Scottish Parliament, 20 March 2008

371 contributions from 82 members. The official report.

Official Report 20 March 2008

Housing

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S3M-1603, in the name of Johann Lamont, on housing.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

It is a privilege to lead this housing debate on behalf of the Labour Party. We in the Labour Party are proud of what was achieved in the first eight years in the Parliament. Much of that work was recognised as groundbreaking, but we acknowledge that there is much more to do.

It would be foolish for anyone to say that everything that we did was perfect, but it is equally foolish for the current Administration to say that there was no consensus and no agreement and that what we did was a complete disaster, because that is simply not true.

Labour's charge against the Government is that the running thread of our experience of it is that it overclaims and underdelivers, favours spin over substance and, at its very best, produces more broken promises. If the minister has been effective at anything, it has been at creating the impression of action and perhaps securing some positive headlines. However, the truth behind the headlines is a little less substantial.

The much heralded housing supply task force will not produce a report or recommendations for action; it was not involved in shaping the budget; it was not part of developing the document "Firm Foundations: The Future of Housing in Scotland"; and at least one member of the minister's group has expressed grave concerns about the budget allocations in relation to the social rented sector.

The Government is consulting on Scottish planning policy 3 on affordable housing at the same time that it has set up a body to consider how to unblock the planning system. The "Firm Foundations" document does not even mention Scottish planning policy 14, which looks at setting a benchmark for 25 per cent of units in a new development to be affordable housing.

The minister wants the world—or at least his own back benchers—to think that the right to buy has ended, but of course the change that he has introduced has been so narrowly defined that it will affect very few people. It undermines the balance that was struck in the modernised right to buy, which was supported by the Chartered Institute of Housing in Scotland, which recognised the need for flexibility in regeneration communities, where ownership can make a difference, and suspension of the right to buy in hot spots where there is pressure.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Is the member saying that the Labour Party's position is that it is opposed to the abolition of the right to buy on new-build properties?

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

The Labour Party's position is that we recognise the strength of the right to buy and we want to see the difference that the modernised right to buy has made. That position is supported by the Chartered Institute of Housing in Scotland.

We are told that local authorities will build council houses, but the reality is that very few of them will be able to do that. On the other hand, the Administration is completely silent on how it will support those local authorities that have debt and voted against stock transfer on the advice of the Scottish National Party.

On low-cost home ownership, the Administration is following what has already been done, but with no sense that action is needed in areas other than economic hot spots or that there needs to be equitable access to first-time-buyer support.

On what else is the minister silent? On homelessness, he asserts that he supports the target, but he removes certainty by outsourcing all responsibility to local authorities. Given that tax cuts are this Administration's one key priority, what pressure will there be on local authorities to provide the bricks and mortar, where possible, while removing or reducing the advice, support and specialist provision that helps prevent homelessness? What will be demanded of single outcome agreements in relation to homelessness? The Administration says nothing about the needs of areas of regeneration. Indeed, Communities Scotland's expertise is to be removed from the community planning partnership table altogether. There will be no access to community regeneration funding and the wider action budget will be flat-lined—those are the very things on which community housing associations have built their credibility. The minister is silent on the Scottish housing quality standard when community organisations are telling us that they will have to deliver it by increasing rents.

Then there are the two big ideas of this Administration. Its first target is, "We will build more houses than the last lot did." Secondly, it claims that it will drive efficiencies into the affordable housing market by opening it to competition. If there is a spine on the Government back benches, it should prepare to feel a shiver down it now. On 28 November 2007, the minister said:

"My intention is not to be nice to one particular part of the sector or another; it is to ensure that we deliver more homes for people. That is the fundamental point. ... That is why we have suggested some changes and why I think that competition is important. I think that who eventually owns and manages properties is of less importance than the fact that we have them."—[Official Report, Local Government and Communities Committee, 28 November 2007; c 300.]

That flies in the face of every lesson of housing history in Scotland. Given that we know that community ownership has delivered changes in our communities, it is not credible to say that ownership does not matter.

At a time of turbulence in the housing market and a credit squeeze, is it wise for the Administration to be vague on the proportion of houses for social rent? Given that the Administration's own figures show that construction inflation has increased by 35 per cent, is it credible to pretend that its target of building 35,000 houses a year by the middle of the next decade is achievable?

The challenge for SNP back benchers is to confront their front-bench's agenda. The Administration has a strategy on efficiencies—who could be against that—but it is predicated on higher rents, and on the presumptions that bigger is better, that competition delivers change and that building houses is the same as having a housing strategy. We know from experience that that is not the case. We know that the Administration is undermining community-controlled housing associations. Would it not be an irony if the legacy of the SNP was to lure cross-border raids from big, asset-rich, English housing associations to take over the work that local housing organisations have done? History shows that the disastrous consequence of national building programmes that distribute funding from the centre with no priority for wider action is houses that no one wants to live in and which we have to demolish. The minister has to understand that asserting his love of the housing association and co-operative movement is not the same as delivering for it and that asserting his commitment on homelessness is not the same as delivering on it.

I turn finally to the first-time buyers grant of £2,000—the great promise. The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing, Nicola Sturgeon, is non-committal on it and would like us to be her alibi for not delivering it. If she believes in it, she should argue for it. If she does not, she should say why not. The First Minister said:

"The SNP is going to work through all of its manifesto commitments over the four-year term of this Administration."—[Official Report, 6 September 2007; c 1493.]

The Administration should stop dodging and tell us whether the first-time buyers grant of £2,000 is a broken promise, a promise yet to come or a cynical election promise made with the collective fingers of the SNP firmly crossed behind their backs? We deserve to know. That is why the motion includes a demand for a statement.

The fundamental charge against the Administration is that it spins, rather than recognises, our history. It should come clean, understand that a housing strategy is about more than building houses and begin to talk about targets for social renting, the needs of the homeless and the role of community organisations as partners in change.

I move,

That the Parliament regrets the SNP government's lack of a coherent housing strategy; notes that the Housing Supply Task Force has no timetable or remit to produce recommendations for action; notes in particular the absence of robust evidence on funding and efficiencies in delivering its housing targets; further notes concerns about the impact of a single regional developer model, as outlined in the Firm Foundations consultation, on community-controlled housing associations and housing co-operatives; agrees that the Scottish Government should make a statement to the Parliament as soon as possible, clarifying its plans for the clear SNP manifesto commitment on a £2,000 first-time buyers' grant, and urges the Scottish Government to act to secure long-term improvements in housing rather than the short-term appearance of change.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I thank Johann Lamont for that mature and reasoned argument. It is a bit rich for the Labour Party to accuse us of having low ambitions for housing, given that, over the last three years of its Administration, it built 0, 0 and 6 council houses. I think that we can beat its record on council house building without any trouble at all.

I welcome a debate on housing. We brought a housing debate within a few weeks of coming to power and we see housing as a major priority for the Government. Our top priority is of course the creation of a successful country with opportunities for all Scotland to flourish through increasing sustainable economic growth.

Perhaps I should remind Parliament where we found ourselves last May. For a number of years, property prices had been rising at an alarming rate, which was making it difficult for many people to become home owners. Average house prices had risen by 72 per cent in only four years, while the increase in house building under the previous Administration was of only 2 per cent over the same period. Not enough houses were being built. Put simply, far too many people in Scotland were finding it difficult, if not impossible, to satisfy the basic aspiration of having a decent home that they could afford in a place where they wanted to live.

It was clear that we had been left a legacy of housing problems that had built up over many years of neglect. In the months since May, the Government has made it clear that increasing the housing supply in all tenures—I make no apology for including all tenures—is key to meeting our nation's housing needs. We want a significant increase in house building throughout the country that creates vibrant, mixed, environmentally sustainable communities.

In "Firm Foundations", we quantified our house-building aspirations by proposing that national building rates should be increased to at least 35,000 each year by the middle of the next decade. That is not tinkering with policy but a major shift in what we seek from our house-building industry.

The proposal aims to change totally current approaches to development. Our ambition has been widely welcomed. Earlier this month, Building magazine reported:

"since the SNP seized power, Scotland's construction industry has been bursting with optimism ... the feeling from developers and house-builders in Scotland is palpably different to that in England."

We need to nurture that confidence and draw on it to address the supply crisis in which we find ourselves.

"Firm Foundations" sets out the framework in which we have pressed forward on several fronts in recent months. To assist first-time buyers more, we launched a £24 million funding package for our open-market shared equity pilot in property hot spots.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

On 21 January, the minister confirmed that the Government intended to roll out the pilot to six areas. Is that the same pilot roll-out as Rhona Brankin announced in March 2007, when she was the Minister for Communities?

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I am happy to confirm that the roll-out is not the same, because the Lothians pilot on which it was to be based was flawed in several ways. The Lothians pilot fuelled aspiration and did not meet need. We changed the programme before we rolled it out to hot spots, so it is not the same.

Under the umbrella of our new low-cost initiative for first-time buyers, the pilot will enable hundreds of first-time buyers to take the first step towards home ownership when that is the right move for them. By helping tenants of housing associations and local authorities to achieve home ownership, the pilot can help to relieve pressure on the stretched rented sector.

To respond to the housing pressures in rural areas, we announced just last month that we will establish a scheme to enable rural landowners to apply for housing grants to help them to build new affordable homes on their land. The £5 million that we will direct to that pilot scheme could improve the sustainability of some of our more fragile rural communities.

The housing supply task force that we created last summer, and which I chair, represents a fresh approach to tackling obstacles, such as land supply and planning issues, that have hampered the delivery of sufficient housing. Far from lacking a remit or an inclination to make a difference, as the Labour Party's motion implies, the task force has made steady progress over the winter, as a glance at the papers on its web pages confirms.

The task force brings together a diverse range of housing supply interests and has dug into the detail of what affects housing delivery around the country. The task force's focus is—rightly—on delivery rather than report writing and I am determined that, through its actions, it will begin to unpick obstacles that have got in the way of development. We will issue a public statement next month about what we have learned from our work so far and how we propose to proceed in the months ahead.

Finally, I will deal with investment in our social housing stock. We have to tackle our predecessors' failure to secure value for public investment in social housing. It has been clear for years that demand for social housing far exceeds supply and that the cost to the public purse of delivering new stock is growing unsustainably. Others might have been content to ignore those hard facts, but we are not, because doing nothing denies families the homes that they desperately need.

We are determined to obtain much better value for our investment and—crucially—to do so while retaining the strengths and benefits of Scotland's unique mix of housing associations, including community-controlled associations and co-operatives. To achieve that, we propose to identify through a competitive process a few lead developers to undertake all new social housing developments in a given area over a number of years.

The developers will build not simply for themselves, but to meet the need of other associations—including community-controlled associations and co-operatives—to acquire new stock. They will build the stock, but community associations will own and manage it. We will save money by proceeding in that way. A key criterion for a successful lead developer will be its ability to show how it would meet local associations' requirements on cost, design and standards—not least in regeneration, rural or island areas.

We have been quick to make our proposals and have already begun to take actions that can make a difference to the lives of people who have been let down by the housing system and the previous Administration.

I move amendment S3M-1603.3, to leave out from "the SNP government's" to end and insert:

"the failure of the Labour and Liberal Democrat administration to tackle the chronic shortages of housing; notes the Scottish Government's commitment to increase the rate of house building across all tenures from 25,000 to at least 35,000 houses per year by the middle of the next decade; welcomes the fact that the Housing Supply Task Force has brought together stakeholders from all sections of the housing sector to tackle blockages in the housing system; recognises that it is important to achieve value for money in, and increase the provision of, social rented housing while retaining the benefits of community-based provision and encourages the Scottish Government to continue to work with social housing providers to achieve that goal; further recognises the efforts of the Scottish Government to work together with housing associations, local authorities and the private sector to tackle the legacy of housing shortages; endorses the Scottish Government's commitment to the 2012 target on homelessness, and calls on the Scottish Government to make a statement on Firm Foundations by the summer recess."

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I welcome the opportunity to discuss housing policy. The minister spoke of optimism, but that is no substitute for bricks and mortar. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating.

Like all members, I am only too aware from my mailbag of the massive and increasing problem of the lack of affordable housing throughout Scotland. As politicians, it is our duty to take the lead in offering practical and realistic solutions, because the situation is ruining many people's lives.

As the Scottish Conservative party's communities spokesman, I have had the pleasure of meeting a wide cross-section of housing interest groups and discussing their concerns and ideas. One issue that arises time and again is the lack of dynamism in our planning system, which remains cumbersome and slow, despite recent reforms that were supposed to improve it.

Just the other day, one housing expert told me that in Edinburgh alone, about 5,000 affordable housing units that have been granted permission are stuck in the planning and delivery pipeline. That situation is crazy, but it is—sadly—replicated throughout the country. Do ministers recognise the widespread concern about the planning system's role in the lack of delivery of affordable housing? If so, what action will they take to respond? Is the housing supply task force considering that? In the past, ministers have launched ambitious targets for the number of affordable housing units that they want to be delivered each year, but a gap has existed between the rhetoric and the delivery of new affordable houses. Planning is a major factor in that.

As for affordable housing in rural areas, like the Scottish Rural Property and Business Association, I welcomed the Government's recent announcement of grants for rural homes for rent. The Government is recognising what the Scottish Conservatives have long argued—that the private sector has a key role to play in providing affordable homes for rent in rural areas and especially in remote rural areas. I hope that that is just the beginning of positive co-operation between the Government and the independent housing sector and that ministers will expand the scheme after the pilot study, if it is assessed to be successful and to provide value for money. I am also interested to hear whether ministers plan to expand the rural empty properties grant scheme, which has successfully brought back into use redundant and disused properties on many estates.

I am disappointed that the SNP wants to restrict a tenant's right to buy the home in which they live. We believe that everyone should be able to buy their home if they wish to, so we want to protect the right to buy for the next generation of home owners. That is why we lodged our amendment.

Will the minister confirm that the Government is abandoning its first-time buyers grant? According to The Sunday Times, of the 400 respondents to the "Firm Foundations" consultation, 90 per cent opposed the grant, including the Council of Mortgage Lenders, the Chartered Institute of Housing in Scotland, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Homes for Scotland, the Association of Local Authority Chief Housing Officers, the Royal Bank of Scotland and Cala Homes. Like the Scottish Conservatives, they all realise that, although the grant is well-intentioned, it would add to house price inflation and would help nobody. The Conservatives' policy of removing stamp duty on houses with a value of up to £250,000 for first-time buyers would help such buyers much more. After the next general election, we expect that policy to take effect all over the United Kingdom.

The lack of affordable housing is one of the major domestic issues that faces modern Scotland and it must be addressed. Many responses to the "Firm Foundations" consultation offer insight into the problems that prevent the delivery of affordable housing as well as welcome new ideas and solutions. I look forward to the Government's providing a definitive response to the consultation.

I move amendment S3M-1603.1, to insert at end:

"further believes that the right to buy should not be further restricted, and calls on the Scottish Government to encourage councils to bring forward plans for housing stock transfer to take advantage of the debt write-off which is available from HM Treasury and promote new investment as a result."

Jim Tolson (Liberal Democrat, Dunfermline West)

The Liberal Democrats welcome the motion that Johann Lamont has lodged on behalf of the Labour group, as it covers many of the shortcomings of the SNP Government and some of the fundamental flaws in its policies. However, the Liberal Democrat group has lodged an amendment in my name that will add to the Labour motion, highlighting further flaws in the Government's thinking on housing provision in Scotland.

The Liberal Democrats believe that housing is a basic human right and that we must build environmentally sustainable homes, producing cleaner, safer communities. The Government must not only invest in social housing but help to meet the ambitions of individuals who want to get on to the housing ladder. Additional spending on affordable housing supply is, at best, less than 20 per cent of what is needed. The housing budget will be cut by 6 per cent in real terms in year one, before recovering in later years.

The SNP is clearly looking to abandon its pre-election pledge to give first-time buyers a £2,000 grant to buy their home. Although we are glad that it intends to drop that ill-conceived policy, it was a reckless and populist pledge to make in the first place. It is set to be another SNP broken promise, much like the promise to dump student debt. The Chartered Institute of Housing is quite right to say that the funding would be better utilised through the local improvement finance trust programme.

Much of Labour's motion relates to the Government's "Firm Foundations" document. That is perfectly reasonable, given that consultation on "Firm Foundations" closed recently and that the Government is due to give its findings at some, as yet undetermined, point in the future. "Firm Foundations" sets out the Government's intentions in a number of areas, but in many cases those intentions are so vague as to be almost useless. Recently, when I asked the Government how many affordable homes will be built between 2008 and 2011, Stewart Maxwell replied that he

"expects that the ... budget... will deliver more new affordable homes ... than planned for 2005-08."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 4 March 2008; S3W-9149.]

How helpful of the minister to give such a vague response on this crucial issue. No wonder people are upset about the lack of Government support to tackle Scotland's housing crisis.

The Government is seeking to increase the rate of new housing supply in Scotland to at least 35,000 a year by the middle of the next decade. That sounds laudable, but the Government has not made any attempt to break down, even roughly, how many of those homes will be provided in the private sector, how many will be provided in the public sector, how many will be for rent or how many will be for part or full ownership. Shelter Scotland estimates that, far from meeting its target of 30,000 affordable rented homes, the output in the three-year period that is proposed by the Government will be around 21,500. That is barely two thirds of what Shelter Scotland regards as adequate—just adequate—to address Scotland's homelessness crisis. Liberal Democrats are concerned that the current housing budget will fail to provide enough affordable homes to rent in the run-up to the 2012 deadline for abolishing all unintentional homelessness in Scotland.

The problem affects not only homeless people but many people on the general housing lists who need accommodation for the first time, as they cannot afford to buy, or larger accommodation as their families grow. They are further disadvantaged by the Government's inability to provide enough sustainable housing to meet people's needs. That is why today the Liberal Democrats have lodged an amendment calling on the government to get serious about tackling the housing crisis and to provide much more than a 9 per cent real-terms increase in funding for affordable homes in Scotland, covering both the private and rented sectors. We hope that the amendment will receive support across the chamber, to show that at least some of us are determined to see real and lasting improvements in our social housing sector.

I move amendment S3M-1603.2, to insert after "housing targets":

"believes that the Scottish Government's provision of a real terms increase of 9% in affordable housing over the period of the comprehensive spending review falls far short of what is needed to address the affordable housing shortage."

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

It gives me great pleasure to speak in favour of today's Labour motion. As a number of speakers have indicated, housing is a major issue in Scotland. That was brought home to me at my surgery on Monday night, when a young woman came in with a housing issue. She felt intimidated by antisocial behaviour and was staying in an overcrowded house. All that she wanted was a quality house, in a safe environment, in which to stay. Providing that is the challenge that we all face.

I was interested to note that the minister said that housing is a priority, but I believe that the SNP has let the housing sector down by reneging on its pledge to provide grants to first-time buyers, by a lack of detail on funding and by cutting the housing supply budget by 6 per cent in real terms. "Firm Foundations" does not give enough priority to communities. It talks up the regional developer model—a kind of Tescoisation of housing policy—and is insufficiently committed to community-based housing organisations. An excellent example of such organisations is the West Whitlawburn Housing Co-operative in my constituency. I remember campaigning in the area in the 1980s, when the lifts did not work, the housing quality was poor and the people whom one met at the door did not match up with those on the electoral register. However, in 1989 a housing co-op was formed. With the commitment of the community, there has been a real turnaround in the area, with stability and good-quality housing. That shows what can be done by co-ops and community-based housing organisations. Those models should be given priority over the regional developer model.

The Government's policy is to identify savings and efficiencies that drive up investment and produce greater numbers of houses, but those efficiencies have not been quantified. I suggest that many of them will take at least three years to kick in. Some of the new arrangements will not be in place until 2009, but the Government has budgeted for them to start to kick in in 2008. We are still waiting to hear the detail of how the reorganisation of Communities Scotland will take place. That undermines the housing target that the SNP has set—it is illogical, as the numbers do not add up.

I caution against seeking economies of scale. West Whitlawburn Housing Co-operative has a concierge service for residents who run into difficulties, with a response time of 40 seconds. In larger local authorities, the response time is 40 minutes. The West Whitlawburn initiative has saved four lives in recent years. Cutting it would not be an efficiency saving—it would cost lives.

I also caution against moving housing association grant funding away from community-based organisations. That will put pressure on rents, which will affect poorer tenants. It will also impact on the ability of organisations to meet the Scottish housing quality standard.

We all agree that housing is a major issue that affects many lives and communities. It is clear that the SNP's credibility has been called into question in the area. We need to involve communities and to ensure that efficiencies are not made into cuts. The document is called "Firm Foundations", but perhaps it should be called "Shifting Sands". It is time to get this matter right and to produce a housing policy that delivers for Scotland's communities.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Central Fife)

It is accepted wisdom that, when initiating a debate, members should ensure that, whatever the subject chosen, they do not needlessly leave themselves open to criticism. If the Labour Party had asked me for advice, I would have strongly advised Johann Lamont not to debate housing today, because—how can I put it—it is not Labour's strongest hand of cards.

The first line of Labour's motion reads:

"the Parliament regrets the SNP government's lack of a coherent housing strategy".

I respectfully suggest to Labour members that they would not recognise a coherent housing strategy if it stared them in the face. The one thing that the Labour Party never had during 10 years in government was a housing policy, never mind a coherent one.

I am not the only person who thinks so. As I was reading The Herald newspaper in August last year, I choked on my tea when I read:

"Wendy Alexander has been taken aback at the strength of feeling about affordable housing, in her tour of Scotland listening to Labour Party activists. ... the leader-elect said the housing issue had surprised her most in feedback from the party, and that Scotland had fallen behind England in finding solutions to the housing crisis."

Taken aback? Wendy Alexander should have been taken apart by Labour activists. She was the minister responsible for transferring Glasgow's housing stock to the Glasgow Housing Association, making promises to tenants that she knew she would not keep.

To be fair to Wendy Alexander, she was talking about the crisis in the previous five years in which the number of home starts rose by 7 per cent, whereas it rose by 18 per cent in England. Five years before last August, Wendy Alexander was not a housing minister, but Johann Lamont and Margaret Curran were. They are the members who have to take part in today's debate for the Labour Party in the knowledge that Wendy Alexander has criticised them for their lack of any kind of policy.

Between 1997 and 2007, the Labour-led Administration—the Liberals are not off the hook on this one, either—built an average of 4,300 homes a year in the social rented sector, despite a 1999 manifesto pledge to build 6,000 houses a year. The Labour-Liberal Executive built fewer houses in each year between 1997 and 2007 than the Tories did in 1995. That is why the current Government inherited a housing crisis, albeit one that it will tackle.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I, too, recollect past times, Tricia Marwick. I remember your being on a television programme with Rhona Brankin, my successor as housing minister, and saying that the answer was the first-time buyers grant. Do you still believe that?

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Central Fife)

I am sorry, I did not understand—

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

Let me make it absolutely clear. You were on BBC television some years ago—

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

No, I was not.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I apologise. Tricia Marwick said on television that the answer to Scotland's housing problem was the first-time buyers grant. Is that still her position?

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Central Fife)

I do not remember the programme, but the first-time buyers grant in isolation has never been the solution to Scotland's housing problem. We need a coherent housing strategy. The minister lays down the foundations for just such a policy in "Firm Foundations".

Shelter Scotland, which has been critical of the Government, not least about the amount of money given to housing, recognises and is encouraged by the priority that the Scottish Government has given to housing. The housing supply task force, coupled with an explicit commitment to increase general housing supply by 2015, is the clearest recognition for decades that housing production has lagged behind the need to replace housing stock.

The SNP Government will take no lectures from the party that now finds itself in opposition; that party was fortunate enough to be in government for 10 years, during which it did not tackle the Scottish housing crisis but added to it. The Labour Party should judge the SNP Government after 10 years, not 10 months—we will transform Scottish housing in the way that it should have been transformed decades ago.

John Farquhar Munro (Liberal Democrat, Ross, Skye and Inverness West)

As we have heard, there is no doubt that the shortage of affordable housing is one of the greatest problems facing Scotland in the immediate future. The Government will have to address not only the perennial problem of the lack of affordable housing, but the fallout from the current worldwide financial crisis.

The crisis will not affect city workers alone; it will affect everyone. The credit crunch means that borrowing will become more costly, for a mortgage, a loan or a credit card. It will be tougher to get a mortgage and tougher to get it at a reasonable price. That is why it is vital—as the motion says—that the Government comes up with a coherent and effective housing strategy. I am not sure why the previous Executive did not have such a strategy. Perhaps it did, but insofar as it effected any real change in the Highlands, there might as well have been no strategy at all.

For many consecutive years, the housing problem in the Highlands has only worsened. Many thousands of houses have been built, only to be snapped up by speculators who made a profit before the developments were complete. Government and local authorities must take a far more aggressive approach to the supply of affordable social housing.

There are three main causes of the shortage of affordable housing in the Highlands. The first is the one that we hear about regularly—lack of funding. Government needs to provide increased funding to councils and housing associations to overcome the problem. There is no doubt that we need more council housing. The second cause is the sale of existing council housing stock. We need to consider seriously a permanent extension to ending the right to buy in areas where there is a severe shortage of housing for rent. The third problem is the lack of land for building new, affordable housing. To address that, all public bodies need to look at their land holdings and release land that is suitable for affordable housing for use by housing associations or councils. Huge areas of land in Scotland are held by public bodies. Much of it lies unused, but it could be used to solve the problem of affordable housing supply in Scotland.

We require to address the delays and bureaucracy in the planning system. That would encourage developers to meet the increasing demand for social housing for rent. If we are serious about housing Scotland's homeless, we must take action now.

I am advised that there are in excess of 300 houses lying empty at Kinloss in the Moray constituency—in fact, the actual number is 354. Those houses are surplus to the needs of the Royal Air Force base at Kinloss and are for sale as a block. That seems an ideal opportunity for the Government and the local authority to join forces to acquire and manage the properties. There are 1,300 homeless applications on the Moray Council list. If we achieve nothing else today, we should agree to instruct the Scottish Government to negotiate with the Ministry of Defence and Moray Council to bring those houses into productive use.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I will concentrate on the Glasgow Housing Association, which is a hangover gift from the previous Administration and continues to be an albatross round the necks of local housing associations and tenants in Glasgow, as well as a salutary lesson in avoiding mass housing stock transfer for all those other areas of Scotland in which the same plan has been attempted or even suggested.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Will the member give way?

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Johann Lamont is a wee bit early yet.

The GHA is a failing organisation. In recent months, the finance director, the development director, the senior housing manager and middle-ranking mangers have all gone. Those people are housing professionals who joined the flagship Labour housing project because they believed that eventually—they did not think that it would take forever—it would deliver to the local housing associations and allow local people to have control over their housing. It is a flagship Labour housing project whose flag is now fluttering at half mast.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I hear what the member says about the GHA. Does he acknowledge that the model that is now being promoted by the GHA, as the lead developer for Glasgow, should caution us against the notion that a lead developer can create change? Perhaps the member will advise his minister of the problem of diseconomies of scale.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I will let Johann Lamont advise the minister and see what he takes from her advice.

The GHA was established by the Labour Party under Wendy Alexander, and successive Labour housing ministers kept it running as an organisation with no desire to deliver on its establishment promise to ensure that using local housing associations would be the way forward.

The SNP Government has begun the second-stage transfer process that will allow housing associations to benefit from the GHA's establishment, as was proposed but never delivered by the previous Administration, which had a record of proposing but never delivering and of breaking many promises from previous manifestos.

However, analysis of the GHA business plan for this year has shown that it has no intention to transfer any further properties after those in the original 16 transfer proposals. That is a result of the centralised and unrepresentative set-up that was established under Labour, which is now trying to avoid responsibility for its part in the whole shabby deal. Some 20 plus community-controlled housing associations in Glasgow and the west of Scotland have, only now, under the SNP Government, received guidance from the GHA to allow them to finalise their second-stage transfer submissions. However, those associations have felt that it is incumbent on them to commission a report on the GHA valuation process and its fairness or otherwise. This, they say, is because Labour set up the GHA as an organisation that does not even have a duty to respond to freedom of information requests.

Add to all that the grossly unfair treatment that has been suffered by GHA-factored owner-occupiers, some of whom have been landed with bills of £6,000 to £8,000 for upgrading work on their homes, which must be paid within 12 months or they will face court action. That is why I and other SNP MSPs are asking the Minister for Communities and Sport to order an independent financial review by Audit Scotland of a prime example of Labour's failed housing policy in action.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

In the first two sessions of the Scottish Parliament, we improved tenants' rights, the standard and quality of our homes, the regulation to protect tenants and the legislation to protect home owners. We also completely modernised the right to buy and introduced standards and targets to support homeless people back into housing for the long term. We tackled all those issues as a priority. We introduced legislation that recognised that all housing providers have a part to play in delivering affordable and quality housing and that communities and tenants must be involved fully in all that is done.

Here we are, almost one year into the third session of the Scottish Parliament and almost one year since the SNP minority Government came to power, and what have we heard from it on housing? Precious little. The Government has published a consultation document, in which it announced its intentions on cherry-picked issues. The Government says that it has abolished the right to buy, but that is not true. The SNP said in its manifesto that it would give first-time buyers £2,000—incidentally, that was about the only housing policy in its manifesto. Where is the £2,000? I can tell the people who were persuaded that it would be on offer that that was not true and that the SNP is not to be trusted on housing, just as it is not to be trusted on student debt write-off and on delivering the other promises in its manifesto.

The "Firm Foundations" consultation ended on 25 January. Two months later, we are still waiting for the response. The Government amendment calls for a statement to the Parliament on the issue by the summer recess. I know that the First Minister has downgraded housing and that the Minister for Communities and Sport does not have a voice in the Cabinet, but that is not good enough. We deserve to have a debate on the Government's intentions sooner rather than later. We need debate, action, hard targets and a strategy for delivery. We do not need words or the short-term appearance of change that the minister would like us to believe in. We need more houses, particularly more rented houses.

The "Firm Foundations" consultation document states that the Government does not

"intend to repeat the mistakes of the past with large, single-tenure housing estates, poorly connected to jobs and services or dependent on the private car for those connections and designed in a way that does not foster a sense of identity or community."

Everybody would sign up to that. However, that statement contradicts directly the SNP's preference for a single regional developer model. The argument that a single developer would reduce cost does not add up. As members have said, creating an effective monopoly will lead to rent increases, coupled with poor investment in maintenance and care, and a lack of involvement of tenants or the communities that we seek to build.

Where is the SNP support for low-cost home ownership in areas that are not deemed economic hotspots? It is non-existent. The reality of the SNP housing policy is an empty sheet of paper. We must have action. I call on members to support the Labour motion.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

It would be beneficial to consider the past housing situation and what we hope to and should achieve in the future. To do that, I will comment on the Labour motion and the amendments. The Labour motion, in the name of Johann Lamont, states:

"the Housing Supply Task Force has no timetable or remit to produce recommendations for action".

If Johann Lamont had read the task force's minutes, she would see that it has agreed

"To identify and tackle impediments to increasing the supply of housing across all tenures—all with a view to ensuring that people across Scotland have the opportunity to access suitable housing that meets their needs and demands."

That is a pretty sensible approach.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Will the member take an intervention?

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Sorry, but not now.

The task force should be allowed to get on with its work and the Labour Party should stop interfering, as it had no task force and no idea whatever about housing.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

What?

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Cathie Craigie can shout, but that is true.

I will reiterate a point that Tricia Marwick made, as we should not forget it. In each of the eight years when Labour and Lib Dems were in power in a so-called Government, they built fewer homes than the Tories did in 1995. Labour's manifesto pledge was to build 6,000 houses a year, but it did not even reach that. Labour members sometimes have very selective memories—they do not want to think about what they did not do, rather than what they did.

The Labour motion refers to community-controlled housing associations, which is a real novelty. As Bill Kidd mentioned, in Glasgow, Labour gave us the GHA, an idea that was thought up by Wendy Alexander, who is now the party's leader. The GHA is not accountable to anyone, but Labour members proudly say that their party introduced community housing. That is unbelievable—they should hang their heads in shame over what they have done to the people of Glasgow. As my colleague Bill Kidd said, tenants, owner-occupiers and even local housing associations are all suffering because of the Labour plans for the GHA.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Will the member take an intervention?

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

No—I am sorry. I do not have much time.

Johann Lamont talked about being proud. There is nothing to be proud of in visiting the GHA on the people of Glasgow. Recently, I read a local newspaper in Glasgow in which Bill Aitken of the Tory party demanded an investigation into the GHA. Robert Brown of the Lib Dems has demanded such an investigation. Those people supported the GHA.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

In a previous debate, Labour lodged an amendment that called for Audit Scotland to examine the GHA's improvement programme for owners. Why did the SNP, including the member, vote against that amendment?

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Johann, it is a bit late to be coming in through the back door.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Ms White, the member's name is Johann Lamont.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

Johann Lamont has a cheek coming in the back door, when she set up the GHA, knowing full well that it would cause trouble. She should not lecture me on the GHA, which she set up.

The Tory amendment mentions extending the right to buy. The right-to-buy legislation is one of the worst pieces of legislation. It decimated the social rented sector, so I certainly do not support that part of the Tory amendment. To give credit where it is due, Labour tried to address the issue with measures such as that on pressured areas. However, the SNP Government has abolished the right to buy—yes, Cathie Craigie, abolished it—for all new-build social rented housing. We have taken action on the issue, when Labour failed to do so.

We should remember that, in three years under a Labour-Lib Dem Government, local housing organisations and local authorities built 12 houses. Members of those parties should hang their heads in shame over that. The SNP Government is determined to improve housing for the people of Scotland and, as a member of the SNP, I will ensure that that happens.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

We move to the winding-up speeches.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

It is not uncommon for Government ministers to make extensive use of quotations from important and knowledgeable sources to form the basis of their speeches. However, rarely in my nine years in the Parliament have I heard a minister found their speech entirely on a quotation from Building magazine.

The debate is not about questioning the right or the willingness of the SNP Government to have in its manifesto a range of important promises. The important issue—I hope that Stewart Maxwell will address it in his closing remarks, as he did not do so in his opening remarks—is that, now that the SNP has been in government for a year, it must start telling us how it will convert its manifesto promises into positive action. A year on from the election, the SNP is liable to be held to account and must do better than it has done so far in the debate to explain its position on housing. The debate is not about the Government's top-line or headline figures; it is about the positive steps that it is taking to give effect to what it has said.

The Labour motion mentions the lack of targets for the work of the housing supply task force. Sandra White read out a quotation from the minutes of a meeting of the task force but, with all due respect to Sandra White, what she read out was no more than a remit. No targets were set. All that we have are the headline figures. We still do not have a coherent idea of what the task force will say.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Central Fife)

The member talks about targets. What housing targets did the Labour-Liberal Executive set in 1999? Why did it spectacularly fail to meet any of those targets, never mind actually build houses?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

The debate is on the member's Government, its targets and what it is delivering. That is the position, and I make no apology for it.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

The member is adopting the year zero approach.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

No, we are not.

"Firm Foundations" raises an interesting point that was developed by Bill Kidd. He made much of what is wrong with the Glasgow Housing Association, but his party's document appears to emasculate community associations through its adoption of the single regional model. [Interruption.] That is what the document says—it is there in black and white. There is a complete dichotomy between the SNP's position on the GHA and what "Firm Foundations" says, the effect of which will be to emasculate community associations. That is what the adoption of a single regional model will result in.

The fundamental issue is that the Government, to meet its ambitions, must provide the means to produce the ends. That is where the Liberal Democrat amendment comes in, in which we say to the Government that its provision for affordable housing, in the budget for which there will be a real-terms increase of only 9 per cent over the period of the comprehensive spending review, falls far short of what is needed to address the affordable housing shortage. That is not just our view—it is the view of the majority of the major housing organisations, which have been deeply critical of the Government's allocation to affordable housing.

The motion and the Liberal Democrats amendment make perfectly legitimate and correct criticisms of the Government's failure to translate its vaunted ambition into a statement of how, one year into government, the SNP will give effect to its intentions. I call on the Parliament to support the motion and our amendment.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

The title of the Government's consultation document, "Firm Foundations", is a misnomer, because the SNP's housing policies are built on some extremely shaky foundations.

First, there is the manifesto promise to introduce a £2,000 first-time buyers grant, which we know will never be fulfilled. Secondly, the SNP is determined to restrict further the right to buy, even though that flagship policy of the most recent Conservative Government has done more than any other policy to make housing affordable for hundreds of thousands of our fellow Scots. Over the past 27 years, some 480,000 households have taken advantage of the right to buy and more than £6 billion has been raised, which has been reinvested in new stock and the improvement of existing stock. Finally, the SNP's policies are built on the shaky foundation of its failure to accept—because of its unwillingness to encourage housing stock transfers—the hundreds of millions of pounds that are on offer from the Treasury in the form of debt write-off to facilitate new investment in affordable and social housing.

The Government's plan to end the right to buy for tenants of new social housing is part of a strategy that is designed to encourage councils to build homes for rent. It is a fair criticism of the previous Executive that its record in that respect was truly dismal. Over the nine full years from 1998 to 2006, fewer than 500 council houses were built in Scotland. By contrast, in the nine years from 1989 to 1997—which were years of Conservative Government—more than 10,000 houses were built by councils. Whereas 500 council houses were built under Labour and the Liberal Democrats, 10,000 of them were built under the Conservatives.

However, let us not dwell on our past achievements, however glorious they may be. Let us look ahead to the aspirations of the SNP Government. What does "Firm Foundations" tell us? On page 42, it tells us that the SNP wants to build between 500 and 600 council houses a year. In other words, over the next nine years, it aspires to build around 5,000 homes—which, of course, is only half the number of council houses that were built in the equivalent period under the Conservative Government. Although it comes as no surprise to me that an SNP Government aspires to do only half as well as a Conservative Government, I thought that it might have set its aspirations a little bit higher.

Given that in opposition the SNP did its best to undermine the previous Executive's policy of housing stock transfer, it is perhaps no surprise that it should adopt what is best characterised as a passive approach to the subject now that it is in government. Frankly, the SNP should be ashamed of itself because, in many areas, by encouraging tenants to vote no, they have set back the improvement of our housing stock by years.

Be that as it may, we are where we are. The fact that a transfer to a single all-Edinburgh housing association of the totality of the City of Edinburgh Council's housing stock was narrowly rejected a few years ago does not preclude the transfer of homes in particular estates to small community-based housing associations and the partial debt write-offs that would follow. The SNP is in government and it runs the City of Edinburgh Council in partnership with the Lib Dems, so it can introduce new proposals that will lead to the write-off of Edinburgh's housing debt and new investment in the city.

All that the SNP has to do is to accept the Treasury's rules for debt write-off. That might be a bitter pill for the SNP to swallow, but it is medicine that must be taken. It ill becomes a Government that likes to complain about tight financial settlements from the Treasury to turn its back on the hundreds of millions of pounds that are on offer to improve the housing stock in this city, in Highland, in Stirling, in Renfrew and all over Scotland. When it comes to housing, the Government's protests about financial stringency ring very hollow indeed. For all those reasons, I urge the Parliament to support our amendment to the Labour motion.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

As I said in my opening speech, I welcome the opportunity to remind members of the failing housing system that was bequeathed to this Government and to summarise what we are doing to create a system that meets Scotland's housing needs.

In the few minutes that are available to me, I will try to cover some of the points that members have raised. As usual, Johann Lamont had nothing much to say and began with a complete misrepresentation of the Government's position. I intervened on her to ask her directly whether Labour supported the abolition of the right to buy on new-build property, but she did not answer. She was asked about the debacle of the transfer of stock to the GHA, but again she did not answer.

The numbers 51, 53, 0, 0, and 6 represent Labour's record on council house building during five years of the previous Administration, which is nothing to be proud of. As Tricia Marwick said, Labour members should hang their heads in shame rather than hold housing debates, because they are on more than shaky ground. The SNP is not on the shifting sands that Mr Kelly mentioned; Labour has sunk below them.

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

Were housing association new builds included in the statistics that the minister read out? I distinctly recall him taking great pride in opening new housing schemes in my constituency that were funded by the previous Government.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

If the member had listened, he would have heard me say that the numbers 51, 53, 0, 0, and 6 represented council house building. Members who are proud of building 100 houses or so in four or five years should be ashamed of themselves. I am sure that the member was not in the chamber when Tricia Marwick pointed out that although the previous Administration set a target of 6,000 new houses per year in the social rented sector, its record was a little more than 4,000 new houses per year, which is lamentable.

Jamie McGrigor talked about planning. Consultations on SPP3 and the national planning framework are going on and we are making the planning system for house building more flexible. Part of the housing supply task force's remit is to consider planning blockages that cause problems in rural and other areas. I am glad that Jamie McGrigor welcomed our proposals for rural areas and mentioned the "Firm Foundations" consultation.

Jim Tolson and James Kelly talked about the budget. The figures were wrong, which is beside the point. We will increase the budget for affordable housing by £131 million over the next three years. The total budget for affordable housing in 2008-11 is more than £1.5 billion, which is 19 per cent higher than the previous Administration's planned budget for 2005-08. Those are the facts. If the Liberal Democrats thought that the housing budget was so terrible and such a priority, why did they not lodge amendments to the budget, to increase moneys for affordable housing? They did not lodge such an amendment to the housing budget—in committee or in the chamber—so they should not tell us what is important.

One or two members mentioned Shelter Scotland. I am sure that all members have a copy of Shelter's submission to the housing debate, which says:

"Shelter has been encouraged by the priority which the Scottish Government has given to housing. The Housing Supply Task Force, coupled with an explicit commitment to increase overall housing supply to 35,000 by 2015, is the clearest recognition for decades that housing production has lagged behind the need to replace the housing stock."

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

Jim Tolson (Liberal Democrat, Dunfermline West)

Will the minister give way?

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I am sorry, I do not have enough time. I am in my final minute.

Tricia Marwick was quite right to say that previous ministers with responsibility for housing, Wendy Alexander, Johann Lamont and Margaret Curran, are responsible for the mess that we inherited. They should be ashamed of their record in office and they should not criticise us for what we have done in our 10 months in Government to start to sort out the mess that we were left with.

John Farquhar Munro made a thoughtful speech about housing problems in the Highlands and how they affect people who want to be tenants. I hope that he accepts that we are trying to deal with rural housing problems. We hope that initiatives such as the rural housing grant will help. Jamie McGrigor mentioned the rural homes for rent pilot. We hope that the pilot will be successful and that the initiative can be developed.

Cathie Craigie said that we have done nothing in 10 months. We had a debate on housing in our first month in Government; we set up the housing supply task force; we published the "Firm Foundations" consultation document; we set up the low-cost initiative for first-time buyers; we started the rural homes for rent pilot; and we set a target to build 35,000 houses—an increase of 40 per cent in overall house building during the next decade.

Our approach to achieving value for money has been misunderstood or misrepresented. If we carried on with the previous Administration's policy on housing association grant, HAG would reach £100,000 per unit, which is utterly unsustainable. The previous Administration buried its head in the sand; we are tackling the situation. It is a disgrace that the previous Administration let things get so out of control.

Ross Finnie took an interesting year zero approach to everything that happened before the election. He did not want to talk about that—indeed, when asked his response was, "It's nothing to do with us." David McLetchie made an entertaining speech, but it is unfortunate that it was inaccurate in a number of areas, including on stock transfer.

The Government is determined to improve supply, quality and choice across all tenures and to work in partnership with local authorities and other stakeholders in the housing sector who face up to the problems that the previous Administration ducked, to provide the long-term improvements in housing that I am sure that we all support.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I thank members for a lively, if not consensual, debate. I take issue with comments that were made about our record and will—all too briefly—run through big issues that were tackled in the past nine years and about which there was a degree of consensus.

People who have been involved in the housing debate for some time must know that organisation after organisation acknowledged the priority that the Parliament gave housing. We did groundbreaking work on homelessness, which has been acknowledged throughout the world, when we gave homeless people new rights, introduced new approaches and were determined to consider the causes and consequences of homelessness. It is deeply disappointing and concerning that the SNP minister made so little comment on homelessness.

On regeneration, we inaugurated a new generation of tenant leadership. We linked housing and community renewal and gave strategic focus to regeneration throughout Scotland. The unparalleled levels of investment cannot be denied. We facilitated new home ownership models and new interventions in rural areas and we introduced the Scottish housing quality standard, which the minister did not mention.

It is inevitable that the new Administration's activities raise key questions, which are reflected in all the amendments. The Tories are concerned about stock transfer. It is reasonable to ask the minister: does the SNP support stock transfer or does it not? If it does not support it, what is the alternative? Have many SNP members changed their minds about ownership not mattering? That is not what people such as Sandra White and Bill Kidd said in Glasgow. I will never run away from issues to do with the GHA, because I would like to think that I was a transparent and honest minister. However, the SNP cannot run away from the fact that the GHA wiped out £1 billion of housing debt in Glasgow and inaugurated profound levels of investment, which the SNP would have denied to tenants.

SNP policy raises other key questions. How will the minister deliver the Scottish housing quality standard? What is his target for socially rented accommodation? I note that he is sticking firmly to his policy on lead developers, despite the trenchant comments that housing associations have made. The minister must answer the charge that the SNP Administration is undercutting the innovative and uniquely Scottish approach to housing regeneration—it is ironic that the SNP, of all parties, should be doing that.

The minister's dismissal of housing associations' record on house building will deeply disappoint the movement. I invite back-bench SNP members who criticise our record to come to the east end of Glasgow, where I will show them the new houses that have been built. They should not undermine the socially rented sector in the way that they do.

I have as good a memory as Tricia Marwick has, so I remember debates about rent guarantees, which the SNP thought were fundamental to housing policy. What is the minister's projection for rent increases? Will there be increases throughout Scotland as a consequence of SNP housing policy?

In principle, we have no objection to the housing supply task force. For the record, and in response to Sandra White, I point out that we set up the homelessness task force and the housing improvement task force, which has been acknowledged throughout Scotland. The key difference between the SNP's approach and ours is that those task forces produced action plans and we ensured that targets were set as a result.

It was deeply disappointing that homelessness featured so little in the minister's speech. A big contribution that Labour and the Liberal Democrats made in government was our work to ensure that it was understood that homelessness was not just a housing problem but required investment in key organisations to deal with its root causes. This week's news about cuts to organisations such as the Cyrenians, which has an outstanding track record in dealing with homelessness, must be deeply disappointing to people who are active in the homelessness movement. That is a shameful record for the SNP to have after one year.

The housing debate is important and I am sure that many members acknowledge that, as the minister has done. It is legitimate for Labour to question in our motion the Government's commitment to the £2,000 first-time buyers grant, given that the grant was a central policy commitment in the SNP manifesto. As other members said in the debate, it is time for the SNP to end the confusion on the grant. The SNP was cynical to raise the hopes and expectations of many of those who are engaged in helping people on to the property ladder. At a time of such turbulence in the housing market, the time is right for the SNP to make clear its intentions.

For the life of me, I cannot get an indication from any SNP minister or MSP on whether the grant will go ahead. The minister owes it to the Parliament to explain the Government's intentions. Was the grant a good idea for housing policy in Scotland, or was it not a good idea? Does the SNP believe in the policy, or does it not believe in it? The SNP should stop dodging the issue and answer directly. Not one SNP member answered the questions put to them in the debate.

The time is right to compel the SNP to come to the chamber and answer the charge. I hope that the SNP will support the Labour motion at decision time. If Parliament passes the motion, it would be incumbent on the SNP Administration to make a statement to Parliament. It should tell Scotland's elected representatives, and the Scottish people, whether it will introduce the first-time buyers grant.

I hope that the SNP will support our motion. I also hope that, for once, we will get a straight answer from Stewart Maxwell.

Schools of Ambition

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-1601, in the name of Rhona Brankin, on schools of ambition.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

It took a newspaper report to reveal that the Scottish National Party planned to scrap the hugely successful schools of ambition programme. Since it clearly had no plans to make a formal announcement, it is important that Labour should subject its decision to scrutiny in the chamber.

The schools of ambition programme was introduced in 2005 to give schools an opportunity to raise their ambitions, expectations and standards. The programme was initially for 20 schools, but such was its popularity among local authorities, teachers, parents and pupils that 52 schools now benefit from the programme, each of which will receive at least £300,000 of extra funding over three years. Such was the success of the programme that Labour committed to creating more schools of ambition so that more schools throughout the country could benefit.

Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education reports on individual schools of ambition demonstrate ably the success of the programme. Two weeks ago, St Ninian's high school in Kirkintilloch, which was one of the first schools to benefit from the schools of ambition programme, received an outstanding report. It was awarded seven excellent and 10 very good ratings, which is a record for a Scottish secondary school.

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

No. I would like to get into my stride. I am happy to take an intervention later in my speech.

St Ninian's used the extra money to improve its modern languages department. The HMIE inspection report praised the outstanding quality of modern languages provision at the school.

Only yesterday, I visited Newbattle community high school in my constituency of Midlothian to hear at first hand about the transformation that the school has undergone as a result of its schools of ambition status. The school serves the former mining villages of Mayfield, Easthouses, Newtongrange and Gorebridge and has seen major improvements in recent years. The head teacher and staff have real ambition for their pupils; they jumped at the opportunity to become a school of ambition.

Newbattle community high school is now two years into its three-year plan. Colin Taylor, the head teacher, told me how the programme had enabled the school to innovate and reach for new horizons: record numbers of fifth year pupils are now returning for sixth year; standard grade results are the best in the history of the school; the number of pupils who are applying to be senior prefects has doubled; and pupils have a greater leadership role in the school.

Pupils told me that the schools of ambition programme had given them pride in their school, renewed self-confidence and a sense of ambition. As someone who spent many years working in education, it was a genuine pleasure to see such enthusiastic and motivated pupils taking a real pride in their school and in their achievements.

The school's move to being a school of ambition has made it a school where teachers want to work. Every probationer teacher who was given a placement at Newbattle wants to work there permanently. I talked to teachers who were absolutely passionate about the opportunity that the extra funding has given the school. They told me that the programme had given experienced and younger teachers real leadership roles to play.

Those are real success stories. However, in SNP Scotland, we are moving from schools of ambition to poverty of ambition.

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Oh, no.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

The minister may groan, but I look forward to hearing what the SNP will do about the schools of ambition programme.

MSPs, teachers, parents and pupils have now discovered that the SNP will scrap the scheme. It is doubly disappointing that we found out about its plans only through the pages of the press.

That said, the SNP Government's disrespect for Parliament and for Opposition MSPs is not a new phenomenon. On 5 March, a spokeswoman for the Scottish Government told The Herald newspaper,

"There are no plans to continue the scheme at present";

yet, the same night, on "Newsnight Scotland", we heard a different story from Fiona Hyslop. She said:

"It's a nonsense to say we are not continuing it."

Scotland's parents, pupils and teachers deserve to know whether the schools of ambition programme is being ditched, or not. What a pity that the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning has not come to the chamber for the debate. She does not have the backbone to admit that she is ditching the scheme, perhaps as a result of the appalling deal that she secured for the education sector in her budget discussions with John Swinney.

Let us look at the facts: in 2005-06, schools of ambition funding was £1.1 million; in 2006-07, it was £3.2 million; and this year it will be £5.7 million. Next year, it is projected to be £6 million and, in 2009-10, it will be £5 million, after which the funding tails off to just £500,000 in 2010-11, with no funding whatever planned after that. If that is Fiona Hyslop's idea of continuing a programme, she is living in a fantasy world. Let us be clear: the money is not new SNP money; the Government is simply giving schools the money that the previous Executive had committed to them.

As a diversionary tactic, the cabinet secretary has talked about making all high schools schools of ambition, but that will simply spread the resources thinly across all of them, diluting the benefits to schools. What she said is not backed by one penny of new money. Indeed, as Judith Gillespie of the Scottish Parent Teacher Council rightly pointed out, if the money had been distributed among every school in Scotland, it would have made no impact whatever. If it had been spread among 381 high schools, schools would have received about 25 quid a day across the six-year period of the programme. If that is how the Government intends to raise aspirations and standards in schools, I am sorry, but it is not good enough.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Does the member agree with the comment that Fred Forrester, formerly of the Educational Institute of Scotland, made in The Herald last week? He said:

"The notion that all secondary schools have equal need of targeted extra funding is palpable rubbish".

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Absolutely. I agree with him. However, I am afraid that the SNP Government does not seem to recognise the need to make real, big differences in education.

We know that £21.6 million is not coming in 2011. John Swinney has effectively muzzled the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, leaving her to hide behind the cover of a future spending review. Under the SNP Government, from 2011, absolutely nothing is coming forward. We know that from the way in which the funding tails off at the end of the spending review period.

The debate is important for every pupil, parent and teacher in Scotland, as it is for anyone with an interest in improving our schools. The schools of ambition programme has demonstrated that targeted intervention can build aspiration, unleash potential and raise standards. Labour has ambition for our schools and for our young people. No amount of SNP rhetoric today can change the fact that the SNP plans to dump the scheme.

It is not too late for the Government to show leadership by committing to continue the schools of ambition programme. I hope that the minister will make a commitment today to continue the programme beyond the spending review period. I hope that she will say that the Government will increase the amount of money that is available so that the programme can continue.

I urge members to support the motion in my name.

I move,

That the Parliament recognises the important contribution that the Schools of Ambition programme has made in giving schools greater freedom to develop creative and innovative approaches to school improvement; notes HM Inspectorate of Education's positive comments on the programme's effect on pupil motivation; deplores the Scottish Government's decision to axe the Schools of Ambition programme in the face of such success, and calls on the Scottish Government to continue the funding of existing schools of ambition and to identify further individual schools that would benefit from becoming schools of ambition.

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I am amazed that Labour initiated a debate on the back of a press article whose accuracy it did not even check. Rhona Brankin was wrong when she spoke on the radio this morning about school buildings, and she was wrong when she spoke about St Ninian's in her speech. The St Ninian's that got the excellent school report is St Ninian's in East Renfrewshire. The school of ambition is St Ninian's in East Dunbartonshire. We can take everything that she says with a pinch of salt.

It is important for me to set the record straight with a few facts about the Government's support for the schools of ambition programme. There has never been a question about the Government's support to continue the funding of schools of ambition for the lifetime of the comprehensive spending review. We have increased the commitment to £11.5 million from the previous Administration's spend of £10.6 million. Each of the 52 schools of ambition will still receive at least £100,000 a year for three years.

Now is an opportune time to reflect on the origins of the schools of ambition programme, including the reasons why it was set up and the intended outcomes. It was intended to support fast-track transformation in selected secondary schools, which would transform educational outcomes, increase ambition in the schools, instil belief and ambition in pupils and improve life chances. The schools involved would act as flagships for innovation in their local areas and nationally.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

No, thank you.

Even at the inception of the schools of ambition programme, it was not universally welcomed. David Eaglesham said that it struck him as a cosmetic exercise and that it was meaningless to target just 20 schools. He said that the proposal was against the traditions of Scottish education and would not be effective.

The programme provided a means of testing Scottish schools' capacity to innovate. Supporting them to realise their ambitions and enabling them to do what they always wanted to do has provided a rich source of learning that applies to all schools. I expect that that learning will enable all schools to become schools of ambition. We cannot underestimate the power of peer-to-peer learning in effecting change. We aim to make that the focus of our sharing strategy and to raise awareness of the learning opportunities that are available through schools of ambition in a variety of ways to reach as many different audiences as possible. We are supported in that aim by the Hunter Foundation, which has pledged its help.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

You did not take one from me. I am not taking one from you.

We have distributed widely the first annual research report on schools of ambition, which outlines the emerging learning. We have redeveloped the schools of ambition website and relocated it within Learning and Teaching Scotland to share practice. We will hold conferences in June to demonstrate the wide range of approaches that the schools of ambition are taking and their relevance to every school. The conferences will be open to local authority management staff and teachers.

We are also bringing together pupils from schools of ambition to host their own conferences, where they will share their views on the impact of the programme. The first conference has just taken place in Shetland, and pupils from 18 schools of ambition shared their experiences. The next conference will be held in Edinburgh on 17 June. Each school of ambition will produce a resource that tells the story of their transformation. It will comprise a mixture of statistical evidence, an analysis of the impact of transformation and some personal testimony. A magazine on schools of ambition will be produced and distributed to every school staffroom.

We intend that every teacher will know about schools of ambition and every school will be able to share in the learning and use it. We want every school to become a school of ambition.

I move amendment S3M-1601.2, to leave out from "deplores" to end and insert:

"recognises that the Scottish Government has increased funding to Schools of Ambition in the Comprehensive Spending Review period 2008 to 2011 from £10.6 million to £11.5 million, and notes that two conferences will be held this summer which will share emerging lessons and demonstrate the variety of approaches taken by schools of ambition in order to embed these across the system which can help all local authorities and all schools to develop their own ambitious programmes for transformational change."

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I think the minister was getting her St Ninian's schools in a twist—there are, of course, two. The one that Rhona Brankin mentioned is in Kirkintilloch, and had a glowing HMIE report on 4 March this year that highlighted the success of the schools of ambition funding that the school has received.

However, I want to say a little about another school of ambition. Last Thursday evening, I had the great pleasure of attending a gala dinner at Blairgowrie high school in my region. It is an annual event that is attended by more than 100 members of the community. What is remarkable about the event is that all the catering, service and entertainment are provided by pupils at the school. In recent years, the school has developed an excellent reputation for catering and hospitality under the able stewardship of Lynn Smith, who is the head of home economics.

Relationships have been developed with local hotels whereby chefs will mentor talented pupils who might want to consider careers in catering, and pupils have access to a programme whereby they can work in the kitchens of those hotels to learn vocational skills. That excellent initiative helps to provide skills for the workforce in a part of the country where tourism is the major industry. It is also an excellent example of the success of the schools of ambition programme. Blairgowrie high school has been able to access £100,000 a year for three years to help to support and develop such initiatives, and specifically to fund the construction of a new training kitchen in the school for pupils who are interested in a career in catering.

Rhona Brankin's motion

"deplores the Scottish Government's decision to axe the Schools of Ambition programme".

The word "deplores" was carefully chosen and is appropriate. The SNP Government's decision to scrap the programme is indeed deplorable, because the programme has been a success. It has helped schools such as Blairgowrie high school and schools throughout Scotland, many of which draw pupils from catchment areas that include pockets of deprivation, in all manner of different ways.

As the Conservative education spokesman, it is not my function to praise slavishly the initiatives of the previous Labour and Liberal Democrat Executive, any more than it is my function to praise the initiatives of the SNP Government. Almost uniquely in the Parliament, the Conservatives have the opportunity to consider such initiatives dispassionately and to judge them on the evidence. Based on that evidence, I have no hesitation in saying that the schools of ambition programme has been a success, and I deeply regret that it is about to come to an end.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

Will the member take an intervention?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am sorry. I simply do not have time.

We can only wonder at the SNP's motivation. Perhaps it is simply that the programme was a successful initiative by the previous Labour and Liberal Executive, and that for reasons of narrow partisan party politics the SNP Government wishes to bring it to an end.

However, perhaps there is something more sinister at play. We know that the SNP is wedded to a one-size-fits-all principle in Scottish education. It finds the idea of any sort of diversity within school education deeply offensive. It cannot stomach the thought of schools' being funded directly from the centre and making local decisions about how money is to be allocated. My amendment covers both points. Motivated by political dogma, the SNP has decided to scrap a successful programme.

The real message of the decision is that the SNP Government has no ambition for Scottish education. Its message to schools and headteachers is, "Don't get above yourselves. Don't try to excel. Don't try to develop specialisations or expertise. If you do, we'll haul you down and reduce you to the lowest common denominator." The Scottish Conservatives do not believe that the SNP's approach is the way ahead for Scotland's schools. Let us keep the successful schools of ambition programme and send a clear message today that Parliament has more ambition for Scotland's schools than the SNP Government will ever have.

I move amendment S3M-1601.1, to insert at end:

"and to continue to provide Schools of Ambition funding directly to schools and to support decisions being taken on the expenditure of such funds at school level."

Hugh O'Donnell (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

For clarity—and perhaps to declare an interest—I point out that the St Ninian's that we are talking about is the one in Kirkintilloch. Why do I know that? I have an interest because it is my former high school.

Over the months since May, we have had numerous debates around education and skills. In each and every one of them, the Scottish National Party Government has been at great pains to point out how ambitious it is for Scotland. Just yesterday, we heard about its determination to ensure that Scotland's education system remains at the top of the international table of success. I am sure that I am not the only person who detects a note of irony in the fact that the first overt—I say "overt" advisedly—SNP cut to our education system has been inflicted on a proven success which, ironically, is called schools of ambition. What are these people about?

Before SNP members get a little bit annoyed about that, I stress that we fully accept that each school in Scotland is ambitious for its pupils, its staff and the community that it serves. We also recognise that not every school starts from the same place, and that factors that are outwith the control of the dedicated staff, pupils and community mean that some schools face greater challenges than others. That recognition was at the heart of the original schools of ambition programme. To be fair, some of the work is now being included as part of the curriculum for excellence.

However—here is the catch—the SNP Government, in scrapping the additional support that the schools of ambition scheme provided, has failed to recognise that not all schools start from the same point, or that not all will travel at the same rate with the curriculum for excellence. Some of them need additional support, resources and—perhaps most of all—a positive indication from Government that their difficulties have been recognised and that they are being given a chance to make a difference to the whole community, despite the extraordinary challenges that they face. I am puzzled because yesterday the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning sat nodding vigorously in agreement with me—like the dog in the Churchill Insurance advert—when I made exactly the same point about how we assess attainment in schools. It would be good to get some consistency at least from the Government, if nothing else.

The Government has promised to continue to fund the 52 schools that are currently involved in the scheme. If the Government is as ambitious for all Scotland's schools as it says it is, that funding should be extended across the whole high school and primary school system. The SNP is not going to do that, but simply using the current funding across all Scotland's schools would provide something like £1,800 a year, which is barely enough to buy a set of pencils and some jotters. Referring to one of the points that Rhona Brankin made, what difference will that make to the progress that those schools will make? None.

The Government has said that it will fund the original scheme; we heard that from the minister. I want to know exactly what the schools of ambition programme for the whole of Scotland will provide. That seems to be what the Government is offering. What resources will be provided to all schools? I do not think that there will be any, and I do not think that we will hear an answer to that. Let us have some straight answers from the minister. Is the Government promising that every school with ambition—effectively, that means every school in Scotland—will get an extra £100,000 a year to develop the key themes in the Government's development plans? Is it offering every school the additional funding, or is it just offering them a set of rubbers, so that they can rub out yet another SNP broken promise?

I move amendment S3M-1601.3, to insert at end:

"and considers that head teachers play a crucial role in leading excellent schools and turning around schools that face challenges, and therefore calls on the Scottish Government to provide additional support and incentives for head teachers to improve their schools, including enhanced contract terms with more flexibility and increased rewards for outstanding leadership."

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

I was quite interested by the start of Rhona Brankin's speech, when she suggested that we should believe everything that is written in a newspaper. This whole debate is founded on a newspaper article.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

Will the member take an intervention on that point?

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

I ask Mary Mulligan to let me develop the point. In spite of the fact that the cabinet secretary wrote a letter to said newspaper, it is choosing not to accept what the cabinet secretary has said.

I am not aware that the Government in the previous two sessions made commitments beyond the comprehensive spending review period. It is absolutely clear that the SNP Government is continuing the programme throughout this comprehensive spending review period.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

No—

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

Let me develop the point. In fact, more money is being spent on the programme by this Government than was committed by the previous Government, and it is being spent in the context of a very tight financial settlement. That hardly equates to a cut, an abolition or a broken promise.

The SNP was clear about how it felt about the matter when it was in Opposition. We firmly believe that we should have ambition for all our schools. We do not believe in selective education—selection, targeting and means testing—unlike the Labour and Tory parties.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

rose—

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

No, thank you.

We want the best for all our children, not just for those attending one in seven schools. Members have given examples from their constituencies of individual schools that have benefited from the programme. What about those that have not? How many of them is the Labour Party promising to bring up to the standard to which, it believes, it has brought the 52 schools in the programme?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will Brian Adam take an intervention?

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

Let me develop the point. One of the reasons for the programme was that philanthropists wanted to help with our education system—I refer to the Hunter Foundation in particular. They hoped that their contribution might be matched by those of many others. Undoubtedly, theirs was a helpful contribution. It was additional money—not Government money—without any particular ties. That is very welcome in education. The SNP Opposition welcomed it. Ewan Hunter's comments of this week give the lie to the idea that there are problems in that regard. We have not received significant money aside from that from the Hunter Foundation.

We have given more than the previous Government promised—the Government should get the credit for that. Members who talk about broken promises should consider the number of schools that their parties claim to have built, but did not; the number of schools that they closed, which they certainly did—in fact, in excess of the number of new ones that were built; their failure to deliver their promises to reduce class sizes; and their failure to deliver on education in general.

I commend the Government's amendment.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this important debate. The schools of ambition programme, which was established by the previous Labour-Liberal Executive, has been an outstanding success, inspiring and challenging pupils, teachers and schools throughout Scotland. It has allowed the schools that are most in need of change and reform to implement locally agreed proposals for transformational change—change that is aimed at enabling schools to stand out in their locality and nationally as innovators and leaders, which can increase young people's self-esteem, ambitions, opportunities and life chances. It has allowed schools to build success and experience and to drive up standards. The programme not only benefits the 52 current schools of ambition, but enables schools throughout Scotland to share in their success, which benefits the whole education system and every community.

The recent decision by the Scottish Government to withdraw funding for that successful programme is shameful. It affects not just the schools that are involved in it, but all Scotland's schools and each and every pupil whose school has begun to change. It is astounding that the SNP Government is scrapping a scheme that not only has broad support from parties throughout the chamber and from the education establishment, but which is also driving up standards across Scotland's schools and giving students up and down the country greater opportunities and prospects.

Surely it is too early for the Government to say that there will be no future funding for the programme, when its evaluation is at such an early stage. Early evidence is already showing real signs of great improvement in attainment. Such signs include successes such as those that have been achieved at Cardinal Newman school in North Lanarkshire, which has pioneered vocational education that is aimed at boosting pupils' awareness of business and enterprise. That not only expands choice for pupils but allows teachers to learn new skills and techniques, which makes a real difference to everyone at school. Already, the school has won official recognition for its work, winning the Catering in Scotland innovation in training aware, the Scotland and Northern Ireland restaurant of the year award and the Scottish Qualifications Authority star award.

Other successes include those that have been achieved by Taylor high school in North Lanarkshire, which is specialising in technology and is enabling each pupil to directly experience DVD production, podcasting and digital recording, and is allowing all pupils to develop electronic portfolios of their work. Such initiatives are important. Only yesterday, the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee heard, as part of its inquiry into the creative industries, evidence about the extent of the skills shortage in that area.

Those are just a couple of examples, but across Scotland, the evidence demonstrates that the schools of ambition programme is transforming schools and the learning culture, raising young people's aspirations and self-esteem and making them more successful and motivated learners by enabling them to develop life skills that prepare them fully for the challenges of the 21st century. Such radical transformation is possible only because support is targeted where it can make the most difference.

The SNP Government has said today that it wants every school to be a school of ambition. That is laudable, but does that mean that every high school in Scotland can expect to receive an additional £300,000 over three years, with no strings attached?

I listened carefully to what Maureen Watt had to say this morning. The only thing that she offered to those schools in North Lanarkshire that are schools of ambition or aspire to be schools of ambition was a magazine. Quite frankly, a magazine for every high school in Scotland is not going to cut it.

Yesterday's debate on the curriculum for excellence did not offer the certainty, which has been demanded by teachers, about the resources that they require for implementation of that important change to teaching in Scotland. If the Government cannot even provide certainty about that fundamental change in our schools, we can have no confidence that every one of our schools is to become a school of ambition.

The schools of ambition programme is proving to be a success, and we must ensure that that is allowed to continue, not just for the schools that were designated as schools of ambition by the previous Government, but for all the schools that aspire to be schools of ambition.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

The Government's policy in respect of schools of ambition is as clear as mud. Maureen Watt told us that the newspaper article that Rhona Brankin talked about is a load of nonsense, but then spent a lot of time quoting comments about why schools of ambition were not a terribly good idea in the first place. Brian Adam spent a good deal of time saying that all schools ought to be schools of ambition, but did not deal with the crucial issue of funding them across the board.

Since 1999, there has been substantial consensus across the chamber about the general shape and direction of the education system in Scotland. All parties broadly shared a pride in our schools and the achievements of children and teachers, and were signed up to the major initiatives that were undertaken by the previous Scottish Government on the curriculum review, leadership in schools, the school renewal programme, enterprise and education, schools of ambition and many more subjects. However, that is no longer the case. Today, there are strong signs that the commitment of the SNP Government to the programme and to education more generally is faltering. Today's Herald notes with regard to the school-building programme, that

"the coming to power ... of the SNP appears to have slackened the pace of transformation".

We know that the much-heralded class-size reductions, which have simplistically been seen as the way to a step-change in education, are only so much hot air because they are not accompanied by funding. We know, too, that the Government's skills strategy has been greeted by widespread indifference, based on the recognition that it is superficial and lacks effective drivers. The common features across those various areas include a lack of a coherent vision and a substantial lack of evidence base or proper sector consultation on the initiatives—both features that mark the SNP Government's activities across the board.

The schools of ambition initiative falls in the same category. By most measurements, those schools have been successful, although they had early difficulties. For example, it took time to get schools to come forward with good projects. Empowering schools in this way was a new concept that took time to develop and realise. However, the central nugget, which is that schools supported by schools of ambition status and funding would pioneer new ways of working and would act as standard setters to others, has been successful and has achieved critical mass. At St Machar's academy in Aberdeen, at the six schools that have been supported by the Hunter Foundation in Glasgow, at St Ninian's high in East Dunbartonshire, at Barrhead high in Eastwood and at many more schools across Scotland, headteachers, staff and children are setting new standards and horizons and are acting as standard bearers for good and aspirational practice.

I welcome the conferences that were mentioned in the Government's motion. It is laudable indeed that the Government wants all schools to be schools of ambition, as we all do. However, if the current funding were to be spread across all secondary schools, each school would receive only a pittance, which would no doubt be welcome, but would hardly be transformational. I tell the minister today that slackening pace will become the watchword of this Administration if it persists in withdrawing funding from proven projects. Rather than withdraw the funding, which is typically £100,000 a year, the Government should continue the programme and concentrate on identifying more funding to help turn around schools that face challenges, and to support headteachers in the most difficult schools so that they can make a difference, as is called for in the Liberal Democrat amendment.

Pious platitudes, however, about every school being a school of ambition cannot disguise the thin gruel of the SNP's ambition for Scotland's education system. I suggest that the minister and her colleagues might usefully spend the Easter recess—and, perhaps the summer recess—going homeward and thinking again on these matters.

I believe that Scotland's young people require a better deal than they are getting from the SNP Government and I think that Parliament requires clarity about the Government's policy on schools for ambition. Will the policy go on into the future? Is the money being spread across the board? Will the current schools of ambition have continued funding? What exactly is the position? We want some answers from the minister before the debate ends today.

Willie Coffey (Scottish National Party, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I am sorry to see the Labour Party wasting Parliament's time on a debate that is built on false premises and misrepresentation.

I have long been involved in education, so I am interested in seeing real improvements in Scottish education. Therefore, when I read reports about the ending of the schools of ambition programme, I was concerned about how it had been sprung on us with no prior warning from the Government. I do not, however, remember people rushing to the polls last May to vote for parties proposing an extension of the schools of ambition programme. Scotland voted for new choices and new thinking: that is what we are getting from our Government.

Of course, I discovered that the programme has not been scrapped. Not only will it run for the full duration that was planned by the previous Administration, but the SNP Government will spend more money on it than Labour and the Liberal Democrats planned to. However, the falsely reported demise of the programme is not the only falsehood.

The motion refers to "positive comments" about the programme by HMIE. However, a look at the inspectorate's report on schools of ambition reveals that the inspectors made no such comments. The report on St Ninian's high school in Kirkintilloch said:

"In many departments, staff engaged in high quality debate about the curriculum and approaches to learning and teaching, arising partly from the school's involvement in the School of Ambition initiative."

To turn a compliment about the motivation of staff into a ringing endorsement of the whole programme is typical Labour spin.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Will the member give way?

Willie Coffey (Scottish National Party, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I have only four minutes. The member can press his button if he wants to make a speech.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

He has already made a speech.

Willie Coffey (Scottish National Party, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

He could have made a contribution on that point, but he chose not to do so.

Doon academy entered the schools of ambition programme following two inspections in 2002 and 2004. It had been making progress that had been hampered by the serious condition of the building—hardly an ideal mechanism by which to enter such a scheme. Of course, the school needed support to recover from that disruption, as would any school. However, local authorities should not have to justify that to officials and ministers in Edinburgh. With the removal of a great deal of ring fencing, local authorities will have more flexibility to respond to such events. At its heart, the motion is simply another repetition of Labour's dreary old song about ring fencing.

The schools for ambition programme appears to have no real criteria beyond a school's having performance difficulties and wanting to improve. There are no generic outcomes defined for the programme and, therefore, no way of assessing its effectiveness. As with all ring-fenced programmes, the existence of unique resources skews thinking in some quarters. Some schools measure their success by their ability to gain school of ambition status. Scotland was and is full of schools of ambition: the problem was that we did not have a Government with ambition.

Yesterday, I witnessed some incredible scenes at East Ayrshire Council, as the SNP-led council saved from closure three ambitious rural schools that had received little or no investment from Labour via its SOA scheme or its selective PFI schemes. Crossroads primary school in my constituency had the princely sum of £18,000 spent on it over the previous 12 years under Labour. Sorn and Littlemill schools also suffered. They were all in danger because of the condition of the school buildings. That is a disgrace, from a party that now pretends that it is the friend of rural schools.

The sight of parents weeping with joy as the SNP council took the decision to save their schools will live with me for many years. Those schools are the real schools of ambition, but that is not thanks to the previous Labour Executive or the previous Labour council. Tom Hunter's words are still appropriate in Scotland: every child deserves the opportunity to succeed and to be all they can be. A scheme that excluded 88 per cent of secondary school children in Scotland hardly delivers on that noble ambition. Our Government has that ambition for all Scotland's schoolchildren rather than only the few, as was the case under Labour's failed scheme.

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

I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate and I will support Rhona Brankin's motion.

I would have thought that Willie Coffey might at least have managed to show some humility in respect of the rural schools in East Ayrshire, given that it was an SNP-led council that proposed the closures in the first place. It is testimony to the parents, the pupils and the local communities that they have been saved from closure. He should hang his head in shame at being a councillor on the council that proposed the closures in the first place.

Willie Coffey mentioned Doon academy in my constituency and the other school of ambition in my constituency, Carrick academy, which I had the privilege of visiting when the schools of ambition programme was launched. I saw how excited the teachers, the other staff in the school, the headteacher and the local community were about being accepted on to the programme.

A few weeks ago, just before we heard that the programme was to be scrapped, I had a further communication from Carrick academy, which asked me to participate in the evaluation. What kind of message does the Government's decision send to schools that are currently involved in the programme and have not even got to the first stage of the evaluation? They know that the work that they are doing is not being recognised or valued and that it will be thrown on the scrapheap. [Interruption.] I hear the interventions that are being made by the Minister for Children and Early Years—he will have a chance to respond in due course. Irrespective of whether he says that the funding is currently continuing, the reality is that people already know that a decision has been made that the programme will not continue. That devalues the work that the schools are doing and it sends a message that what they are doing to try to raise the hopes and aspirations of their pupils is not valued.

We have heard during the debate what the real agenda is. Brian Adam said that the SNP does not support targeting. I hope that members all noted that statement. It is remarkable that every other political party in the Parliament—including the Conservatives, who at various times I would not have had much in common with—now supports targeting resources to ensure that we level up rather than level down achievements and aspirations. The SNP is the only party in the Parliament that does not support targeting. How can the SNP try to convince anyone that it is the party of social justice when it is not prepared to put resources into schools in the most disadvantaged areas and schools that need a hand up to ensure that they give every child the best possible opportunity? How can it claim in any shape or form to be the party of social justice?

We know that the programme will not be rolled out and we know that there is not £100,000 per school, because the budget figures tell us that. In 2010-11, there is £500,000 for the whole programme. No warm words about how good the programme is or about websites or magazines—Karen Whitefield exposed how ludicrous such statements are—get away from the fact that no more schools will be added to the programme.

Consider the kind of activities that the pupils in Doon academy and Carrick academy in my constituency were involved in. In Doon academy, the pupils had the opportunity to participate in the Columba 1400 programme, and the roll out of an information and communication technology strategy across not only the secondary school but feeder primary schools gave every child in primary 6 and P7 a laptop. Alex Neil, who will speak after me, will know that for every P6 and P7 child in the Doon Valley feeder primaries to be able to get a laptop is a socialist principle and an initiative that we should support. Every secondary 3 pupil in Carrick academy has the opportunity to participate in the Duke of Edinburgh's Award scheme. Pupils were not previously given such opportunities, but that initiative has been taken forward because of the schools of ambition programme. Let us see the Government think again—as East Ayrshire Council was forced to do on rural schools—and come back with a new proposal to roll the scheme out further.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

We will not take any lessons on education policy or social justice from the Labour Party—particularly not from Cathy Jamieson. Between 2003 and 2006 alone, Labour and the Liberal Democrats closed 33 schools throughout Scotland, six of which were personally authorised by Cathy Jamieson as the Minister for Education and Young People—a minister for education without schools.

As far as East Ayrshire is concerned, we heard nothing from Cathy Jamieson or any Labour councillor or representative when we led the campaign to save St Paul's primary school in Hurlford. She is the same member who sat in the Cabinet that planned to shut Ayr hospital's accident and emergency unit, so we will not take any lessons from her.

I am sure that members agree that the key component of educational performance is how well off pupils are, not only in school but at home. After 10 years of Labour government, the folk in the Doon valley, in Girvan and in Maybole are living in relatively more poverty, not less. If anything damages educational performance, it is the concentration of poverty and deprivation. Labour looks after its big pals in the city.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Will the member take an intervention?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Sit down. I will not listen to more rubbish—I have heard enough.

Members should consider the money that has been wasted on PFI. We understand that the Tories want to make a buck or two out of education and hospitals, but Labour and the Liberal Democrats have wasted millions. Not only have they done so over the past eight years, but they have saddled future generations with millions of pounds of debt through profiteering PFI schemes that are being used to finance schools and hospitals. If we did not have PFI, we would have £100 million extra to spend on education in Scotland this year, next year and every year hence.

We will not take any lessons from Labour. It is no wonder that it is languishing at 27 per cent in the polls. People recognise the sheer hypocrisy of Labour's position. It has presided over the situation for the past 10 years. Labour members are merely playing politics with the schools of ambition programme: they do not really care about the folk involved. They have demonstrated in the past 10 years that they do not care about socialist principles. Cathy Jamieson remained a member of a Cabinet that supported the Iraq war. We have spent £4.5 billion as a nation on the Iraq war; Scotland's share is £400 million. How many schools of ambition could have been built with £400 million?

The fact is that it is right for a Government to have the ambition to make every school in Scotland a school of ambition. With the changes that we are making—de-ring fencing, allowing local authorities to keep the money from efficiency savings for reinvestment in front-line services, and making savings by getting rid of the hated PFI—we will ensure that the money is available.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Where is the money?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Where is the money?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

They are shouting from the unionist benches, "Where is the money?" What about giving the Parliament our share of our oil money? No child in Scotland would have to worry about ambition.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

We move to the winding-up speeches—if members are not wound up enough already.

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

Presiding Officer, can you remind me what debate we are having? I thought that we were debating schools of ambition. If ever there was an SNP MSP with ambition, it is Mr Neil—but, as with the schools of ambition programme, it all ends in bitter disappointment.

There is, regrettably, a woeful inconsistency in the Government's approach to schooling, and the schools of ambition programme in particular, and today we debate the latest inconsistency. The Government received "Research to Support Schools of Ambition: Annual Report 2007" in October of that year. The report was positive, and its conclusions ended:

"School leaders have reported the development of a new 'mindset', 'way of thinking' and 'language' used in talking about school change and are enthusiastic about the potential of the Schools of Ambition programme to promote 'approved risk taking' and to break down 'traditional barriers' to improvement."

The programme has been a real success, but the Government's response is to end it—there will be not one more school under the programme.

We waited four minutes for Brian Adam to develop his point, which I think was that the previous Government was at fault for there not being more schools in the programme, but his Government has decided to scrap the programme before it has even concluded. I share one thing with Mr Adam: I have no idea what the Government's policy is. Indeed, the Government's policy is so confused that, after the minister sat down, there were even more questions about the Government's approach.

We simply do not know the Government's approach to directing resources. Direct resources are acceptable in some areas but not in others. Let us consider nursery provision and class sizes, for example. In her statement on class sizes, Fiona Hyslop said:

"We need to give more time, more attention and more access to a nursery teacher to our poorest children."—[Official Report, 5 December 2007; c 4069.]

However, this week's policy statement from the Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities had not one single message about directing resources to the poorest areas.

In response to a written question by Karen Whitefield asking how much of the £40 million announced by the Government to reduce class sizes was spent in each area, Fiona Hyslop replied on 1 August last year that funding was weighted, and that

"The remaining 5 per cent of the allocation reflects our focus on areas of deprivation in the context of class size reduction."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 1 August 2007; S3W-1741.]

So the Government was happy to provide £2 million to reduce class sizes in areas of deprivation, but now it says that the same system should not apply to developing learning in our secondary schools. Of course, the problem with the Government's policy, as we found out under freedom of information legislation, was that more was spent on staff toilets, new boilers, roofs and a long-wheelbase minibus than on reducing class sizes.

The Minister for Schools and Skills visited Hawick in the Borders to announce the free school meals pilot, which is directed towards areas of deprivation. She visited Drumlanrig St Cuthbert's primary school in Hawick shortly after she knew that Hawick high school—a school of ambition—would not receive long-term funding for the scheme. That is utter inconsistency in one town.

Yesterday, I asked Keith Brown—whom I respect—whether, given the financial settlement, councils had any excuse to cut education budgets. Tellingly, he refused to answer. The SNP knows that, although it is spinning that councils have the best settlement since the ascent of man, schools throughout Scotland are making dreadful decisions about reductions in revenue spending. The reason is that the settlement for local authorities is obviously not as good as the Government has said. For example, in the Borders the revenue grant increase is 3.81 per cent for the coming financial year, which in real terms is a revenue increase of 1.1 per cent, and that includes all of the previously ring-fenced funds that the council used to receive. That means that less than £1 million of additional funding is available for the authority to develop new policies across every policy area.

The Minister for Schools and Skills said that there are to be two conferences to discuss the schools of ambition programme so we should all relax. She did not tell Parliament about the conference in May 2007, the conclusions of which were overwhelmingly positive about continuing the policy. Indeed, one conclusion from headteachers was to recommend not only that the programme should continue but that more schools should apply to become part of it.

SNP members have been desperate to say that the scheme will carry on, at the same time as they have justified scrapping it. Councillor Coffey made the perfect point and summed up the whole debate: he took credit for the SNP saving a school that it had proposed closing. If that does not sum up the Government's approach, nothing else does.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

When the Government produced its famous skills strategy last autumn, the first part of the foreword by the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning was deliberately all about how we could make Scotland a nation of ambition. It went on to refer to people who are

"hungry to continually learn new skills"

and stated that the Government would do everything possible to

"motivate and engender a culture of enterprise and ambition in our schools."

So said page 16 of that glossy brochure.

The theme was also picked up by Sir Tom Hunter, who, like most other forward-thinking people, is keen that every single available pound in education is spent on raising aspirations and self-esteem and on changing the mood of Scotland from one of sometimes reluctant learning to one of a can-do attitude. He rightly believes that that is especially important in areas where there is a higher percentage of deprivation. For him, the schools of ambition programme was a much-needed lifeline and an essential starting block for expanding excellence in schools. The key words are "expanding excellence", particularly in developing the skills that employers value so highly and in allowing schools to realise their objectives according to their own circumstances.

HMIE was also impressed, and it commented on the highly effective implementation of the programme in several schools. I say frankly to Mr Coffey that it does not matter whether HMIE believes that it is motivation or the whole effort that has gone up—the fact is that it has increased.

Given what the Government itself says, what one of our leading businessmen and philanthropists says, and what HMIE says, I am at a total loss to explain how the Government can decide to wind down the schools of ambition programme, which has so far benefited 52 schools, whether now or in three years—there is a huge debate about what the policy is now. I am told that that is being done because the cabinet secretary simply cannot tolerate anything in educational policy that does not meet the standard one-size-fits-all mantra that currently drives the SNP agenda.

In the introduction to the skills strategy, the cabinet secretary wills us to praise those who are hungry for new skills, but at the same time she is prepared to deprive them of food, simply because she thinks that they have too much of a good thing. That is ridiculous logic and, despite the excitable eloquence of Mr Neil, it is socialism at its worst. It does the cabinet secretary's credibility no good whatsoever if she wants us to accept that she is serious about ambition.

Surely we should use the highly successful schools of ambition model—especially as it has worked so effectively in some deprived areas—to build for the future and to offer much greater choice and diversity in meeting the aspirations of our children. The current comprehensive system has failed to deliver that choice and diversity by its constant obsession with one size fits all and by basing everything on the lowest common denominator.

Schools of ambition have proved how we can turn things around for some of our weaker performing schools. The programme has proved what happens when schools receive money directly and they, rather than the Government, decide how best to spend it. The staff and pupils of such schools deserve huge credit for what has been achieved. The Government should celebrate that success and not cut off schools in their prime. The Conservatives ask the Government to reverse its decision and do what Sir Tom Hunter wanted: to stop playing politics with our children's education.

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

The debate has been interesting. It strikes me that we have reached a consensus. We all agree that the schools of ambition programme is achieving exactly what it set out to do, which was to raise ambition, instil self-belief and confidence, improve life chances for pupils and lead the way for all schools to do the same. When we took office, we promised to bring a new consensus approach to government. In that context, when we were making decisions on the current spending round, continuous support for the schools of ambition programme was not questioned. Funding is still ring fenced and directly available to the schools concerned.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

In that context, will the minister clarify what the Government's policy is?

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Absolutely. Our policy is to complete the programme.

What concerns exist about the programme? Are members concerned that the Scottish Government is scrapping it? We are not. Are they concerned that we do not value it? We do. Are they concerned that we will not spread the learning? We are doing exactly that, and we will continue to do so.

All members have at least one school of ambition in their constituency. I hope that all members have visited those schools. I hope that when you visited Newbattle community high school yesterday, Ms Brankin, you apologised for the unnecessary uncertainty that you had caused. I also hope that Ken Macintosh apologised when he wrote to every school of ambition.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I certainly did not apologise. Will you apologise to Newbattle community high school for the uncertainty that you have caused for schools of ambition?

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Members keep going down the same road. Only one person should be referred to as "you" in the chamber—me.

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Fiona Hyslop wrote to every school of ambition after the erroneous article that has been mentioned was published, and assured them that funding was continuing in this spending round.

Recently, I visited Braeview academy in Dundee, which is a school of ambition. I was impressed by the transformation that had taken place there. I have also visited Queensferry high school, and the cabinet secretary has visited Cardinal Newman high school in Karen Whitefield's constituency.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

First, Cardinal Newman high school is in my colleague Michael McMahon's constituency. Secondly, how many new schools of ambition will the Government commit to? How much money will it spend on the magazine that is to be produced? What additional resources will be committed to all Scotland's high schools?

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I say to Karen Whitefield, Robert Brown and other Labour members that I am surprised that they think that it is good for Scottish education as a whole to concentrate spending on 52 schools and not to have any ambition for the others. [ Interruption. ]

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Order.

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I will take no lectures on social justice from Cathy Jamieson. We want early intervention in our schools and we want to reduce class sizes in P1 to P3 so that pupils are not allowed to fail and money does not have be spent on picking up the pieces.

Hugh O'Donnell took part in yesterday's debate on the curriculum for excellence, which was more than the Labour Party's education spokesman did. He knows that the curriculum for excellence is designed to raise opportunities for every school, so that every school raises the bar in respect of pupil attainment. Record funding is being made available to local authorities to support that.

In the debate we are losing sight of the schools that are involved in the schools of ambition programme and of the people—teachers, staff, parents and business partners—who are working incredibly hard to achieve transformation.

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

Will the minister give way?

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I have already taken interventions.

In the debate we are losing sight of the pupils who are contributing and who stand to benefit, and of the communities that are flourishing. I commend every school, teacher, staff member, pupil, parent and community for supporting the schools of ambition programme. They have accepted the gauntlet that has been thrown down and have been willing to take risks and share their experiences with their colleagues. I commend them for transforming things. They know that they are innovating and sharing with others the best practices of schools of ambition, and I am sure that they are dismayed, as I am, that they are being used as pawns in a purely political game and that they are the latest target of a Labour Party scaremongering campaign.

Representatives of one school of ambition—St Paul's high school in Glasgow—listened to part of the debate. I know that many more people who are involved in schools of ambition are watching our debate on the Scottish Parliament's website. We can combine as a united Parliament to applaud schools of ambition for their hard work, wish them well with their transformational journey, and ensure that what is learned from them is shared with all schools in Scotland.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

I, too, welcome the opportunity to highlight the success of the schools of ambition programme, which has, as we have heard, attracted support from members across the political spectrum, except SNP members. Why? More important, why is the Scottish Government unable to say what it expects to happen after 2011? Does funding of £500,000 in 2010-11 show support for the programme? My colleague Rhona Brankin asked that. So far, the SNP Government's only reply has been that it wants all schools to be schools of ambition, which is like saying that we want the sun to shine every day—a nice idea, but how can it be made to happen? The Government still does not seem to have got its head around the fact that in government, people must take actions that make a difference. How else will the Government encourage schools to be innovative?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Does the member agree that there is complete confusion at the heart of what the Government has proposed? One of the strengths of schools of ambition money is that it goes directly to the schools that are involved. I presume that if every school is to be a school of ambition, the money will simply go into local government budgets and will not be ring fenced, so there will be no guarantee whatsoever that it will go to individual schools. Is that not a major flaw in what the Government is saying?

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

I will return to funding.

There is a question that the SNP still does not seem to be able to answer. When a school receives a less-than-positive inspection report, how will the Government provide resources to help it to get back on track? The minister must understand that children and young people are individuals, and that some children and young people have difficult backgrounds and home lives, as Mr O'Donnell said. Sometimes, the number of such children in a school means that it needs additional support. How will the Scottish Government provide it?

We have heard that not all schools of ambition are schools with difficulties, but the experience in my constituency is that there have been difficulties. Burnhouse special school in Whitburn, which the cabinet secretary has visited several times and held up as a great example, takes children and young people with social, emotional and behavioural problems. It takes children who are already struggling with their education. Like most MSPs, I read the school's HMIE report with interest. The report was different from most other reports that I had read. It was clear that the school was not providing the education that pupils deserved. The education that it provided was poor for a number of reasons, such as its staffing and building problems. The school was placed on the schools of ambition programme, which provided a real boost to continuing professional development for staff and to upgrading the building. If the minister has not already read the report, I advise her to do so. Margaret Gibson, who is the head teacher, has said:

"The staff have now taken on responsibility. They own the school and the kids own the learning. It's magical and everybody's motivated."

Why does the minister not want that to continue? What would happen to such a school when the schools of ambition programme ends? Would it just be told that, under the historic concordat, local authorities have been given increased resources? Translated, that means that the local authority will have to find the resources from what it has got, and it might have to take them from other schools, so the local authorities are on their own.

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the member accept that schools of ambition get extra financial resources and support from central Government? We provide that support not just to failing schools that have gone onto the schools of ambition programme but to other schools in the same situation.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

I am not aware of those additional resources. In fact, the only thing that the Government seems to have given to schools so far this year is a saltire.

The minister's amendment refers to two conferences that will be held to share emerging lessons. That is fine, but what is the minister going to say at those conferences? Is she going to say that the schools of ambition programme has been a great success, so the Government is not going to continue with it? She might say that the private sector is prepared to contribute additional money to fund ambition, but there will not be enough for every school, so the Government will not accept its support for any school.

Not one MSP in the Parliament is without ambition for all our children and young people, except maybe Alex Neil, who only seems to have ambition for himself. However, it is clear that a majority of us acknowledge the fact that some children and young people need extra support to help them to achieve their potential.

Several SNP members took part in the debate, although I am uncertain that they realised that it was a debate, given that they did not want to take interventions. I say to Mr Adam that we did not just read about the issues in the newspapers; we saw the cabinet secretary on "Newsnight", and she could not answer the question about why there was no commitment to the future of the schools of ambition programme. Maybe Mr Adam gave the game away, as Cathy Jamieson said. The SNP does not believe in targeting and helping those who really need help, and that is the problem.

I am not sure whether Willie Coffey said that he is in favour of the schools of ambition programme or not. He gave a very mixed message.

I say to Mr Neil that more than 200 new and refurbished schools were provided during the final term of the previous Scottish Executive, but no new schools have been commissioned since the SNP came to power. That is the difference between the previous Executive and the present Government.

The minister would only stop the schools of ambition programme if she did not understand the need for targeted support, or if she was small-minded enough to stop it because it was introduced under the Labour-Lib Dem Executive. However, I do not believe that of the cabinet secretary or her ministers; the real issue is that the cabinet secretary got squeezed in the comprehensive spending review—I see that Mr Swinney has joined us—and, as a result, Scotland's children will suffer.

Will the minister make it clear whether each school in Scotland will receive £300,000 to spend? That is what they would have received under the schools of ambition programme, and the minister has said that every school should get it. If not, the cabinet secretary and her ministers must take responsibility for letting down Scotland's schools. Perhaps they should be considering their position.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — General Questions

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

To ask the Scottish Executive what rules are in place to allow the alteration of catchment areas for schools where more than one local authority is involved. (S3O-2682)

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Any proposal to alter the catchment area of a school requires statutory consultation with parents and others. That applies whether only one, or more than one, authority is involved.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

The minister will be aware of an on-going dispute between Glasgow City Council and East Renfrewshire Council over whether students who attend St Angela's primary school in Glasgow can continue to attend St Ninian's secondary school in East Renfrewshire, as they always have done. Depending on which local authority we speak to, catchment areas have been changed without consultation, or they have been reinterpreted but not changed. Either way, more than 20 pupils and their families are anxious, worried and having sleepless nights while the lawyers slug it out. Will the minister work with both local authorities to end the dispute and provide certainty and stability for parents and children who believe, as I do, that they have the right to go to the school that they were always going to attend, St Ninian's secondary?

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I am aware of the specific issue in the St Ninian's catchment area. School admissions policies are a matter for local authorities and ministers have no role in them. It is not for minister to adjudicate in such matters. Ministers might have a role if there is a formal proposal to change the school's catchment area, and the school concerned is more than 80 per cent full, which is the case at St Ninian's. It is not for ministers to advise, and parents can, of course, take legal advice if they wish.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the Scottish Government investigate why local authorities have been unable to deliver a better rate of satisfying school placement requests when the number of such requests has fallen?

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

School placements are a matter for local authorities. Parents have a right to appeal the authority's decision in the local appeals committee.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothians)

To ask the Scottish Executive when it last met the Association of Scottish Community Councils. (S3O-2669)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I met the president and secretary of the Association of Scottish Community Councils on 19 November 2007. Scottish Government officials last met representatives of the ASCC on 13 March 2008. The Scottish Government holds regular quarterly meetings with representatives of the ASCC and meets the entire executive council annually.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothians)

Page 45 of the Scottish National Party manifesto contains a proposal

"to make new local government ward boundaries the structural basis for new community councils".

Does the cabinet secretary agree that the purpose of community councils is to engage with communities as they exist and not to form areas based on how easy they might be for a local authority to administer? Will he therefore confirm that the proposal on page 45 of the SNP manifesto will be scrapped?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

As always, Mr Brown uses the most elaborate and excitable language to discuss commonsense provisions that we should consider objectively. The Government acknowledges—and I accept Mr Brown's remark on the point—that community councils are important because they gather together representative community opinion and they reflect the sense of community that exists in different parts of Scotland. Although the Government wishes to encourage the efficient administrative organisation of local arrangements, it will always be mindful of local communities' interests. That is why our actions in the past 10 months have given such prominence to supporting the development of the local sector in Scotland through the positive relationship that we have established with local authorities and the substantial increase in influence that local authorities have in local governance.

Andrew Welsh (Scottish National Party, Angus)

To ask the Scottish Executive what progress has been made in reviewing water charges. (S3O-2698)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

We have just consulted on the charging principles that we wish to see the Water Industry Commission for Scotland apply when determining caps for 2010 to

2014. An analysis of that consultation will be published in due course.

Andrew Welsh (Scottish National Party, Angus)

Having personally raised the issue in parliamentary questions and in a members' business debate in the previous parliamentary session, I again stress to the minister the potentially devastating effects on churches, voluntary organisations and village halls if their exemption from water charges is removed. Given that the problem affects around 2,600 halls and volunteer organisations throughout Scotland, will he ensure that the continuation of the exemption is a priority in any review of water charges?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I recognise the member's long-standing support for churches, charities and voluntary organisations throughout Scotland. He can be sure that we will take careful note of the substantial number of approaches that we have had on the subject and the many consultation responses that we have received. I am conscious that, in changing how we assess the responsibilities of business organisations under the water charging regime, we must not unduly and unreasonably disadvantage other very important organisations in our communities.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

I was a member of the Transport and the Environment Committee that recommended that the exemption be applied. At that time, the exemption was argued for on the basis of the level of disruption that would be caused to churches, scout groups and other small organisations if they were suddenly exposed to significant increases in water charges. That situation has not changed. If the exemption were withdrawn now, such organisations would be faced with exactly the same situation—

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I must press you for a question.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

I hope that the Government will respond in a similar way by extending the exemption and making it permanent.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I am happy this week to agree with Des McNulty's analysis, which I think is pretty much spot on. A range of opportunities is available for dealing with the matter in the context of water charging, but members should be assured that the importance of the issue to organisations throughout Scotland is recognised by all political parties in the Parliament.

Jim Tolson (Liberal Democrat, Dunfermline West)

Is the minister aware that my constituent the Rev Jock Stein currently has an e-petition before the Parliament on that very issue? Can the minister assure me that, when the e-petition is considered, account will be taken of the representations that have been made not just by members on a cross- party basis within the Parliament but by members of the public and by all sectors?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I congratulate the Rev Jock Stein on his efforts on behalf of churches and others on the issue of exemption from water charges. We will certainly take account of information that comes from that source.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

As the minister will know, voluntary sector groups are concerned about the onerous conditions that require to be met before water and sewerage charge relief can be obtained under the current exemption scheme. Can he assure me that, as well considering whether the exemption should continue—I certainly believe that it should—the Government will also reconsider the burdensome conditions that currently exclude many charities and other organisations from the scheme?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I am aware that the present scheme has a number of inconsistencies and unexpected side effects. For example, when organisations move, they lose their right to an exemption. Those and other similar matters will be considered in our response to the consultation.

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

To ask the Scottish Executive what action it is taking to promote citizenship in Scotland's schools. (S3O-2696)

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

One of the four key capacities of the curriculum for excellence is educating all our young people to be responsible citizens.

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I welcome the work that is being done within the curriculum for excellence to teach citizenship issues such as equality, political awareness, social and environmental justice and fair trade. Does the minister agree that those positive developments in the curriculum would be jeopardised if we were to inflict on our pupils Lord Goldsmith's divisive proposal—championed by Gordon Brown—for the swearing of an oath of allegiance? Will that proposal not merely underline differences rather than celebrate diversity?

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

We will not introduce citizenship ceremonies for young people in Scotland. There is no support for such a ceremony among the vast majority of our parents and young people. I totally agree that the responsible citizenship capacity in the curriculum for excellence is the way that we should go. In terms of diversity, I had great pleasure in attending yesterday's graduation ceremony for new Scots who, instead of having to take an oath of allegiance, were congratulated on completing a Skillnet course that will help them to play their full role in Scotland. That is the way that we want to go.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Executive what efforts it is making to increase the number of places at specialist schools for children with autistic spectrum disorder. (S3O-2703)

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The placement of children with autistic spectrum disorder in special schools is a matter for local authorities in collaboration with parents. The priority is to tailor the educational provision to meet the needs of the individual child, whether in a mainstream setting or in a special school or in a mixture of both.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

As the minister will be aware, the number of children with autistic spectrum disorder is rising so it is important that we ensure that such children can access appropriate education. Will he respond to concerns that the promised £10 million additional support fund has not been delivered? How can the Government guarantee that money that was intended for additional support needs will be spent on improving such provision?

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The member may be interested to know that there are some 1,106 pupils with autistic spectrum disorder in around 12 special schools that specialise in meeting the needs of such children. As she indicated, the number of such children is increasing. She will be well aware of the historic concordat between the Scottish Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities whereby all moneys that were previously ring fenced have been rolled up and made available for local authorities to spend on issues such as supporting children with additional support needs.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I thank the minister for attending the launch of the National Autistic Society's "I exist" campaign on 26 February.

Given the recognised gap in support that opens up when ASD pupils leave the school system, what is the minister's department doing to assist such adults during that period?

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I acknowledge the member's interest in the issue. Indeed, I welcomed the invitation to the launch of the "I exist" campaign, whose aims I endorse.

As the member will be aware, both reports on additional support needs and ASD that were produced by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education highlighted the problems of transition planning that arise for children's services and adult services when people leave school and enter employment or training. The Government is focusing very much on those issues, particularly in the run-up to our legislative review of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004.

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

Does the minister accept that many parents struggle to have their children's condition recognised if it does not fit easily into one of the categories for additional needs requirements, such as ASD? Such issues arise even before parents reach the stage of making placing requests for special schools or additional support in mainstream schools. Will he ensure that the early years strategy provides clear support for parents groups—such as Borders additional needs group in my constituency—which provide support to parents at critical times such as when there is dubiety over the recognition of the child's specific disabilities and needs?

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The member is correct to emphasis the need for early intervention. Work is needed in the early years to identify, recognise and assess such needs. I acknowledge that there is a gap at the moment in meeting the additional support needs of very young children. We need to fill that gap.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, West of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it has any plans to distribute a magazine outlining its key policies and achievements to households across Scotland and what the reasons are for its position on the matter. (S3O-2667)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The Scottish Government has no current plans to distribute a magazine outlining its key policies and achievements to households across Scotland, but such matters are kept under review. Should such a magazine of achievements and key policies be circulated, it would be a very lengthy document.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Naturally, I am immensely relieved by that answer. Given that we are among friends, I am sure that we can all agree that, policies introduced with Conservative support aside, such a magazine would, in any event, have been a singularly brief publication.

Given the minister's view, does he accept that that is precisely how tens of thousands of council tax payers' money is utilised by councils throughout Scotland? Does he agree that in an era in which increasingly sophisticated council websites are readily accessible, there is no longer a need for public money to be wasted on the printing and postage of such publications to council tax payers at their own expense?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

If we apply elsewhere the logic that Mr Carlaw has just deployed in relation to the use of local authority resources—I will return to that in a moment—we can look forward to the next election campaign in which Mr Carlaw is involved being entirely web based. I presume that the people of East Renfrewshire will not be subjected in any way to grubby pieces of paper being put through the door on Mr Carlaw's behalf.

These matters are entirely for local authorities to decide on. It is their duty to decide whether it is appropriate to make some communication to their constituents about their work. I point out that, in a number of cases, the publications contain valuable information about the availability of services and that not all our citizens have access to the technology that Mr Carlaw envisaged in his supplementary question.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

To ask the Scottish Executive what action it is taking to promote economic development in Fife. (S3O-2710)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

We place great importance on supporting and increasing economic development opportunities throughout Scotland, including in the kingdom of Fife. "The Government Economic Strategy" sets out how we will focus on creating a more successful country through increasing sustainable economic growth. The strategy sets out an approach to growth that is cohesive across all Scotland's regions.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

As the cabinet secretary will be aware, all businesses in Fife are feeling seriously threatened by a variety of issues, such as the unplanned bridge closures, uncertainties about the changes to Scottish Enterprise and the effect of the move to city regions. What thoughts does he have on how we can reassure businesses in Fife? Will he acknowledge that there are massive problems for the confidence of such businesses? Will he agree to meet me and representatives of Fife Chamber of Commerce to discuss all those issues?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Of course I would be delighted to meet Helen Eadie and representatives of Fife Chamber of Commerce to discuss those issues. I can reassure them that the Government has taken the decision to establish a new replacement crossing on the River Forth. I suspect that the fact that the Government has taken swift and decisive action within six months of being in office to secure that crossing will build significant confidence in the community of Fife.

On Scottish Enterprise, the Government is determined to ensure that we have effective, locally accessible economic services available to businesses in Fife. That will be at the core of what the Government takes forward in relation to the Scottish Enterprise reform agenda.

The Government's decision, which was part of our budget proposals, to reduce and then remove for a large number of small businesses the burden of business rates will be welcomed warmly across the kingdom of Fife.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether the funding settlement for local government in 2008-09 will be sufficient to maintain services at current levels. (S3O-2718)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Record levels of funding together with additional flexibility for councils to allocate resources should, under the terms of our concordat, result in improved front-line services right across Scotland.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

That is a fascinating answer. The minister said that record levels of funding should be sufficient to improve front-line services. In Scottish National Party-led Renfrewshire Council, we are seeing four libraries being closed, two nurseries being closed, school budgets being cut and at least 50 to 60 teaching posts being lost. That is a shameful record, given the current financial climate that Mr Swinney described. Does he endorse the actions of Renfrewshire Council?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I recognise that Renfrewshire Council has effective and dynamic leadership that has taken Renfrewshire forward constructively. Among the many strong budget decisions that the council has taken are the identification of £1 million to reduce class sizes, a £42 million programme of school modernisation, more than £2 million for recycling and waste management and money for care homes, carers, upgrading roads, tourism and a variety of other projects. I suggest that Mr Henry stops looking on the bleak side and starts examining the strength of investments that local authorities throughout Scotland have made.

First Minister's Question Time

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-615)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Later today, I will have meetings to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland.

Through Wendy Alexander, I thank the 66 per cent of Labour voters who are highly satisfied with the Government's performance.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

We know that the First Minister knows everything that there is to know about his popularity, but how much does he know about his flagship policy? Last week, he failed to tell the Parliament how much that policy would raise, but yesterday, the information was sneaked out in answer to a parliamentary question. [ Interruption. ]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

Was a deliberate decision taken to withhold all those numbers from the official consultation document?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Answering parliamentary questions is usually an open and above-board way to proceed. As has been explained, the detailed figures were issued in the answer to a parliamentary question and are available in the Scottish Parliament information centre. I suggest that Wendy Alexander starts to read and examine the figures. If she does, she will find out why a tax that is based on the ability to pay is fundamentally better than Labour's unfair council tax.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

There was no answer on whether a deliberate decision was taken to withhold all the numbers from the official consultation document. Of course, we all know that the First Minister wants the detailed scrutiny of his flagship policy to go away. The Scottish National Party's plans would replace one collection system with three new ones: a new system for collecting local income tax; a separate system for taxing second homes; and another new system to collect water and sewerage charges.

The SNP has nothing to say about the substantial extra cost to employers, and no numbers are in the official document. When he proposed abolishing the council tax, even Tommy Sheridan could estimate how much that would cost, so why cannot the bank manager and the economist who now run Scotland, with all the resources of the Government at their disposal, do the same?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I am trying to work out who the bank manager and the economist are. However, according to Labour voters and just about everybody else in Scotland, they seem to be doing a better job and to generate more confidence than Wendy Alexander's team would. Running Scotland involves managing a budget of £30,000 million. I remind Wendy Alexander that she had difficulty in managing a budget of £16,000.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

The First Minister is rather like Tommy Sheridan in one respect: if he were Scottish chocolate, he would eat himself. People out there are not really interested in the spite and the sarcasm; they just want to know how much his nat tax will cost them. This is a case not of can't say, but of won't say, which deliberately leaves every Scottish employer and worker in the dark.

This is the First Minister's flagship policy—the biggest tax change for a generation. Does he really expect us to believe that at no point in the past 10 months did Mr Swinney ask for any cost estimates for the three new collection systems that ministers propose?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The estimates for collection are in the figures that have been published in the parliamentary answer to which Wendy Alexander referred. I suggest that she reads parliamentary answers before asking more questions. I understand well why she would wish to insult me but, for the life of me, I do not see the point of her insulting Tommy Sheridan—that seems to be a counsel of despair. The detailed figures have been published—I suggest that she reads them.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

Tell us where they are.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Just a second. If Wendy Alexander reads the figures, she will recognise and learn that taxation based on the ability to pay is fundamentally fairer than taxation such as the council tax, which the Labour Party managed to increase by 62 per cent from March 1997 to last year. That is why there is such overwhelming support for a fair system of local taxation.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

A little more dignity and a little more accuracy would serve the First Minister's office well. His proposals require three new tax collection systems. The official document that he has produced contains not a single estimate for any of them. The parliamentary answer that was published yesterday contains a guesstimate for one of them. That guesstimate was made without anyone even speaking to HM Revenue and Customs, the organisation that the First Minister wants to collect the tax.

I cannot explain why the First Minister wants to hide all the figures. Perhaps it has something to do with the totals. SPICe indicates that the system will cost almost £100 million to set up and £100 million to run—a cost of more than £0.5 billion over the next session. The First Minister has provided us with no figures. This week the SNP announced a new business focus for Scotland week in the US. What is the point of that, if the First Minister's message to America is "Welcome to Scotland, the most highly taxed part of the United Kingdom"?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The message to America will be "Come to Scotland for skills and innovation". We will probably spend some time drawing attention to the dramatic taxation cut for small business in Scotland that will be so widely welcomed.

If the figures are not there, as Wendy Alexander says, why is she able to quote them? Having taxation collected by HM Revenue and Customs—a system that was put in place under the Scotland Act 1998 to collect revenue raised under the 3p tax-varying power—is fundamentally more efficient than a widely discredited council tax system.

I hope that Wendy Alexander will forgive me when I say that, when it comes to trust in politics and politicians, five years ago the Labour Party abandoned hope of ever being trusted again, when it took us to war on an illegal prospectus—a decision that was supported by Wendy Alexander in the Parliament. I know that Simon Pia thinks that everything in Wendy's garden is lovely. Given the approval ratings, I suggest that he has become the comical Ali of Scottish political journalism.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S3F-616)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I have no plans to meet the Secretary of State for Scotland in the near future, but I spoke to him briefly the other day.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

This week the Robert Foye review laid bare the gaping inadequacies of a system that, appallingly, resulted in the rape of a schoolgirl. Yesterday the Scottish Prison Service admitted that high-risk prisoners such as Mr Foye could still be considered for transfer to an open jail; unbelievably, it could all happen again.

As if that were not bad enough, next week the Scottish Government proposes to allow even more dangerous criminals out of jail even earlier, on home detention curfew. That is just the latest move in the Scottish National Party's unrelenting drive to empty our jails. Why is the SNP so soft on crime and criminals?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

As Annabel Goldie knows, the Scottish Prison Service has published its assessment and review of the Robert Foye case. It recognised in its statement, as does every party in the chamber, the unacceptable nature of Robert Foye's vicious attack on a young woman. The seven recommendations in that statement will be implemented either immediately or within the next few weeks. In addition, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice has asked for a presumption against returning to the open estate anybody who has absconded from it. The underlying matters about the control of our open estate system will be put to the McLeish commission for further study. That is a comprehensive response to a dreadful occurrence.

Given that the open estate has been part of the Scottish prison system for more than 50 years, there is a case for us, as a Parliament and across the parties, to recognise the important role that it fulfils. Although dreadful mistakes do and can happen, the Scottish Prison Service is working to its utmost and best to protect our communities from harm.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The public wants prisoners in prison; the SNP Government wants convicts in the community. Who would have thought that when the SNP cried "Freedom!" it had in mind the prison population?

The chilling facts are that home detention curfew will mean that more and more prisoners will get out earlier and earlier, and, disturbingly, the system that will run home detention curfew is precisely the same one that failed so appallingly in the Foye case.

Instead of being soft on the prison population, will the Scottish Government be strong for victims, stand up for the public of Scotland and abandon the impending disaster of home detention curfew?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Home detention curfew can play a valuable role in the Scottish Prison Service. The Scottish Government—like, I hope, every political party—has the protection of the public uppermost in its mind.

I have said to Annabel Goldie that it is best not to make partisan points out of such issues—or that it is best to be careful about them. I was extremely disturbed to note that Bill Aitken has been giving the impression in a number of statements that the prison service's open estate in Scotland is not working as it should as regards availability, escapes and absconds.

We have discussed previously the fact that the 66 prisoners who absconded this year are 66 too many. The figure is lower than it was last year and the percentage of prisoners absconding in relation to the open estate population is at its lowest for many years. However, to see how much consensus there was about the open estate policy, I asked for figures that go back quite a few years. I found that in the last year of the Conservative Government, when Michael Forsyth was the Secretary of State for Scotland and James Douglas-Hamilton was the prisons minister, 98 prisoners absconded from the open estate in Scotland and the open estate prison population was 290. That is more than twice as many absconds as happen at present.

I do not think that Michael Forsyth or James Douglas-Hamilton were trying to put the public in danger or at risk. I just hope that when Annabel Goldie and her colleagues talk about such matters, they recognise that no party in the chamber has anything other than the safety of the public uppermost in its mind.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-617)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

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

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

Five years ago today, British armed forces started the invasion of Iraq. That was opposed by the Liberal Democrats, by many others in the chamber and by tens of millions of people in protests on an unprecedented scale throughout the world.

Five years on, thousands of allied soldiers and tens of thousands of civilians have been killed, yet the deaths continue and the Government's justifications for taking us to war look ever weaker. Yesterday, I lodged a motion in the Parliament that calls for a full public inquiry into the war and, this morning, my colleague Lord McNally tabled a bill in the House of Lords that would require such an inquiry. Will the First Minister allow his party's members, including his ministers, to sign my motion, and will his Government support a full public inquiry?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The Scottish National Party gives comprehensive support to an independent and complete public inquiry into the causes of the war in Iraq. To be fair, the Liberal Democrats in the House of Commons supported just such a resolution and debate when I introduced that two years ago. I am certain that the proposal has cross-party support, including from Labour members of the United Kingdom Parliament and the Scottish Parliament, who believe that an inquiry is necessary and would be timeous.

We can do nothing about the minimum of 151,000 people from the population of Iraq who are now dead, the 175 British soldiers, many of them Scots, who are dead, or the thousands of Americans who are dead; and we can do nothing about the catastrophic effect around the world of what has happened in Iraq, with international instability.

The purpose of such an inquiry, which we support fully, would be to try to ensure that never again can the country be misled into an illegal war, because people who might do such a thing will understand that there will be a day of reckoning and that such a decision will have ramifications.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

There is one area in which the First Minister can make a direct difference and an issue on which he needs to take urgent action now: he can change the law to allow Scottish fatal accident inquiries to report on the deaths in action of Scottish soldiers. He can get rid of the current system of inquests in Oxfordshire, with all the trauma and upheaval that it causes relatives and families.

The Ministry of Defence has signalled its willingness to co-operate. Does the First Minister understand the distress that the delay is causing? Families were told by his spokesman in the House of Commons last June that it was all being sorted. Last week—nine months on—all that was announced was a review. What is the timetable for changing the legislation?

Five years on from the start of the war, it is tragically clear that young Scottish soldiers will continue to be exposed to danger and death in Iraq. Is it too much to ask their Government to give them and their relatives the consideration and the dignity that their service and their sacrifice deserve?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

No, it is not. The Government supports measures to ensure that FAIs or other procedures can be a Scottish answer to the huge delays that have caused many service families distress. As Nicol Stephen knows, Lord Cullen is reviewing FAIs. We recently wrote again to the UK Government, asking to accelerate matters. I was disturbed to read this week about suggestions from the MOD that commentary on why individual soldiers met their deaths—which I think no coroner south of the border and certainly no sheriff north of the border would make unless it was absolutely necessary—might be censored in some way. That would be totally undesirable, because just as it is important that service families hear about such matters quickly, it is also important that they have confidence that the person on the bench, whoever they are, can speak the entire truth without fear or favour.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I am sure that, given the issue's importance, the First Minister will have read the report into the absconding from Castle Huntly of Robert Foye. Was the victim's family contacted before the publication of the report? Is allowing out on licence prisoners who have tested positively for drugs protecting communities? Who has taken responsibility for the absolutely disgraceful and unacceptable management of the affair?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I hope that contact was made with the victim's family, but I shall inquire about that to make sure that it was done and then write to the member.

The systems that we have in place in respect of the open estate have been in place for a number of years. It is absolutely right that the Scottish Prison Service should seek to review its procedures, as it has laid out in the report. I hope that the seven recommendations carry the support of the whole Parliament but, as I said to Annabel Goldie, it would be best if we proceed on the assumption that every one of us wants the open estate to work to its best and our communities to be kept safe from harm.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government has any plans to alter the date of the local government elections in Scotland. (S3F-619)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The Scottish Government is taking steps to implement the decoupling of Scottish Parliament and local government elections. Yesterday the Scottish Government published a consultation paper on decoupling, which stated that our preferred method would be to move the local government elections to a position midway through the parliamentary session. That would be facilitated by extending the present council term and the next council term by one year. Thus, elections would be held in 2012 and 2017. Although that is our preferred option, we are open to alternative views and we encourage everyone who has an opinion on the matter to voice it through the consultation process.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

As the First Minister knows, the Gould report recommended, and—on 10 January—the Parliament approved, the decoupling of the elections. The Parliament agreed with the Gould report's recommendation that executive and legislative powers over electoral law, including that relating to local government, should be transferred from Westminster to the Parliament. What progress has been made on electoral law in respect of local government elections?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The Gould report made such a recommendation. Its first recommendation was that it was sensible that one authority—this Parliament—should have full executive and legislative responsibility for Scottish Parliament and local government elections. Labour members apparently no longer agree with that position, but we cannot rewrite the Gould report at this stage. The Gould report most certainly contains that recommendation. The Labour Party tends to regard with suspicion any move to enhance significantly the Parliament's powers, but I am not sure how that squares with the working party that Wendy Alexander wants to be developed.

Is it not an entirely sensible idea that any self-respecting Parliament should have control of its own elections? Is that not particularly sensible, given that the people who have control of them at the moment did not make much of a fist of it last year?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I wonder whether it is in order for the First Minister to misrepresent the Parliament's decision, which was that responsibility for the administration of the elections should indeed be a matter for this Parliament but that legislative responsibility is an entirely different matter, which should be considered by the proposed Scottish constitutional commission? Does the First Minister recall that that was the majority view of the Parliament when we debated the issue?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I know that Jackie Baillie will have prepared her question, but I point out to her that I was talking about what was in the Gould report. I know that Labour members wish that the recommendation in question was not in the Gould report, but it is.

I was present for the parliamentary debate that Jackie Baillie mentioned. I detected that there was enthusiasm for a significant change and for following the recommendations in the Gould report. I detect from the question that the Labour Party is starting to backtrack from that position. That is a great pity, because if this Parliament were to speak with a united voice on such an obviously sensible suggestion, we might even be able to persuade the Scotland Office to do the right thing for a change.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

The First Minister will be aware that the turnout at recent council by-elections has hovered at around 25 to 30 per cent—

George (Labour, Lothians)

Cambuslang!

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

—and that, before 1999, when council elections were held separately, the turnout was consistently much lower than in joint elections.

Does the First Minister acknowledge that such low turnouts damage the democratic mandate even of councils that are elected using the fairer single transferable vote system? Does he agree that the issue is a considerable downside to decoupling council and Scottish Parliament elections? Does the Government have a strategy for overcoming that challenge if it goes ahead with changes?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I think that Liberal Democrats are alone in the Parliament in not supporting decoupling. The argument is that if the election campaign takes place on local government issues, under a fair voting system, there is a chance of generating the interest that will produce a satisfactory turnout. There is a substantial complaint from local councillors across the parties that having council and parliamentary elections on the same day—regardless of the additional administrative problems that such a system causes—shields and prevents local government issues from being properly examined during the election campaign. Robert Brown should have more faith that we can generate the interest that is required to increase turnout in local government elections.

I heard Lord George Foulkes shout "Cambuslang!" from a sedentary position. The most recent election did indeed take place in Cambuslang, and the Labour vote declined by 22 per cent—[Interruption.]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

If we applied that swing to the Parliament, only five Labour constituency members would be left. Lord George is not worried about that, because he is a list member.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothians)

I gently point out to the First Minister that the Parliament resolved that:

"the proposed Scottish Constitutional Commission should consider the full legislative framework for Scottish Parliament elections."

Indeed, he voted in favour of that resolution.

Will the First Minister guarantee to decouple the next elections, regardless of what agreement is reached on other recommendations in the Gould report?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

We are going forward on the consultation document. There is an argument that decoupling is sui generis—it stands on its own as an idea that is worth pursuing.

I have given the member a favourable answer, so I hope that he will agree that it would be a good thing if we did not just cherry pick from the Gould report but implemented all the report's recommendations, including the recommendations on legislative and administrative control, so that Scotland can be confident that its own Parliament has the confidence to run its own elections effectively.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government will take to ensure that charities and voluntary organisations currently funded by the new futures fund will not be adversely affected by the ending of that funding. (S3F-637)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The Scottish Government strongly supports the work of the third sector. We are making £93 million available over three years—a 37 per cent increase on the previous spending review. That will include the £30 million Scottish investment fund.

Under this Government, from next month the fairer Scotland fund, which is worth £435 million in 2008 to 2011, will be in place across Scotland. The fund will give community planning partnerships greater flexibility to support projects that make the biggest difference to people's lives.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

The First Minister's response provided no answers for bodies such as the Aberlour Child Care Trust and the Salvation Army, which tackle addiction and support vulnerable families, particularly in Glasgow. The replacement funding to which he referred will not be available to such bodies until September, by which time projects will have folded. Will he order emergency transitional funding, to save jobs and preserve vital work?