East Kilbride and services such as hospitals. From many parts of my constituency, it takes more than two bus journeys to get to hospital.

I support many of the positive comments that have been made about the concessionary scheme. When I spoke at a meeting of the Rutherglen Workers Educational Association recently, its members told me that one of the biggest benefits that they have received since devolution is the concessionary travel scheme. Politics is about making a difference. The scheme makes a difference because it allows older people to get to places in Scotland that they might not have visited for quite some time, such as Oban.

I also support the extension of the concessionary travel scheme to those who are on the lower rate of the disability living allowance. That issue was raised by a number of my constituents.

There is a concern about the bus service operators grant. In the current budget, it flatlines at £57.5 million per year. That means that, over the next three years, there will be no cash increase and a real-terms cut. The effect of that will be to put Scotland at a £7.5 million disadvantage to England and Wales. If we continue at that level, the gap will grow to £26.5 million over the next three years. That point was raised at First Minister's questions on 20 December but, as ever, we did not get a straight answer from the First Minister.

The present level of funding could also have an adverse effect on bus fares and an impact on bus routes. Fares could increase and a number of bus routes could be withdrawn. In my constituency, routes have been withdrawn in recent times, but we have conducted campaigns and managed to get some of them reinstated, most notably those to Cathkin and Springhall. The withdrawal of bus routes has a knock-on effect, particularly for pensioners. It also has an environmental impact, given that the increase in the number of bus journeys in recent years has helped us to meet climate change targets as well as boosting the economy. The issue is also one of social justice, as fare rises and cuts in bus routes and services hit pensioners and the less well off hardest.

This is an important issue and, as with many such issues, the devil is in the detail of the SNP's budget. Examining the budget closely shows the flatlining of the bus service operators grant, which means a cut in real terms. I welcome what has been said about the review of the concessionary travel scheme and strongly support additional funding and the extension of the scheme to those who are on the lower rate of disability living allowance.

Ian McKee (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

First, I will declare an interest. As a person who has reached the age of 60, I am the proud possessor of a concessionary bus pass and I use it to the full. Indeed, twice in recent months, I have used it on what some might regard as an impossible journey, from the Edinburgh suburb in which I live to Kilchoan at the very end of the Ardnamurchan peninsula. As members can imagine, the journey is lengthy, but it is well worth the effort. For the first time in years, I was able to view the beauty of Loch Lomond, the grandeur of Rannoch Moor and the majestic peaks of Glen Coe without having to keep my eyes on the road and concentrate on driving.

However, the most illuminating point of the journey came when I transferred to the bus from Fort William to Kilchoan. At the bus stop, I was joined by half a dozen elderly folk, each with a packed shopping trolley. I wondered how they were going to get it all on the bus. My question was soon answered when the bus arrived. Driver Gordon MacKenzie unloaded each person's shopping trolley into the boot of his bus, allowing them to return the trolley and reclaim their pound coin. Then the bus was driven to every person's home and Gordon carried their purchases along the path right up to the front door. We did not arrive at our final destination exactly on time, but who cares? Especially as Gordon drove me an extra three quarters of a mile to my ultimate destination because it looked like it was going to rain. I was not surprised, but I was delighted all the same, when Gordon won the Highland and Islands Enterprise award last year for his outstanding contribution to the community of Lochaber. I am sure that the chamber will share my pleasure at his recognition.

However, there is a darker side to my story. It is true that the bus service is much appreciated, as is the concession, because otherwise many of the elderly people living on the peninsula would not be able to afford the regular shopping trip to Fort William, which is 50 miles away. However, the service runs only once a day and there is only one route. People of all ages who wish to visit friends in other local communities, shop in the local store, use the post office, go to church, or use the new community hall are forced to use private transport. Today, the price of diesel at the small Kilchoan filling station is 118p per litre. The inhabitants of Kilchoan live in an oil-producing country, but they pay one of the highest prices in the world for the fuel that they need to go about normal, everyday activities.

It is against that background that Des McNulty moved his motion today. I congratulate him on the elegant way in which he promoted an extremely thin case. His and his colleagues' somewhat synthetic indignation must be judged in light of the fact that, as my colleague Shirley-Anne Somerville said, his party lodged no amendments during the budget process and in light of the assurances that we have received from the minister.

What is needed is not so much an extension to the concessionary scheme, or even an increase in the bus service operators grant—beneficial though such action would be—but a reduction in the swingeing fuel taxes, especially in rural areas. In the past two and a half years, small bus operators have seen their fuel costs escalate by 43 per cent, thanks to the greed of successive Labour chancellors, and the same is true for the owners of private transport. The folk on the Opposition benches who support Des McNulty's motion should ask why artificial transport subsidies have assumed such prominence and examine their own consciences in the matter.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

In the short time that is available to me, I will focus exclusively on concessionary travel. There is no doubt in my mind that Labour's concessionary travel scheme has delivered enormous benefits for pensioners and disabled people throughout Scotland by building on the 16 separate schemes that operated in local areas, all of which had different criteria. Now pensioners and the disabled can travel for free, from Dumbarton to Dunbar and up to Dingwall—the same set of criteria applies regardless of where in Scotland they live. Such has been the success of the scheme that the number of passenger journeys has grown year on year, as the minister helpfully acknowledged.

However, as we have heard, some people have lost out—those who are on the lower rate of disability living allowance, who previously enjoyed concessionary travel in many areas of Scotland, including Strathclyde and Fife. The Tories and the SNP do the Parliament no credit if all they do is seek to lay blame. Adopting that attitude amounts to nothing more than a smokescreen for inaction. There was absolutely no intention to exclude that group of people. When the problem emerged—I will come on to the timing and the cost—after the transitional year to the national scheme, members across the political divide were rightly concerned.

Alex Johnstone professes to want what I want, which is the inclusion in the present scheme of people on the lower rate of disability living allowance, but his amendment does not say that, nor does the Greens' amendment. If you mean what you say—I believe that you do—

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Please avoid the second person, Ms Baillie.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

If the member means what he says, I am sure that he will want to support Labour's motion. Failure to do so will demonstrate a complete disregard for the genuine concerns of people who have learning disabilities.

For the benefit of Shirley-Anne Somerville and Ian McKee, let me turn to the timing and the cost. In the first year of the new national scheme, anyone with a local concessionary pass was automatically transferred and issued with a national entitlement card without having to be reassessed. Most people would not have realised that the rules had changed. As those cards have come up for renewal, many people are now being told—often wrongly—that they do not qualify for a card under the new national eligibility criteria. That is a particular issue for adults with learning disabilities, and it is causing considerable distress to them and their families, as members will know from their postbags.

We were first alerted to the problem not in April 2007 but after May 2007, so the fixing of it falls to this Government. Enable and Capability Scotland realised that there was a difficulty when people came forward to them in the summer and autumn of 2007. I respectfully say that the issue at stake is not a budget matter—the suggestion that it is is another smokescreen. When the old scheme was rolled forward, it was not acknowledged that a number of the people who had previously qualified for concessionary travel would no longer qualify for it in the future. The minister does not need to wait until 2009 or 2010 to take action; he could do so now.

We seek two solutions from the minister. First, we want him to change the law now to extend eligibility for concessionary travel. That would be the right and proper thing to do. Secondly, he might want to consider improving the procedures and guidance to ensure that people who qualify for the scheme get the right advice and support to enable them to access it.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The Labour motion suggests that ministers should review the national concessionary travel scheme with a view to extending eligibility to people who are in receipt of the lower rate of disability living allowance, and that they should do so as a matter of urgency.

Like Shirley-Anne Somerville, I find it amazing that the issue is a matter of urgency for Labour only now that it is in opposition—despite what Jackie Baillie said. After all, it was when the national scheme was introduced by the Labour Party, when it was in a coalition Government with the Liberal Democrats, that many disabled people lost the entitlement to concessionary fares that they had enjoyed under local authority-run schemes. When those schemes were replaced by the national scheme, people on the low rate of mobility disability living allowance were excluded. That happened under a Labour Government, but it is only now that Labour is in opposition that it considers the issue to be a matter of urgency.

Jackie Baillie suggests that the issue is not a budget matter, but surely it is, given that it seems to be about money. Where were the Labour amendments to the budget that sought to provide additional funds for the concessionary fares budget? It is only now that we are in the middle of the budget process that Labour's concern about additional revenue for this area has emerged. Some people who are less charitable than I am might suggest that that is more an exercise in grandstanding than an expression of genuine concern.

No regard seems to have been paid to the fact that the SNP Government has already moved funds from the underutilised younger persons scheme to fund parts of the concessionary fares scheme that have a high uptake. Is that not to be welcomed? Does the Labour Party prefer baseline figures that bear no relation to need or demand on the ground? Would it prefer moneys to be transferred to end-year flexibility, instead of being utilised to help many of the people for whom its motion expresses concern?

That is to say nothing of the increased funding that the SNP Government will provide in the coming year for the smart card programme to allow the delivery of improved ticketing machinery, which will enable efficiency savings to be made in future as a result of improved validation of bus operator claims. Those areas of investment are welcome and show that the SNP Government wants to improve disabled people's access to public transport. It is right that it demonstrates such concern.

Inclusion Scotland suggests that a

"lack of accessible and affordable transport is a major barrier preventing disabled people living independent lives with access to all the opportunities most non-disabled people take for granted."

Help the Aged says that a lack of access to public transport for older people can lead to

"isolation, social exclusion and a lower quality of life."

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

You have one minute left.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

It is clear that much has been achieved. Let us remember that a million Scots—a fifth of our population—qualify for free travel. I congratulate the previous Executive on the role that it played in that achievement.

However, much remains to be done. The minister mentioned that the SNP Government is to review the national concessionary scheme in due course, when proper consideration can be given to including those people who became disqualified when the national scheme was first introduced. I welcome Stewart Stevenson's announcement that additional support will be provided to bus operators. Those measures, combined with the transfer of moneys to deal with the areas of highest demand for concessionary fares and the investment in our rail and roads infrastructure, show that transport is safe in the hands of the SNP Government.

As I have mentioned rail, it would be remiss of me not to mention that this week members received the final case for crossrail from Strathclyde partnership for transport. I look forward to ministers making a positive response to that case, particularly the option that includes the provision of services from Croy to Barrhead. However, that is for another—

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Your time is up, I am afraid.

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am pleased to speak in favour of the motion that was lodged by my Labour colleague Des McNulty. Without doubt, the future of public transport in Scotland is one of the key issues that we face today. It concerns communities, interest groups and individuals.

Since entering Parliament last year, I have had countless pieces of correspondence about public transport developments across Scotland, especially those in my region of Mid Scotland and Fife. A subject of particular interest has been the level of bus services in Fife and Perthshire—there has been huge public interest in how services have developed in those areas. I am often struck by the similarities between the problems that are faced in rural areas and those that are faced in urban areas.

Over the past few months, it has become clear to me that proper engagement by bus operators with passengers and wider communities is vital in building public confidence in services. That is why consistent Government support—particularly financial support—is important to sustaining and developing services in every part of Scotland. As well as being relevant to the communities that it serves and the people who use it, public transport must be affordable.

I am proud that, as has been mentioned, Fife Council led the way in recognising the importance of affordable travel by establishing a concessionary travel scheme, which was pioneered by the late Bert Gough. In a debate last week, I made it clear that I support the Government's aim of making Scotland wealthier and fairer. Although I do not always agree with the SNP's methods in that area, I agree with the sentiment. In the interest of parity, it is important to state that I also support the Government's aim of making Scotland greener. I do not think that anyone would deny that one of the main ways of ensuring that Scotland becomes greener is to maximise the use of our public transport systems.

That is why I am rather confused by the Scottish Government's budget allocation to the bus service operators grant. It is important that we examine the potential impact of that budget line, especially in a week in which the Government launched its proposed climate change bill. It is clear that there will be no real-terms increase for the bus service operators grant. I must ask what that will mean for people throughout Mid Scotland and Fife. In the longer term, fares will probably increase significantly. Services in rural communities in Perthshire, for example, will come under threat. At a time when we need more people to use public transport, especially buses, we should not cut an important element of Government financial intervention. In many areas, those finances go a long way towards sustaining fledgling routes in both rural and urban communities.

There needs to be a wider debate about how services are regulated and about the level of financial support that they receive from Government—the two issues go hand in hand. Regardless of that wider debate, we cannot lose sight of the fact that, over the past 10 years, private bus operators have invested more than £400 million in new vehicles, as has been mentioned. In Fife alone, 150 new buses have entered the network. That is a significant investment that has improved significantly the bus journey experience for thousands of travellers.

I return to the issue of concessionary travel. We need to look to London for inspiration and to see what Ken Livingstone has achieved with his schemes. Today the Parliament should be discussing how the Government can support public transport effectively to make it more attractive and affordable, especially to the young, old and disabled. We should not be discussing, as we are, how the modal shift that all members support will be undermined by lack of investment. Achieving a long-term shift of our citizens on to public transport, especially buses, requires radical policy, not cuts in funding.

We in Scotland cannot operate in a bubble. There are many factors outwith our control that mean that, in the future, public transport will be not just an option but an economic necessity. Clearly, this is the time to increase investment in bus travel. I fully support Des McNulty's motion.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I have been entertained, if nothing else, by the range of facial expressions among Labour members during the debate. At one point there was a wave of puzzlement at the fact that I could apparently support SNP transport policy. There is a simple explanation: I do not. I do not support the SNP's or Labour's transport policies. Greens have been and will be consistent on the issue.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

Is it Green policy to support disabled people?

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I am not sure what the member's question is. I will deal with issues relating to eligibility for the scheme later in my speech.

Shirley-Anne Somerville was quite wrong to undervalue the tram scheme. Labour members know fine well that on the increasingly few occasions when they have presented the right arguments in the chamber, we have supported them. That is why the Edinburgh tram scheme will go ahead. They also know that, other than on trams, there is very little to choose between Labour's and the SNP's transport policies. Both parties support more road traffic, more road capacity and more aviation. Under either party, public transport will remain a Cinderella service.

Given the factors that I have described and the parliamentary arithmetic, Greens are determined to use whatever influence they have to achieve changes. We will seek to secure whatever improvements we can get to the SNP's budget and spending plans. That is why the SNP knows that, without making meaningful changes to its budget and to the spending commitments in budget lines, it cannot rely on our votes. The changes that we require include but are not limited to those that I propose in my amendment. Unlike other parties, we will not prejudge issues and will spell out the need for change. We will give ministers reasonable time in which to make change. When we see change, we will make our decisions.

It is unfortunate that the parliamentary dynamics sometimes obscure the fact that every political party that is represented in the Parliament has made points that are well worth making. The Liberal Democrats' comments on the tangible benefits of demand-responsive transport and community transport, which can be nothing short of life changing for some people, are welcome. There is certainly scope for building on existing provision of those services during the current spending review period.

For the Conservatives, Alex Johnstone observed that it is unusual for him to find himself supporting a Green amendment. I hope that he will avail himself of that pleasure more frequently in future. His comments on eligibility for disabled people are welcome.

Many of the comments that we have heard from Labour members are also worth supporting. In many respects, all parties share the same objective. I welcome in particular John Park's comments on the longer-term debate that we should be having, regardless of the debate on the budget. It is a week before we decide whether to pass the budget, so it is understandable that a debate on transport should get tied up in that, but there is a serious need for us to consider the long-term future provision of public transport, including buses, and to decide what the regulatory framework for buses should be. No one would argue that a completely free market is appropriate. Competition and the market have achieved some things but have failed in other respects. We should consider the role that regulation will play in the future, not with a view to rolling back time but in order to achieve a better regulatory framework.

Members from all political parties have made comments that are worth supporting. However, on the key point of the budget, to which many members have referred, we need a clear, strong message. The Green amendment gives that message—I hope that other parties will support it.

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I am glad that the chamber has recognised the contribution that the previous Executive made in this area. A million Scots benefited from disabled and elderly access to concessionary travel. When the scheme was rolled out to younger people, a further 200,000 Scots benefited. Like other members, I point out that the scheme was always due to be reviewed.

My colleague Alison McInnes was correct to draw our attention to demand-responsive transport. Last February, responsibility for that was handed over to regional transport partnerships, but now it has been handed back to local authorities, as part of the local government settlement. Let me cut to the chase of the argument, on which we have touched repeatedly during the budget process. On one side, it is argued that ring fencing has been removed from certain parts of the budget. The counter-argument is that funding has been rolled up in the settlement for local authorities. The SNP argues that that is more democratic, because funding has been passed down to a lower level. However, let us pause to consider the budgetary stage that each of our local authorities has reached. We all know that local authorities have difficult decisions to make. My authority, Highland Council, is faced with a very tight budget. The danger is that demand-responsive transport may lose out in that scenario. That is the point that I am making.

I am interested in and not a little incredulous at the Conservative amendment. The point behind Des McNulty's motion is that what is happening on the other side of the border is not the same as what is about to happen on this side of the border. I put it to members that bus users, be they rich or poor, elderly or disabled, are no respecters of borders. A bus is a bus; concessionary transport is concessionary transport. It is too bad that arrangements may be different on different sides of the border. That should be a difficult scenario for the Conservatives to accept, given that they are the Conservative and Unionist Party. Their amendment to Patrick Harvie's amendment is something of a smokescreen in that regard.

I am glad that Patrick Harvie responded to Shirley-Anne Somerville's remarks. There is no doubt that the tram scheme is hugely popular in Edinburgh and will do a great deal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It will also serve people who live far away from Edinburgh and will be a great boon to the disabled. I know from personal experience how difficult it is to access Edinburgh airport from the city centre, so I regret the passing of the Edinburgh airport rail link, which we will come to recognise as a big mistake.

The SNP always starts to dig its elephant traps early. One trap that it has been digging ever since the summer is the claim that the A9 will not be upgraded because we voted for the Edinburgh tram scheme. I have heard the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change rehearse that argument, but it simply does not wash. The Edinburgh airport rail link, the Edinburgh tram scheme, improvements to the A9 and many other measures were in the budget from the word go. The SNP's argument may seem clever, but the digging is distant. In three and a half years' time, it will not wash.

My colleague Alison McInnes's amendment is entirely correct. I support her amendment and the Labour motion.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothians)

I am happy to begin by acknowledging the efforts of the previous Executive—both the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats—in implementing the national concessionary travel scheme. Members from all parties agree that the scheme has been a big success.

Before moving on, I want to respond to a number of points that have been made. Labour members have argued that the issues that they raise in their motion are not budget issues. Although I accept Jackie Baillie's point that the issue about lower rate DLA claimants is not a budget matter, the major part of the Labour motion is about the budget. There is a budget line entitled "Concessionary Fares" on page 88 of the spending review document and on page 92, the budget line "Bus Services in Scotland" is concerned with the bus service operators grant. There were no amendments from the Labour Party during the budget process in relation to either of those lines.

Charlie Gordon (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

Will the member give way?

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothians)

Perhaps in a minute, but not now. That was despite the fact that Labour wanted to raid the transport budget for over £90 million from three separate lines.

I take issue with Jackie Baillie's comments that the Conservatives and the Greens do not support the idea of reviewing the scheme to include those on the lower rate of the disability living allowance. Patrick Harvie's amendment, which I am not sure that Jackie Baillie and Des McNulty have read, says clearly that it is the

"Government's intention to review the national concessionary travel scheme"

and calls on ministers to ensure that they maximise the benefits of public transport during that review.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I am sure that the Official Report will show that Alex Johnstone said that he wanted to include those on the lower rate of disability allowance in the scheme, not simply that he wanted a review.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothians)

I am not quite sure what point the member is making, but we feel strongly that the scheme needs to be reviewed to include people on the lower rate of the disability living allowance needs. I do not accept for a second Jackie Baillie's comments that members did not realise when they passed the Transport (Scotland) Act 2005 that people on the lower rate of the disability living allowance would lose out—despite the fact that when any legislation is passed we have to look at various audits, including one that relates to equalities. It stretches credibility to the extreme for Jackie Baillie to suggest that members did not realise that those people would lose out, particularly when passengers in Strathclyde already had that right. Did members not compare the Strathclyde passengers' rights with those that they proposed to give other passengers in the future?

Shirley-Anne Somerville spoke about trams. The critical point about that is that the SNP's Edinburgh airport rail link project depends entirely on there being a tram network. It is utterly disingenuous of Shirley-Anne Somerville or any SNP member to criticise the tram network when their rail network depends on it. They might wish to reflect on that before putting out press releases.

The bus service operators grant needs to be looked at urgently. There is a £57.2 million budget line for it this year but, worryingly, there is also a £57.2 million budget line for it next year and the year after that. That is a large, real-terms cut.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

So why do the Conservatives support the budget?

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothians)

Mr McNulty might wish to reflect that the tax increases of 2p that we had in October and the 2p that we will have in April are down to the Labour Party Government at Westminster, about which he was coy in his speech. Fuel prices have increased massively; we have had one tax increase of 2p and another is to come. Annabel Goldie and my colleague Alex Johnstone have both led on the issue at First Minister's question time and at other times in the chamber; the bus service operators grant must be increased as soon as possible.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I will follow Ian McKee's example and explain that my 55 journeys were paid for by the national concessionary travel scheme. In fact, I have looked at my travel diary more closely and, when I add all my public transport and walking journeys in excess of 10 minutes, I am pleased to say that 53.9 per cent of my journeys since May fall into that category. The minister does not just talk the talk, he walks the walk as well—and thoroughly enjoys doing so for the benefit of his health as well as the climate.

I will say a couple of words about the current bus service operators grant. The key point is that it has been a direct subsidy for fuel. I am particularly encouraged by the engagement and attitude of the Confederation of Passenger Transport UK and the major bus operators.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

Is the minister aware of a scheme that is currently being introduced by Lothian Buses, in conjunction with a Bellshill company called Solution Specialists Limited, to reduce the amount of diesel spillage from buses and allow active monitoring of the use of fuel, thereby increasing efficiency? Will the minister consider using such a scheme as part of the BSOG conditions?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The member makes an interesting and key environmental point—he makes my point for me. We want to use the BSOG to reward environmentally friendly changes in behaviour. I am pleased that we have engagement on the subject.

We have thought about concessionary travel; I have announced changes for epileptics. We are also looking at the broader issue of administration and at the application form, to ensure that we are not denying anyone access to the concessionary travel scheme simply by administrative means.

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

Does the minister accept that, despite the best intentions of his Government and those of his predecessors, access to public transport for disabled people is patchy? That is a problem in my constituency, for reasons to do with the operators that we do not quite understand. Will he look at that, please?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Indeed. Although I welcome the new provision for wheelchairs that I have seen in many buses, there continues to be a problem in rural areas and I recognise that we need to look at that.

The bottom line is that we will start the review this year. We will look at the concessionary travel scheme in a wide range of ways. We are picking up administrative issues as far as we can—

Charlie Gordon (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

Will the minister give way?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I am sorry, but I no longer have time.

The bus route development fund was mentioned. It still exists and is the responsibility of local councils. That leads me to demand-responsive transport and some of the bizarre comments made by the Liberal speaker, Ms McInnes, who opened for her party today. When she was chair of NESTRANS, she wrote to the Government to plead that local authorities be allowed to retain responsibility for demand-responsive transport. Indeed, her council, when she was a member of it, introduced the very successful A2B scheme that operates in rural Aberdeenshire. That illustrates perfectly that local government is the best place to consider and make decisions on provision of the right local demand-responsive services. When I promoted my debate, I did not know that several community services qualified for the BSOG and to carry passengers who have the concessionary travel card. Such community services only have to be registered as publicly accessible services.

I do not disagree emotionally with what the Labour Party says. Broadly speaking, there is unanimity that public transport services are important and that we must support them. I have heard others make the point—more adequately than I might—that much of what the Labour Party criticises it had the opportunity to fix. Indeed, when Jackie Baillie said that she didnae ken, she only begged the question whether she is culpable or incompetent. Sometimes, it is better to be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and show that one is a fool. I am happy to have participated in this debate.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

Well, well, well. At least our coalition was public and transparent. The coalition that is developing in this chamber has all the worst traits of smoke-filled rooms. Our benches have consigned such traits—like compositing at Labour conferences—to the distant past.

A distinctly green thread is being woven into the new nationalist-Tory tartan. That tartan is based on the needs of big business, the wealthy and those who can shout loudest. It fails the poor, the disabled and the disadvantaged. We hear a broken record from the nationalists—if they have to make a hard decision, it is all because of the big, bad boy in number 11 Downing Street or it becomes the responsibility of local government. Government is about making hard decisions and being accountable for them. We on the Labour benches give the Government notice: when local authorities in Scotland have to start making difficult decisions and cuts, we will know where the blame lies. It will lie at the heart of the SNP Government, which has failed to provide the necessary support.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

rose—

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

Sit down, minister; you have had more than enough time.

The SNP Government has failed to provide the necessary support not only for transport, which will mean cuts in demand-led services, but for a range of other services, which will mean that disabled young people will not receive the same respite services as those throughout the rest of the United Kingdom.

What about the fact that the bus service operators grant will be frozen, not increased? What a commitment that is to public transport, Patrick. Someone, somewhere will have to pay. Indeed, the options are clear. Will there have to be cuts in the routes to some of our most vulnerable rural and urban communities? Will fare-paying passengers have to pay more? Will there be a squeeze on the pay, terms and conditions of the very staff who deliver the services that we all require?

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Like her colleague Mr McNulty, the member has criticised other members for supporting a freeze in the bus service operators grant, despite the fact that the amendments call very explicitly for the grant to be substantially increased. Has she actually read the amendments?

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

Yes, I have your amendment, Patrick. However, it does one other very important thing—

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Excuse me. I ask the member not to use first names or the second person.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

I am sorry. Mr Harvie's amendment seeks to delete from the motion the important issue of disabled access to public transport, which is worthy of serious debate in the chamber and should not be subject to the rigid political dogma of, for example, Jamie Hepburn.

Given that the vast majority of people on the lower rate of the disability living allowance are already budgeted for in the roll-out of the current scheme, arguing about the budget is the Government using smoke and mirrors to hide its failure to close the loophole. No member on the Labour benches—or, I am sure, in the rest of the chamber—opposes a review of the scheme to find out whether any improvements can be made. However, that does not stop the minister acting now—not at some point in the future—to ensure that those on the lower rate of the disability living allowance can continue to access the concessionary fares scheme.

In my constituency, a local group that provides befriending services to adults with learning disabilities has been awarded £250,000 support. To develop the confidence of adults with learning difficulties, befrienders engage with and support them by, for example, taking them out on visits. I have no doubt that the range of these activities will be severely limited if the minister does not act now to close the loophole. I believe that he wants to act in Scotland's best interests, but he cannot keep abdicating his responsibilities. Even if he cannot bring himself to support Des McNulty's amendment, he has the opportunity to act, to close the loophole and make the same changes for these people that he has made for people with epilepsy. I hope that, even at this late stage, the minister will consider the matter further and perhaps come back to the chamber with his thoughts at an early opportunity.

The Green amendment would also delete from our amendment the issue of access to rural community transport. In constituencies such as mine, commercial bus operators do not offer services to large number of communities because it is simply not an option for them. Given that community transport provides a joined-up public transport network, it should form part of the process and part of the concessionary fares scheme. As the Tory amendment states, community transport was not included in the scheme when it was introduced. However, we can learn from the experience and improve and develop the scheme. Indeed, rural community transport could be an invaluable part of the public transport network if it were able to access it. The vast majority of those who use such transport are the elderly, the disabled and those who cannot easily access cars to get to bigger settlements and are therefore stuck in their homes.

I hope that the minister will be able to reflect on those points and make those changes ahead of his review. The people affected, particularly those on lower rate DLA, deserve nothing less from this Parliament.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I seek clarification on the guidance that you gave to Karen Gillon on the use of names in the chamber. According to the Presiding Officers' previous guidance, which is meant to ensure that those listening to the debate are not confused, it is wrong to use someone's first name initially and, to begin with, members should use an individual's full name. The previous advice does not say that there is anything wrong with using a member's first name once the individual has been identified. We all know that Patrick Harvie's name is Patrick.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Indeed it is. However, for the sake of simplicity and so that we do not have to keep track of when someone's full name has been mentioned to see whether subsequent mentions are in order, we will stick with the ruling that one should either use the member's full name—in this case, Patrick Harvie—or call the member Mr Harvie. That is the Presiding Officer's ruling and my ruling. Now let us get on with the next debate.

School Buildings

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-1258, in the name of Rhona Brankin, on education.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I am pleased to open this debate on the school building programme. Having taught in a variety of schools in the 1970s and 1980s, I have practical experience of this subject.

As we know, school buildings are hugely important to the learning process. As everyone will agree, they should be windproof and watertight and provide reasonable comfort. Beyond that, the concentration and performance of staff and pupils alike can be affected by factors such as ventilation, lighting, temperature, the design of teaching and learning spaces and the green spaces around the school.

In reports published in 2001 and 2003 on the impact of capital investment in schools, PricewaterhouseCoopers found that new and refurbished buildings had a significant positive effect on staff and pupil motivation and behaviour. More important, the key finding of the 2003 study is that there is a positive and statistically significant association between capital investment and pupil performance. Put simply, better school buildings get better results.

Labour has long recognised that correlation. In the first parliamentary session, we built or substantially refurbished 123 schools and, in the second, we added another 205 schools to the list, giving a total of 328 new or substantially refurbished schools. That was the biggest school building programme ever undertaken in Scotland.

Moreover, our school buildings are getting better: 62 per cent of them have been rated good or satisfactory, compared with 57 per cent two years ago, while over the same period the proportion of school buildings rated bad fell from 8 per cent to 5 per cent.

Of course, we were not complacent. Indeed, how could we be when that seemingly small 5 per cent meant that pupils in 108 primary schools, 15 special schools and 14 secondary schools were learning in buildings that were found not only to have major defects but to be beyond the end of their economic life? There was absolutely no room for complacency. Labour committed to building 250 new or refurbished schools in this session, with 100 completed by 2009.

As we know, the SNP manifesto says:

"We will match the current school building programme brick for brick",

and I would be grateful if the minister would be so kind as to reiterate that promise in the chamber this morning. If that promise is to be kept, some serious progress will need to be made to complete the first 100 schools by 2009.

Alex Salmond has also promised that class sizes in primary 1 to primary 3 will be reduced to 18 by 2011. I wonder whether the SNP has any information yet on the capital costs involved in such a move, because it did not the last time that I asked the question. The SNP also rashly promised to match Labour's school building programme without having any idea of how that would be achieved.

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

If Labour had been fortunate enough to get back into power, how much would its manifesto pledge on schools have cost the taxpayer? Indeed, what resources in the current budget would the member use to redeem that pledge?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

We fully costed that commitment when we were in government. We are waiting today to hear exactly what the SNP will do. We have heard nothing—the SNP has not told us about one brass farthing that it will spend on the school building programme. Frankly, that is an outrage.

In Midlothian alone, which is one of the smallest local authority areas in the country, public-private partnership schemes have boosted spending on school buildings by £72 million, but the SNP has casually dismissed such schemes on ideological grounds. Such is the SNP's hypocrisy that SNP members who spent eight years in opposition denigrating PPP schemes and the schools that were built or refurbished through them are now falling over themselves to pose for the cameras in front of new schools that were financed by PPP schemes and which are still being opened. Frankly, it is disgusting. Nor will the crumbs that have been thrown to local authorities from John Swinney's budget table make much of an impact on Scotland's school estate. Councillors grow increasingly frustrated every time that they are told of an additional responsibility that must be funded from their small but much-trumpeted increase in funding, which has already been spent more times than the SNP's elastic penny for Scotland was spent.

Can we be confident that the SNP's Scottish futures trust will see our school estate okay? I doubt it, because the current consultation on the SFT is nothing more than an exercise in buying time for SNP ministers as they try to make their shambles of an infrastructure policy work. Many issues arise about the Scottish futures trust, but I will confine myself to three questions, to which I would like an answer. Will the Minister for Schools and Skills confirm that the Scottish futures trust would give no role whatever to communities, local authorities or health boards in the commissioning, design or management of projects? Can she confirm that, under the SNP's proposals, no new school buildings would belong to local authorities at the end of the 30-year contracts? Will the minister confirm today how many schools will be built using the model?

What does the minister have to say to the parents, pupils and staff at Lasswade high school centre in my constituency, which is in a shocking state? It is not fit for purpose and £35 million is required for a new school. That is part of a requirement for more than £100 million for the Midlothian school estate, despite the substantial investment that has already taken place. Council hands are tied, however, while the SNP dithers. In Portobello, Dumbarton, Viewforth in Kirkcaldy, Portlethen in Aberdeenshire and throughout the country, parents, pupils and teachers want to know when they will get their new schools. They deserve answers. The previous Government put Lasswade high school centre on a list of six schools that had top priority for refurbishment, but the present Government has gone back on that promise.

The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning has evaded the questions long enough. She must make a long-overdue statement to Parliament to set out the Scottish Government's school building programme—she owes it to Scotland's children and their parents to do so. I ask members to support the motion in my name.

I move,

That the Parliament recognises the importance of high-quality school buildings to young people's learning; notes the SNP's commitment to match the previous administration's school building programme "brick for brick"; further notes that the previous administration built 200 schools between 2003 and 2007; condemns the Scottish Executive for its total failure to publish details of its school building programme, and calls on the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning to make a statement to the Parliament detailing the Executive's plans for building the new schools that Scotland's children deserve and that the SNP promised in its 2007 manifesto.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

As I think we agreed yesterday, first and foremost, the quality of the teaching profession is what matters in education. However, as Rhona Brankin said, the school estate plays a large part in determining an environment that is conducive to learning and which fosters good discipline and a sense of pride in the community. Just look at the positive responses this week in Dumfries and Galloway and Perth and Kinross as new school buildings have opened or embarked on the first stage of the construction process. An attractive, clean, well-heated and spacious building plus an attractive, eco-friendly and energy-efficient campus can do a huge amount not only to boost the performance of a school, but to instil a sense of pride and common purpose. Therefore, it is only right that the building and maintenance of the school estate is a priority.

Schools these days are used increasingly by pupils and teachers and by members of the local community. That is greatly to be encouraged, but it brings added pressures and costs. It is therefore extremely important that we take into account the diverse uses and the multipurpose nature of schools as we debate the appropriate use of resources and finance. We want our schools to be well built, to make efficient use of scarce resources and to provide best value for money. Those issues should be matters of economics and social welfare, not political dogma. The decision on which route to take to satisfy the criteria should be made on a project-by-project basis, as there is no one right way in which to build a school, nor is there always only one appropriate source of finance. So, in our view, quality outcomes demand flexibility in the system.

In that respect, the Conservatives are proud to have devised the private finance initiative. Together with the public-private partnerships that were constructed by the Labour and Liberal Executive, the PFI has met the urgent need for the construction of school and other public buildings, which capital grants from the Government or traditional prudential borrowing by local authorities could not have done. Another substantial benefit of PPP/PFI has been the transfer of the risk of maintaining schools to the contractor, thereby leaving local authorities to concentrate on the vital task of providing education services, rather than being preoccupied with bricks and mortar. Local authorities have become increasingly used to the system and are now far better placed to avoid any mishandled tendering and the consequent unnecessary costs that occurred with some projects in the past.

For some projects, up-front financing from capital or conventional borrowing might be a better option than a PPP or PFI scheme. The SNP has made much of its Scottish futures trust as a preferred finance option. We would not rule out a version of that, if the aim was to increase flexibility in the system so that the much-needed rebuilding or refurbishment of individual schools can take place without the need to wait for a uniform scheme to be put in place to redevelop a whole local authority school estate in one phase. However, it is incumbent on the SNP to come to the Parliament urgently with a full statement to provide the details of its proposal, because the current signals reflect confusion and indecision.

Before the election, the SNP seemed to suggest that the Scottish futures trust would mirror the American-style trusts, in which investors can invest in public infrastructure bonds on a not-for-profit basis. However, following the election, perhaps—just perhaps—as a result of the warnings of economists and legal experts that there could be complications in relation to tax liability and the operation of the policy in relation to the Scotland Act 1998, the proposals seem to have been watered down considerably. Any delay in making such a statement to Parliament would, by definition, mean more uncertainty and confusion, especially for those who want the go-ahead to build new schools.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

I am curious to know whether the reason why the member may be inclined to support the Scottish futures trust is that it would involve not public sector ownership but, in effect, private finance.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Not at all. The reason is that we are asking for flexibility. There is not one right way of building a school or of financing that. The more flexibility that we have in the system, the better.

We need to know whether the Government is committed to matching the school building programme brick for brick, as Labour asked, and we need to know what financial arrangements the Government intends to put in place. It is also essential that we have an assurance that the Scottish futures trust would be fully transparent, in that it would attract investment at the market rate and provide the ability to offer separate bonds for separate projects. In the Scottish Conservatives' view, it would be totally unacceptable for the Government to try to meddle in those matters. As Iain McMillan of the Confederation of British Industry Scotland has argued, it is essential that we have a good mix and that the private sector can play a full part in providing much-needed resources.

As I said, it is vital that the quality of the school estate in Scotland matches the aspirations that we have for our young people. Absolutely no time should be wasted in setting out the detailed plans for developing the estate so that the incentive to deliver high-quality services is firmly put in place. I call on the Government to provide answers this morning to the key questions in the debate.

I move amendment S3M-1258.1, to leave out from "; notes the SNP's commitment" to end and insert:

"and the need for energy efficiency, quality design including the incorporation of sound ecological and sustainable design principles, and value for money for the public purse in building schools; recognises the need for the Scottish Government and local authorities to continue to improve Scotland's school estate; notes the SNP's commitment to match the previous administration's proposed school building programme 'brick for brick', and calls on the Scottish Government to make a statement to the Parliament detailing its plans for new schools and how these will be funded."

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

As the Parliament knows, the SNP Government has a manifesto commitment to match the previous Executive's school building programme brick for brick. We are doing that. We have signed off seven school projects, including PPP projects in East Dunbartonshire Council, West Lothian Council, Perth and Kinross Council, Dumfries and Galloway Council and, most recently, West Dunbartonshire Council, as well as projects involving non-profit-distributing organisations in Falkirk Council and Aberdeen City Council.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I will not, as I have only four minutes.

Those projects will deliver 45 new and refurbished schools in eight months. We will also support the remaining four projects that are at various stages. PPP schemes are a costly way in which to provide public infrastructure, but we took a pragmatic approach to allow those projects to continue, rather than disadvantage the children, young people and communities whose expectations had been raised.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

Will the minister give way?

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I ask the member to let me finish this point.

Labour had no plans in train for any further projects. The initial working up of plans takes at least a year in local authorities. Negotiations take at least 18 months, and a school takes 18 months to build. There is no evidence that any of that work was going on under the previous Executive so that the work could have been continued had that Executive been returned to power.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

rose—

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Will the minister give way?

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I will give way.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

To whom?

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Mike Rumbles.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

If what the minister said was the case, why is it that in our local authority area of Aberdeenshire, a £200 million bid has been prepared for the next spending round? The work has already been done.

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Aberdeenshire Council has been asked to submit any plans that it has. We have not seen them yet.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

No thank you—I have only four minutes.

We have provided an extra £40 million of capital funds for the 2007-08 period, to help towards the introduction of measures related to our commitments on class sizes.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

Will the minister give way?

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

No thank you.

Our budgets will deliver record investment in Scotland's future and investment in growing opportunity and prosperity for our nation.

George (Labour, Lothians)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I ask you to give extra time to the minister so that she can answer questions from individual MSPs who have constituency concerns. She is clearly not telling the truth. We want to challenge—

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Order. I ask the member to withdraw that remark.

George (Labour, Lothians)

As far as I am concerned, it appears that she is not telling the truth.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I ask Lord Foulkes to withdraw that remark.

George (Labour, Lothians)

If you ask, I will withdraw it, but I can tell you, in relation—

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Thank you. In your point of order you seemed to ask for a rather flexible extension of the minister's time because you wanted her to answer every possible question. Minister, I will give you another two minutes, from now.

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I know that every member in the chamber could stand up and ask about particular issues in their areas, but they can raise those issues through parliamentary questions and they will get an answer.

As I was saying, our budgets will deliver record investment in Scotland's future, and will deliver investment in growing opportunity and prosperity for our nation. We are committed to improving the learning experience of children and young people by improving the fabric of schools. We have a new and constructive relationship with local government in Scotland—one that gives greater flexibility and responsibility to local authorities to allow them to deliver their local priorities while working with us to deliver our shared and agreed commitments.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

You have one more minute.

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

We have reduced ring fencing of funds, bureaucracy and monitoring. There is an extra £115 million of capital for local authorities in 2008-09, and around £3 billion over three years is being provided to secure investment in local government infrastructure, including schools.

Many local authorities—including North Lanarkshire Council, South Lanarkshire Council and Glasgow City Council—are embarking on modernisation programmes or are in the process of doing so.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Will the minister give way?

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

The Presiding Officer has said that I am in my final minute.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The minister is just winding up.

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

All in all, significant work is going on as part of the school building programme. Local authorities are working by themselves and for themselves, using resources provided by this Government.

As everyone knows, we have launched a consultation paper on the Scottish futures trust. We want our schools to contribute to the delivery of this Government's strategic objectives. We want low-carbon and sustainable schools.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The minister should conclude now.

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I will. We care that schools should be of high quality, and—Ms Brankin should listen to this—

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

No.

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

We care that we should have schools in which pupils and communities have a say. We will continue to work with bodies such as Architecture and Design Scotland—

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The minister must conclude.

Amendment S3M-1258.1.1 moved:

"insert at end 'and further notes that future plans for school buildings will be usefully informed by the imminent publication of Audit Scotland's report on improving the Scottish school estate and the Scottish Government's proposals for the Scottish Futures Trust and the Infrastructure Investment Plan.'"—[Maureen Watt.]

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

On 26 October 2006, on "Question Time" on the BBC, Nicola Sturgeon was asked this question by Kieran Chambers from Clydebank:

"If I vote your party into power next May will you promise to immediately stop all PPP funding for schools in Scotland?"

Nicola Sturgeon's answer was, "Yes." However, on 27 June 2007, at the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, I put it to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning that it would be

"possible under this Government for councils to put forward new PPP schemes."

Fiona Hyslop replied:

"Yes, but I do not think that it is a big issue."—[Official Report, Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, 27 June 2007; c 40.]

Today, the Minister for Schools and Skills seems not to be supping with the PPP devil but offering it course upon course with alacrity. I am not sure that Scottish National Party back benchers are comfortable with that.

Again we have heard about the £40 million for investment in schools. The minister said that that was for measures on class sizes, but we all now know that the guidance that came with the money was that it should be invested in sports facilities.

The Labour Party should be commended for bringing this topical and focused debate to Parliament. It is apt that we should discuss school buildings this morning. Liberal Democrats have always considered innovative ways of delivering public sector estate improvements. In my local authority area in the Borders, and in Penicuik and Midlothian, three new, state-of-the-art secondary schools and four new primary schools are being built. The primary schools are being built using traditional capital; the secondary schools using PPP.

The process has not been easy. My mailbag has been full of letters about planning issues, design and usage issues, and the ability of the council to design appropriate facilities. There has been great concern about cost overruns and delays to the build programme. Some concern has also been expressed to me about the construction of the PPP school. That highlights the fact that no perfect way exists of building and procuring public buildings in the school estate. In my experience, more concerns are expressed about the traditional route than the PPP route. We have always sought the best approach depending on local circumstances, whether that is traditional capital build, prudential borrowing or PPP. In that regard, our position is very similar to that of the Conservatives.

I remember many question times during the previous session of Parliament at which John Swinney and I repeatedly raised issues concerning the installation of renewables technologies in schools built by PPP. John Swinney's questions related to the Perth and Kinross Council area, and mine related to the Scottish Borders Council area. In the Borders, the council simply made it part of the bidding process contract that biomass fuel had to be used. That was agreed without any controversy. It was a straightforward part of the process. We have learned about such things as PPP has developed.

Today, we have to consider two aspects of the SNP's Scottish futures trust approach. We have to ask whether it represents private investment or not and whether there will be delays.

Consultation on the Scottish futures trust ends on 14 March. However, the Government was not content to wait until it had heard from consultees, so interviews took place on 8 January for external private sector advisers to develop a business case for the futures trust. The Government says that the business case will be ready by the end of March. The delivery group includes private sector advisers, Government officials and Partnerships UK, which is a PPP body. The involvement of Partnerships UK should surprise Linda Fabiani and Michael Matheson, who campaigned against it during the previous session of Parliament. However, the Government is not content with merely involving Partnerships UK; it has actually included it in the delivery group.

Of course private investment will go into the futures trust. The Government has said that it will not have an uncapped commercial rate for return on the investment, whatever that means. Councils do not know.

At a recent meeting between officials from the Scottish Government—or were they from Partnerships UK?—and local government finance directors, the Government confirmed that there would be no level-playing-field support and no revenue support for any capital new build for schools in Scotland. There was a pause around the room. The reality is that there is no new support from the Scottish Government to invest in our school estate. Without revenue support and level-playing-field support, the policies will certainly not be met. Unfortunately, confusion and delay are the hallmarks of the approach. The situation will have to be rectified urgently.

I move amendment S3M-1258.2, to insert at end:

"recognises the publication of the Scottish Government's consultation on the Scottish Futures Trust and its support for the use of private finance, and is concerned that the failure of the SNP government to bring forward an alternative funding mechanism and support is causing confusion and uncertainty and is holding back councils across Scotland who want to improve schools in their areas."

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

We have already heard this morning that Labour has a good record on building schools. I make no apology for following a similar line to Rhona Brankin. I remind the chamber that, between 1999 and 2007, more than £11 million was invested in the school estate in the South Ayrshire Council area. New schools are under construction in Alloway and Ayr. In the East Ayrshire Council area, a number of schools have undergone major refurbishment. There have also been new builds. One of the ministers responsible for education had the opportunity to open one of those new schools last week.

We always knew that more work had to be done, which is why Labour had a clear plan for school building. That contrasts with the SNP position. The SNP has broken its pledge to match our programme brick by brick. Its programme is more about closing schools than building new ones. I say that with a degree of sorrow, because I would rather not have to make this particular speech.

The SNP has made much of its commitment to a presumption against the closure of small rural schools, but those words—like the pledge to match our programme brick for brick—do not appear to be translating into any action. The SNP-led council in my area proposes to close four small rural schools that serve my constituents. I would rather that those four schools were maintained, improved or rebuilt. That is the kind of creative approach that members around the chamber should take.

The SNP's futures trust is not finalised, as we have heard again this morning. It is not so much a futures trust as another breach of trust by the SNP. I was prepared to examine the proposals and weigh them up, so I recently asked the minister a parliamentary question about how local authorities can gain the funds to make the necessary capital investment—she invited us to submit parliamentary questions and I did exactly that. In her reply, she specifically suggested that the sources could include:

"contributions from developers, capital receipts from the disposal of assets, or extra monies raised through self-financed borrowing."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 18 January 2008; S3W-7999.]

How many schools does she expect to be funded by contributions from developers and in what circumstances? Has she told the local authorities that she expects them to sell off their assets? Will she tell us which assets those are? Are they the sites that some existing small rural schools sit on, sites that have been earmarked for social housing or open spaces in our communities? Exactly which parts of the family silver are the local authorities to sell off? If she cannot tell me that today, will she at least answer the question that Rhona Brankin asked: how many schools will she and her Government commit to build by 2011 and how many will her Government commit to refurbish by 2011?

If the minister agrees that local democracy is important, will she tell me whether it is correct that the decision on the four threatened rural schools in East Ayrshire will be taken not by the whole council, which would give every councillor the opportunity to represent their constituents, but by the council's SNP cabinet? Will she step in, talk to her colleagues in East Ayrshire and reverse the decision? Will she follow the example of my colleagues in Westminster by making it clear that there is a presumption against closing rural schools and intervening to ensure that not one rural school closure is pushed through before the legislation that she promised on the issue is introduced? If she cannot give those commitments today, the SNP has failed on every challenge that it has been set.

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Yesterday, we had a debate on the importance of history in our schools, so I will begin with a short history of our schools—just the recent history, of course.

In the Labour Party manifesto of 1997 there is one line—just one—about school buildings. It reads:

"Public/private partnerships will improve the condition of school buildings."

Let us have a look at how that panned out. In 2003, leading Scottish architects claimed that PPP/PFI had not improved the condition of school buildings as Labour had claimed it would. Sebastian Tombs said that there was too little emphasis on whether the schools that were being provided offered the best learning environment. Bruce Brebner of Anderson Bell and Christie went further, and said:

"The whole thing is driven by money and driven by time ... the process is flawed because the bulk delivery model is a blunt instrument."

George (Labour, Lothians)

rose—

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

Will Christina McKelvie give way on that point?

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

No thank you.

By February of last year, Malcolm Fraser was saying,

"these schools are catastrophically poor",

the Educational Institute of Scotland was voicing serious reservations about PPP, and the effect on extracurricular activities was devastating.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Will Christina McKelvie give way?

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I will not take any interventions, because I will not take lessons from the Labour Party on the matter.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Will Christina McKelvie give way?

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Ms Brankin, sit down please.

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

We know of sports clubs not being able to afford the fees to use PPP/PFI schools. One hockey team from Falkirk travelled to Bathgate to play because that was cheaper than booking into the school that it had always used.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

Will Christina McKelvie give way?

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The member is not taking interventions.

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

We can be fairly certain that PPP/PFI has not exactly improved the condition of school buildings. Moreover, in 2002, Audit Scotland found that it was 4 per cent more expensive than traditional procurement and limited councils' future options. It is shameful that any politician would allow that.

Labour keeps claiming that it built a school a week. Apparently, that level of work from the builders was not enough, so Jackie Baillie told us in March last year that she would set out to build a school every five days. Such industry from the member for Dumbarton! However, she was determined to have the weekends off.

Of course, the truth is that 173 schools were built between 1999 and 2007—not made fit for purpose, but built. However, although 173 were built, 177 were closed during the same period, so when Labour was turfed out of office last May, Scotland had fewer schools than when it came into office. That is some record—it is almost criminal. We are four schools down on the deal and Scottish councils are in hock to the tune of 11.25 per cent. Labour has imposed some tuition fee on the children of Scotland. They will pay back the costs of their primary school education for half their working lives.

Labour's record is simple—shoddy government and expediency—and its solution since May has been to pretend that it never happened. With a wave of the new Labour wand, history is rewritten, the demons are airbrushed out of the photograph and new heroes are installed in the pantheon.

It is a blessed relief that there was a change of Government last May. Instead of following Labour's school closure programme, local authorities are now free to determine the most appropriate routes for providing the schools that Scotland's children need. We now have a Government that is dedicated to building a decent future for Scotland, wants to improve Scotland's schools and will not leave pupils paying the debt for the rest of their lives.

We have had a decade of Labour failure. Now it is time to deliver. We have looked at the history. Now we have a chance to look to the future.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

The SNP said last year:

"We will match the current school-building programme brick for brick".

It also promised to deliver a maximum class size of 18 in primaries 1 to 3, and on 5 November last year, in reply to a parliamentary question from Richard Baker, Maureen Watt said that ministers

"entirely endorse the views of the Accounts Commission and Audit Scotland ... that an occupancy level of below 60% should not automatically trigger consideration of a school's closure."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 5 November 2007; S3W-5300.]

How hollow those words sound to parents in Aberdeen this week. Aberdeen City Council's school building programme has yet to start but, when it does, the new schools—such as the replacement for Mile-End primary school in my constituency—will no longer allow for out-of-zone placements but will be built to a specification that assumes that no out-of-zone pupils will attend through the exercise of parental choice. That approach has been taken only since the SNP joined the city council administration in May and it threatens to deny parents and children their statutory rights.

Last year, SNP education convener Kirsty West and her colleagues launched a review of Aberdeen's school estate. Aberdeen has an average class size of 24 in primaries 1 to 3. That means reducing class sizes by 25 per cent to meet Government targets of a maximum class size of 18. A good reason to review the school estate would be to identify where all the new, smaller classes might be accommodated and what new schools should be built, but that was not the purpose at all. Instead, the review explicitly set out to find ways of reducing the school estate, and the trigger for consideration of a possible school closure was just what Maureen Watt said it should not be:

"an occupancy level of below 60%".

Perhaps SNP ministers should tell SNP councillors in Aberdeen why that is the wrong approach. Perhaps they should tell parents of children at Causewayend school in my constituency about matching Labour's school building programme brick for brick. Instead of doing that, SNP councillors in Aberdeen have drawn up a school closure programme and a hit list of primaries and nurseries across the city.

Causewayend school is top of that list, and yesterday, parents at the school formed a parents council as a first step in their campaign against closure. The chair of that parents council attended Causewayend school as a boy. He still lives on the next street and has one child in primary school and one in nursery at Causewayend. He does not see how smaller class sizes can be achieved by closing schools such as Causewayend, which has served city-centre residents well for the past 132 years.

The SNP's school closure programme in Aberdeen does not stop there. Hilton nursery school, which is bursting at the seams and has been the nursery school of choice for generations of families in a relatively disadvantaged area, is threatened with closure. One of two primary schools that serve the regeneration area of Tillydrone—St Machar school and Donbank school—is threatened with closure, just as plans go forward for hundreds of new affordable homes in the area. Outstanding Catholic primary schools in my constituency, such as St Peter's and St Joseph's, face the threat of rationalisation just a few years down the line. That is the reality that Scotland's schools face under the SNP.

It is simply not acceptable for SNP ministers to say that these are local issues and are therefore not a matter for them. SNP ministers and councillors were elected on a manifesto commitment to deliver smaller class sizes and a promise to build and refurbish schools in order to achieve that. When SNP councillors propose school closures and amalgamations, they are breaking those promises. SNP ministers should own up and be big enough to take their share of the blame.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

We have heard much this morning about how life would be wonderful under a Labour Administration in Scotland and how only the Labour Party would ensure that a school building programme continued to aid pupils in Scottish schools. However, two Labour MSPs think that a new school has been built every week since 1999, which would add up to 416 schools; one thinks that 200 have been built since 2003; and another thinks that 300 have been built since 1999. In fact, only 110 schools were built in the past four years; 173 were built over the past eight years.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

Exactly how many schools can the new SNP Administration take credit for? How many has it commissioned?

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I am not going to take that.

As my colleague Christina McKelvie said, over the past eight years 177 schools were closed. Under the previous Labour-Liberal Democrat Executive, there was a net deficit of four schools.

Much has been made about the "brick for brick" commitment. I have every faith that the SNP Government will work towards fulfilling our manifesto commitment brick for brick, thus providing a school estate strategy to benefit Scottish pupils.

We have Labour, and its poodles the Lib Dems, to thank for eight years of PPP and the Tories to thank for introducing the policy.

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

Will the member take an intervention?

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

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

Elizabeth Smith said that she was so proud that the Tories had introduced PPP. However, perhaps attitudes to PPP are changing in the Opposition parties. After Kenny MacAskill announced that the new prison for Bishopbriggs was no longer going to be funded via PPP, Wendy Alexander welcomed the decision.

Over the past eight years, some said that PPP was the only game in town and that we could not do anything about it. That struck me as the same as the tired old rhetoric that we are too small, we are not capable enough and we are too thick to develop things for ourselves. It is the same old nonsense that has kept Scotland in the union and set us back years and years.

I am thankful that the Scottish electorate voted out the tired old parties last year and gave the SNP the chance to provide a fresh impetus for Scotland. Furthermore, the electorate gave the SNP the opportunity to show that there are viable alternatives to PPP. The Scottish futures trust is out for consultation. I hope that the Opposition parties will take part in the consultation and that they will welcome the idea.

New schools are usually welcomed, provided that it is perceived that the correct and proper procedures have been followed to allow the public to have their say. I am afraid that the experience of the Lib Dems running Inverclyde Council over the past four years shows the way not to consult the public. Their arrogance and dismissal of the Inverclyde public was supreme, and they paid the ultimate price last May by having their number of councillors reduced from 13 to 4 and losing control of the administration.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

Will the member take an intervention?

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I am sorry, but I do not have time.

Unfortunately, the current minority Labour administration in Inverclyde Council appears to be following in the same vein. I say to Ms Jamieson and Mr Macdonald that they should just ask the parents who send their children to Clune Park primary school in Port Glasgow, which is threatened with closure.

The unholy alliance of the current Labour-Tory coalition in East Dunbartonshire Council has signed off proposals for its £501 million PPP programme. New schools are fine and well, but making future generations of pupils in effect pay for the privilege of going to school is appalling. It smacks of privatisation of children's education.

I do not think that the SNP Government need take any lessons from Labour and the Lib Dems, given their record over the past eight years. That is why I urge members to reject Labour's ill-informed motion.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I welcome any and every opportunity to debate education and, in particular, building new schools for our young people. Labour has a proud record on the issue. Since 1999, we have delivered 328 new or refurbished schools. As they say in the Irn-Bru advert, that is phenomenal.

John Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

No. I am not even past my first minute. If the member waits around, I will take an intervention later.

We also committed to build a further 250 new schools, at least 100 of which were to be completed by 2009.

I have to confess that I was delighted when Alex Salmond promised to match Labour's school-building programme "brick for brick"—the investment in our schools, which was so desperately needed, was to be guaranteed. It is therefore a matter of great regret that the plans for Dumbarton academy, which previously were in West Dunbartonshire Council's regeneration plans, have now been scrapped. How will the SNP match Labour's school building programme brick for brick?

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Perhaps the member could inform the Parliament that 10 Labour members on West Dunbartonshire Council voted for the measure to which she refers and that there are only nine SNP members on that council.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

The SNP-controlled schools project board was the first on which the SNP casting vote was used, to remove Dumbarton academy from the programme. In the final council meeting—this is a matter of fact—the motion was moved by the SNP leader. The SNP group threatened that if the motion was not passed, investment would be cancelled in not just Dumbarton academy but Vale of Leven academy, Clydebank high school, St Andrew's high school, St Columba's high school and St Eunan's primary school. That was about playing politics with young people's education, which is a disgrace.

Just how will the SNP match Labour's school building programme brick for brick? Dumbarton academy was to be completed in 2009. Where have all the bricks for Dumbarton academy gone? How will the SNP guarantee that it is built by 2009? Dumbarton academy is one of Scotland's oldest schools; it was founded 500 years ago. Former pupils include Sir Jackie Stewart—although I gather that he was not too pleased with his time there—the novelist AJ Cronin and Professor John Brown, the astronomer royal for Scotland. The current school building is old and dilapidated and millions of pounds of investment is needed just to keep it wind and watertight. It is clearly not fit for purpose. More worryingly, the school does not have the facilities to meet the modern curriculum requirements for 21st century secondary schools in Scotland. As a consequence, learning opportunities for pupils are restricted—they have less choice and less opportunity.

Rhona Brankin and Elizabeth Smith are quite right: school buildings do make a difference to educational attainment. What about the huge disappointment for pupils, teachers and parents caused by no new investment for Dumbarton academy when, just up the road, there is a welcome new building for Vale of Leven academy and, in neighbouring Helensburgh, a new Hermitage academy is to be opened in February 2008? I say to Christina McKelvie that yes, those schools were built under PPP. She might want to reflect on her less generous comments about PPP, given that her own minister signed off 45 schools to be built under PPP.

The minister helpfully confirmed that the SNP will continue to match Labour's school building programme brick for brick, but phase 1 was for 100 schools by 2009, yet the minister appears to have indicated that only 45 schools have been approved. Given that, by her own admission, it will take a while for any new projects to happen, could this be another broken promise?

I am happy to be corrected, but will the minister build 100 new schools by 2009? Where have the bricks for Dumbarton academy gone? Will the SNP intervene in West Dunbartonshire Council, as it did in Edinburgh, to ensure that the children and young people of Dumbarton are not disadvantaged? Will she today make an unequivocal commitment to a new Dumbarton academy by spring 2009?

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Is this debate not interesting? The Labour Opposition had eight years to deliver what it claims to have delivered—if it can agree on how much has been done. Along with its partners the Lib Dems, it suggests that everything was white before but it is all black now. However, given the waste in the system that Labour created—£2.1 billion more was spent on PPP—is it not time to draw breath and consider whether that form of procurement is the best way in which to proceed?

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

Does the member agree with the ministers who have signed off PPP projects and indicated that PPP will continue to be part of the mix? Does he agree that that is the right way forward?

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Is it not obvious to Cathy Jamieson that the disruption that would be caused if the PPP projects that had been proposed were immediately cut would be undesirable? What would the Labour Party say if all those schools had been shut? The member should not be so silly. We know that continuity is part of the issue—it is not a case of white and black.

The problem has deep roots. This morning, the BBC news website ran a story that said:

"More than half the accommodation and facilities at primary schools visited by inspectors in the Inverness area were deemed to be of poor quality.

Of 22 primaries inspected, 14 were considered by HM Inspectorate of Education to be weak and one unsatisfactory."

I remind members that there are 44 schools in that part of the Highlands.

Such figures can be replicated in many places, as we have heard. The system that was in place needs to be changed so that we can get better buildings with more eco-friendly designs and so on. A pause for breath is required.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Will the member give way?

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I do not have time to take another intervention. I have taken one already; Rhona Brankin clearly did not agree with my answer, so I doubt that she would agree with my answer to the question that she wants to ask me.

We are now in a position to think about the kind of schools that we build. We can see, in the way in which people are building eco-friendly houses and office buildings, that we could build schools that could last a good deal longer than the 30-year lifespan of the PPP projects. Thanks to Architecture and Design Scotland, we have an opportunity to review how the procurement process has affected design. It takes time to digest the situation; the Government is doing that, and we have every expectation that we will gain from that.

Architecture and Design Scotland said:

"The procurement methods employed do not always ensure real engagement between the client and the design team, or that high aspirations for design quality are maintained through to delivery."

It also said:

"it must be recognised that the constraints imposed by PPP/PFI processes (which predominated in the projects reviewed) have, in many cases, stifled debate and creativity."

If one thing is needed in relation to the schools that we are going to build to replace the ones in Inverness and everywhere else, it is the creativity that has not been present under the previous scheme. Our amendment proposes a funding system that will enable us to ensure that that creativity is present and to save some of the money that would otherwise be spent. Unfortunately, we have inherited certain commitments. As any responsible Government would do, we have said that we will meet those commitments. However, we must think carefully about the delivery of the next tranche of schools, because they have to be better designed and more pupil friendly. We have time to do that now, which is why the SNP amendment makes sense.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

In opening the debate, Rhona Brankin criticised SNP ministers for posing outside new schools that were commissioned by the previous coalition Executive. That was fair criticism. However, like other members, she talked about Labour's school building programme. Unless I am suffering from amnesia, that school building programme was the responsibility of a coalition Government. I give the Labour Party credit for that joint approach and I assume that the Labour Party gives the Liberal Democrats credit, too.

Elizabeth Smith highlighted the fact that the Scottish futures trust was causing confusion, indecision and inaction. I could not have put it better myself. Maureen Watt responded by saying that the Government was building more schools. However, those schools were commissioned by the Labour and Liberal Democrat Administration. Indeed, Maureen Watt indicated that, when the SNP came to power, there were no plans for another round of the school building programme. However, she knows as well as I do—because we both represent constituents in Aberdeenshire—that that is not the case. Aberdeenshire Council has drawn up a £200 million new school building programme, at the behest of the previous Administration. In my constituency, the previous coalition Government approved funding for a new academy in Portlethen and new primaries in Lairhillock and Hill of Banchory, which everyone welcomed. We are in desperate need of new academies in Laurencekirk, Alford and Banchory, and of primaries in Portlethen and elsewhere.

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Does the member accept that we have given £3 billion to local authorities precisely so that they can go ahead and build those schools?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I am sorry, but the amount of money that has come in is not sufficient for a new school building programme. The minister must know that.

We cannot afford to wait for the SNP Government to get its act together. The suspicion is that the issue is being kicked into the long grass; indeed, the consultation went out on the Parliament's very last sitting day before Christmas—how unlike the SNP not to blow its own trumpet.

There is a huge amount of confusion over the Government's Scottish futures trust. It seems that, rather than have a straightforward PPP process, with the school assets eventually being transferred to our local authorities, the so-called Scottish futures trust will result in the schools—if they are ever built—never returning to our local authorities.

The debate shows that, although the SNP has not blocked any of the schools that were commissioned by the coalition Government—I give the SNP credit for that decision, but not for the schools, which are the responsibility of the previous Administration—it does not want to continue the PPP process into another phase of the school building programme. Rather, the SNP wants its own scheme. The SNP is desperate to invent a new scheme. It cannot go back to the traditional way of investing in school buildings, because it does not have the necessary money in its budget, and it does not like the PPP approach, because that was the approach of the previous Administration and it is ideologically opposed to it.

The result of the SNP's desperation is confusion, indecision and delay. The schools throughout Scotland that need to be replaced are not being replaced, and there is no plan in place for that to happen. The children in those schools deserve a Government that takes action. However, today, we hear good words from the Government but see no action. The SNP Administration must get a grip, for our kids' sakes. We need action. Our children deserve decent buildings in which to learn.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I apologise for the absence of my colleague Murdo Fraser, who is, apparently, stuck on the Forth road bridge as a result of this morning's accident.

I congratulate Labour on securing the debate. As Jeremy Purvis said, it should serve to focus our minds on an extremely important issue that goes to the heart of our communities, as Dr Macdonald eloquently said. Whether schools will be built is something that matters to people.

This morning, the SNP and Labour have traded insults about the numbers of schools that have or have not been built. However, we want to know how many schools will be built in the future. The SNP has not come to the chamber with the details of its plans. Quite frankly, that is not acceptable in terms of its manifesto commitments, or from the point of view of the business community and contractors who might want to build the new schools. Further, as Mike Rumbles just said, it is certainly not acceptable in terms of the education of our young people.

As Cathy Jamieson and Mike Rumbles said, we have not had the details of any of the Government's proposals. Worryingly, we have had confusion over the nature of the Scottish futures trust. As several members have said, the least that we expected was that we would get the principles that would allow us to engage in the debate. However, that has not happened. As I said in my opening remarks, the situation before the election seems to be very different from the situation after the election. The Government owes it to Scotland to tell the Parliament what it plans to do.

George (Labour, Lothians)

Does Elizabeth Smith share my concern about the SNP Government's suggestion that there was no forward plan by Labour and the Liberal Democrats for the building of more schools this year, next year and so on? The coalition Administration built schools year after year. In Edinburgh we had wave 1 and wave 2, so it is inconceivable that we would not have moved to wave 3, in which Portobello high school and Boroughmuir high school would have been replaced. It really is—

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Mr Foulkes, this is a rather long intervention.

George (Labour, Lothians)

Yes, it is.

It is not just mischievous but downright untruthful of the SNP to keep repeating its suggestion that there was no forward plan.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

You are a bit mischievous yourself.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I share George Foulkes's concern, because we owe it to people to tell them which schools will be built, when they will be built and how the build will be financed. That is the crux of the debate, but I am not sure that we have heard many answers from the Government.

Jackie Baillie made a relevant point about the changing nature of the curriculum. It is true that schools have to change to reflect the changing curriculum and their communities. Far more people are involved in schools these days, and communities take part in school activities in a way that did not happen in the past. That must be reflected in the building programme and in the financing.

The issue is crucial if we are to deliver better education in Scotland. We owe it to our people and, above all, to our children. It is time that the Government came forward with plans that we can debate in detail.

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

It shows how out of touch with Scottish public opinion the former coalition partners remain that they have chosen today's debate to attack the SNP's progressive and prudent approach to renewing the school estate.

As for the attacks on school closures, members should know that Labour's school estate strategy called for rationalisation of the school estate. The Government will take no hypocritical lectures from Labour and the likes of Cathy Jamieson, who when she was Minister for Education and Young People axed every school that was referred to her for a decision.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Will the minister give way?

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

No, I will not. Please sit down.

I remind members that the PFI/PPP approach of the previous Administration was deeply unpopular with taxpayers, not least because people realised that this generation and the next would pay through their noses to honour PPP contracts.

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

Will the minister give way?

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Sit down, please.

PPP contracts have produced poorer quality schools than could have been achieved by alternative forms of procurement. Members need not take my word for that; they need only refer to the excellent briefing that was produced for the debate by Architecture and Design Scotland.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

rose—

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The blame for those poor outcomes, such as restricted community access, must lie firmly at the doorstep of the previous Administration. Local authorities were forced to play PPP as the only game in town if they wanted significant investment in new and refurbished schools.

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

rose—

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

I do not think that the minister is taking an intervention.

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

By contrast, the SNP has higher ambitions for the school estate and for Scottish education. There will be no third wave of PPP school projects. We have taken the pragmatic decision to allow existing projects to proceed, because to have done otherwise would have been unfair on communities whose expectations of new schools have been raised to a high pitch—not to mention the costly consequences of cancellation.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Will the minister visit schools in my constituency that were built under PPP, to see the excellent quality of those schools and the teaching and learning that go on in them? Will he get to the point and say how many schools the Government will build?

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

We are committed to building the 100 schools between 2007 and 2009 that Labour members mentioned. Those schools will be in place. By 2011, I am confident that we will have reached the number that you—sorry, Presiding Officer—the Labour Party committed to in its manifesto.

Our brick-for-brick commitment is being realised in full and we are going further. Over the next three years, some £3 billion is being provided to secure investment in infrastructure at local government level, which includes schools. That represents a 15 per cent increase in each year of the settlement, compared with this year's figures. In addition, local authorities can use the prudential borrowing schemes to access private finance at a much cheaper cost than PPP, which has credit-card rates of interest. There will also be the Scottish futures trust to look forward to. Our clear intention is to provide a series of affordable options for local authorities that seek to improve schools in their areas. I am confident that PPP will wither on the vine, as unlamented as it was unloved.

I am also confident that when private gain is removed as a motivating factor in design and delivery, the emphasis in school building will shift to the quality and sustainability of facilities. The contribution that schools can make to our climate change strategy will move centre stage, where the issue belongs.

The top concern of voters during the election campaign was the high cost of, and mortgaging of our children's future through, PPP projects. That is why we await the publication of the Audit Scotland report on the school estate, so that we can consider the lessons that can be learned from what has gone before and how they should influence where we go next. That is what the voters expect of the Government. We are committed to improving the learning experience of children and young people by improving the fabric of schools. We look forward to bringing detailed plans to the Parliament in due course. I pledge that our plans will represent a clean break from the failures of the Labour-Liberal Democrat Administration.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

When is a promise not a promise? When it is made by the SNP in the run-up to a general election. The SNP said that it would match Labour's school building programme brick for brick. That was a nice turn of phrase, which created an illusion of something solid and tangible. I am sure that there was no doubt in voters' minds that the SNP's commitment was one of substance.

Oh dear. No sooner had the new brass name-plates been put up on SNP offices up and down the country than the words began to ring hollow. The SNP said, "Brick for brick just means that we will finish off the projects that are already under contract or are too far down the line to cancel. You thought you were going to get a new school? We don't know how you got that impression. Was it something we said?" The phrase "brick for brick" recalls another nice-sounding promise: the promise to repay student debt. Nicola Sturgeon said, using carefully chosen words:

"We will effectively stand in the shoes of Scottish students ... and take on the burden of their debt."

Fine words indeed from the SNP, but now that the party is in government we find that it did not mean them. There has been another misunderstanding. The promises to repay student debt and match Labour's school building programme brick for brick have been broken.

The SNP says that we should wait, because the new Scottish futures trust will make good on its promises. We have waited patiently. We waited for the spending review, but there was nothing in it. We waited for the budget, but there was nothing in it. Now we are waiting for the Scottish futures trust.

The minister's front-bench colleague Kenny MacAskill has given the game away. While he was talking about the promised new Portobello high school in Edinburgh, he told parents not to wait for the third round of PPP or for funding from the Scottish futures trust but to find the money from the city's capital resources. Here is a simple question for ministers: can they promise me that any of the current roll at Portobello high school will enjoy the new building? Can they deliver their promise in six years? It appears that they cannot.

Ministers have refused to answer several questions. Rhona Brankin posed three questions about the new Scottish futures trust, which were echoed by Liz Smith. I will repeat just one question. How many schools will be built under the new model? Such questions are not too much to ask of the Executive, but they are not being answered. Why? Jeremy Purvis gave us the answer when he highlighted the confusion and delay that are at the heart of the Government. In opposition, the SNP ruled out PPP/PFI, but now, it appears—in Mr Purvis's words—to be supping with the devil.

What did we hear from the minister? Maureen Watt tried to take the credit for projects that are in the pipeline. She suggested that traditional local authority capital funding routes would be enough to meet the demand for new buildings. That was not our promise and that is not matching us. Members throughout the Opposition parties highlighted the hypocrisy of the SNP's position—not so much a futures trust as a breach of trust, as Cathy Jamieson pointedly put it. From Ayrshire to Aberdeen, as Lewis Macdonald added, we have heard the stark reality of the SNP's policies in practice—it is not building new schools, but closing schools.

What is galling about the SNP's brick-for-brick promise is that it is framed in terms of Labour's commitment. It is not a stand-alone proposal that was drawn up by free thinkers. The SNP does not have its own target, but it has framed one that acknowledges the strength of Labour—and Lib Dem—achievements in investing in our schools and it has tried to piggyback on our success.

The SNP's one argument has been to question how many schools we built, yet it tries to trade on our record of building those schools. The promise suggests, "Anything you can do, we can do better." I suppose that we should be flattered, yet the SNP is not only taking Labour as its benchmark, but cynically trying to trade on our reputation for delivering social justice and decent public services, although all the evidence on the SNP points to the contrary.

By their decisions shall ye know them. In the SNP's budget, the priority is not new schools and social justice, but reductions in business rates and in council tax for the better-off. That is supported not by the progressive parties in the Parliament but—you guessed it—by the Tories.

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Will the member confirm that Labour closed more schools than it built?

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

Not only is the SNP not matching Labour's record on new-build schools and refurbished schools, but it is not even close to matching that record.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Mr Macintosh, it would help if you spoke into your microphone. You should know that.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

I am sorry, Presiding Officer.

I have asked the SNP several times how many new schools it has commissioned. For how many schools can it take credit? The answer appears to be none. The SNP promised to match us brick for brick. We promised 250 new schools; the SNP has delivered none. What does that mean for pupils and parents around Scotland? It means disappointment for all families. I stood on an election promise of a brand-new Barrhead high school and a brand-new Eastwood high school. I will not stand on my pride if the SNP delivers on its promise to match me brick for brick but, with the SNP's broken promises on police numbers, on support for first-time home buyers, on class sizes, on student debt and now on school building, the SNP's manifesto is coming apart, brick for brick.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

As the debate has finished early, I suspend the meeting for a minute.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — General Questions

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

To ask the Scottish Executive what checks are in place to ensure that signs and symptoms associated with oligohydramnios (low amniotic fluid) are identified in the third trimester of pregnancy, particularly after the due date. (S3O-2150)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

The "Framework for maternity services in Scotland" describes the schedule of routine care that all pregnant women should receive. Integral to that is routine examination to ensure maternal and foetal well-being and to identify any deviations from the normal, including low amniotic fluid.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

My question arises from the heartbreaking circumstances that a constituent brought to my attention in which her sister's baby was stillborn 12 days past the due date in November as a result of amniotic fluid deficiency. Is the minister aware that the condition is relatively easily checked out by an ultrasound scan? As the consequences of leaving the condition undetected can be tragic, will the minister consider instructing an investigation into more rigorous procedures for detection and prevention, particularly after the due date has been reached? Will she assure us that she will give urgent attention to the issue, which is literally a matter of life or death?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

A woman should have continuous risk assessment throughout her pregnancy, which should take into account the risk status, which might change over time. Consideration should be given to the fact that a woman can move between levels of care throughout a pregnancy. The level of care that is given should reflect that and should be managed under local guidelines and referral arrangements. A risk assessment should be repeated towards the end of a pregnancy, to provide up-to-date information to allow a woman and her carers to reassess plans for childbirth.

Given the concerns that Elaine Smith has raised, I am happy to look into whether more rigorous detection and prevention measures are required. I will come back to her on that.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

To ask the Scottish Executive what its education and lifelong learning department is doing through the Scottish universities physics alliance to support science. (S3O-2138)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council has provided £6.9 million to support the Scottish universities physics alliance, which aims to strengthen physics research. The initiative is still at an early phase, but it has succeeded in attracting excellent international researchers and graduate students to Scotland.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

Is the cabinet secretary aware that the Scottish funding council's delay to decisions on funding for the Scottish universities physics alliance could threaten jobs and research programmes? Is she aware of the benefit of such programmes to the Scottish economy and to innovation in science? Will she reassure me that she will do all that she can to ensure that, whatever decisions are taken elsewhere, stand-alone projects and programmes in Scotland receive her backing and that the scientific community in Scotland is fully aware of the support for it from the Parliament and the Executive?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The Government is very supportive of the pooling arrangements, of which SUPA is one part. The only delay to funding has resulted from the delay to Westminster's funding arrangements for the budget settlement. The allocations to universities from the funding council were discussed at a meeting last week.

I draw the member's attention to the serious point that the Science and Technology Facilities Council, which is funded by the Westminster Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills, has had to announce an £80 million cut in its planned programme and a 25 per cent cut in research grants, which will significantly affect the physics alliance's proposals. I reassure the Parliament that my colleague, Jim Mather, has made representations to John Denham, the relevant minister, to ask him to suspend part of the council's delivery plan until the review into the health of physics, which the same Mr Denham commissioned, is completed. The matter is serious and I think that all members urge the Westminster Government to continue to support physics and science and regret the decisions that it has made.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I join David Caldwell, who is the director of Universities Scotland, in welcoming the additional £10 million that the Government has given the higher education sector. I ask for details about the possibility of a concordat with higher education institutions. I hope that—

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

The question was on support for science, Mr Doris.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

And higher education.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

It was specifically on support for science.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will support for science be part of any future concordat with higher education institutions?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

You are learning fast, Mr Doris.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I thank the member for his recognition that I managed to release £10 million from our budgets this year to support the university sector. That money has been warmly welcomed by all concerned.

Many subjects will be discussed at next week's meeting of the joint future thinking task force, and the possibility and appropriateness of a concordat or covenant will no doubt arise during the coming months. I think that Ken Macintosh referred to collaboration in physics and science in Scotland. Such collaboration is a model for the future development of our university sector. Collaboration and co-operation will be a part of any future arrangements in the university sector.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Does the minister agree that the £10 million that has been mentioned will merely pay for salary rises for university lecturers? Does she agree that a significant funding gap still exists?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I repeat that the question was on support for science. However, the minister may answer the member's question.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I am delighted that the Government will give a higher percentage of the total budget to the university sector over the next spending review period than the previous Government did over a similar spending review period. Moreover, the Government will carry through what it said about supporting universities with in-year flexibility. I am delighted to say that the £10 million that I have released from my budget will help to tackle staffing pressures in universities. We committed to doing that, and we have delivered on that.

Marlyn Glen (Labour, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what legal advice it has been given on the impact on parental choice legislation of its pledge to reduce class sizes to 18 in primary 1 to primary 3. (S3O-2124)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

As members may be aware, the Scottish Government's practice is neither to confirm nor to deny whether legal advice has been received on any issue.

Marlyn Glen (Labour, North East Scotland)

I thank the minister for her answer, although it is not particularly helpful.

What will happen? I think that everyone understands that the Scottish Government intends to make local authorities responsible for delivering many of its promises. In some areas, class sizes will fall naturally as a result of reductions in the number of children in those areas, but the expectations of teachers and parents throughout Scotland have been raised.

How will the minister make it possible to fulfil the promises on classrooms and teacher numbers throughout Scotland, while still allowing parental choice? Will she, for example, clarify what will happen to parental choice if local authorities choose to reserve places for pupils who are moving into catchment areas? How will such an approach fit in with the pledge that has been made?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I am pleased to say that the Government has a positive and constructive relationship with local government—indeed, I had a positive meeting on class sizes with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities only this week. My officials have met representatives of a number of local authorities—six, I think—to discuss the practical implications of the popular policy of reducing class sizes. One important thing about Scottish education is that the vast majority of parents want to send their children to local schools because those schools are effective and excellent. It is important that that continues.

We have no plans to change our parental choice policy. We trust local authorities to manage their school estate, allocations and catchment areas in a satisfactory manner.

David Whitton (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

To ask the Scottish Executive when it last met the sheriff principal of Glasgow and Strathkelvin. (S3O-2153)

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

Scottish Government officials frequently meet the sheriff principal of Glasgow and Strathkelvin to discuss a range of matters.

David Whitton (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

I met Sheriff Principal Taylor 10 days ago to discuss the operation of the family court contact centre in his area. As the minister will know, that centre is run by volunteers who do an excellent job, but demand for their services outstrips supply and the centre is not always open because they are volunteers. As a result, one of my constituents did not see his son at all in December. The sheriffs and the family courts know that that is a problem, as is the fact that contact orders are too often broken.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Will you ask a question, please, Mr Whitton?

David Whitton (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

I am coming to it, Presiding Officer.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Quickly, I hope.

David Whitton (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

I am sorry.

Does the Government have any plans to put contact centres on a more official footing so that they have their own staff? That would lead to more flexible opening hours and would allow fathers and mothers to meet their children not only on Saturdays, but on a more flexible basis through the week. Perhaps they could meet their children in the evenings or after work.

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

I am aware of Mr Whitton's interest in the issue, which he is right to raise, and I have seen correspondence with a ministerial colleague. We must ensure that the child remains at the centre of things. Some parents—often fathers—have difficulties maintaining contact with their children. The Government provides funding for contact centres through Family Mediation Scotland, which provides a range of support. We are happy to consider the issue. We have taken the position that the previous Administration correctly took.

As I said, the child must always be at the centre of things. Difficulties frequently arise between parents and, unfortunately, children can be caught in the resulting firestorm. It is important to make facilities available, make arrangements, and try to negotiate settlements. I would be happy to discuss such matters with the member. As I said, the contact centres are dealt with through Family Mediation Scotland. We think that that is the best system at the moment.

Irene Oldfather (Labour, Cunninghame South)

To ask the Scottish Executive what importance it attaches to language learning in schools. (S3O-2145)