Scottish Parliament, 11 September 2008

397 contributions from 86 members. The official report.

Official Report 11 September 2008

Clostridium Difficile-associated Disease

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Good morning. The first item of business is a Labour Party debate on motion S3M-2524, in the name of Margaret Curran, on clostridium difficile-associated disease in hospitals.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

This debate is vital, given that it focuses on one of the most serious health crises of recent years. I understand that families who lost loved ones will be in the chamber this morning, and I know that Professor Hugh Pennington, a leading and well-respected expert in the field, is with us today, too.

Let us remind ourselves of the truly appalling context of this debate. From December 2007 to June 2008, 55 patients were diagnosed with C difficile at the Vale of Leven hospital, 18 of whom either died as a direct result of C difficile or had C difficile recorded as a contributory factor on their death certificate.

The report of the independent review that was undertaken makes grim reading. It reports a catalogue of failures in infection control and surveillance; consequential failures to control admissions, discharges and patient transfers in infected wards; lack of investment in facilities for infection control and patient isolation; confused, complex and deficient management structures; and deficiencies in clinical leadership and accountability.

Given all that we know and all the resource that we commit, how can it be that Greater Glasgow and Clyde Health Board found out about the deaths only because the press alerted it to them? That is perhaps one of the most striking aspects of the situation. The stark and unpalatable fact is that, apparently, the local newspaper, the Dumbarton and Vale of Leven Reporter, had in place a more effective surveillance system than the national health service did.

Although the report has given us some welcome information—we pay tribute to those who contributed to it and who did their work in a very short time—it is widely acknowledged that many questions remain unanswered. Why was no effective surveillance in place at the Vale of Leven hospital? Who was responsible? Is the situation similar elsewhere? Should we have other worries about hospitals in Greater Glasgow and Clyde or throughout Scotland? How many patients were moved into infected wards after the wards could reasonably have been closed and lives could have been saved? Can we be confident that all hospitals have an effective surveillance system in place? Ultimately—this is a matter for the Parliament—how do we learn the lessons and stop the same situation happening throughout Scotland?

Those are important questions for the relatives and the health service in Scotland, and they require to be answered, which is why there is such a substantial case for a public inquiry. Public inquiries have been commissioned in Scotland before, such as for Stockline and the circumstances of the Shirley McKie case. Many members have argued for public inquiries in different circumstances. Given the circumstances that I have described and the issues that have emerged, surely it is legitimate to put a public inquiry on the agenda.

This is the Parliament's opportunity to tell the minister that, notwithstanding your earlier decisions and your other options, a public inquiry must be on your agenda and you must return to Parliament with your response when you consider all the issues.

As Professor Pennington, an internationally respected biologist, has said, the case for a public inquiry is very strong indeed. Any other way of proceeding would be highly unlikely to address the entirety of the systems failures that were exposed by the events at the Vale of Leven hospital.

I understand that other options are available, but the core of our argument is that, given the severity of the circumstances in this case, the fact that the investigations so far are incomplete, and the wider lessons that public services in Scotland have to learn, a public inquiry should absolutely be on the agenda. We have deliberately asked the minister to come back to Parliament to ensure that she can explain her decision.

I hope that the Parliament will vote to support the motion. Doing so will mean that we recognise the scale and depth of the tragedies that took place at the Vale of Leven hospital and that we understand that we do not as yet have the explanations that we need or the means to learn the full context. That is the core of the argument for a public inquiry. The families must get the facts and explanations that they deserve. More broadly, Scotland must get the opportunity to undertake the required assessment of these appalling circumstances and to learn the wider lessons. In that context, I hope that the Parliament will support the families in their call for a public inquiry.

I hope that in this debate we will move beyond the party-political points that might be required. I will have my opportunities to hold the minister to account and I will do so with my usual energy, but this is a time for the Parliament to move beyond that.

Our commitment is to the families. We must ensure that they get the answers that they deserve and show our support for them and our recognition of what they have experienced. More broadly, this is an opportunity for the Parliament to speak with one voice and to say to the minister that, given the severity of the circumstances and the tragedy involved, we think that a public inquiry is required.

When we consider the debates that we have had over many years and the occasions on which public inquiries have been argued for, we can see that this is perhaps one of the strongest cases for having a public inquiry. We have a duty to be consistent in our arguments. We have argued for public inquiries in the past. It is legitimate to be consistent and to show true faith with the families. We must also respect those who work in the national health service and acknowledge the challenge that we face in Scotland with infections of this order.

We must do our duty. We must ensure that we support the families and that we truly learn the lessons, so that we can say with some degree of confidence and respect that we will never allow the terrible circumstances of the Vale of Leven hospital to happen again. The best way to do that is to support the motion.

I move,

That the Parliament notes with deep concern the outbreak of Clostridium difficile at the Vale of Leven Hospital; considers the report from the independent review team to be a helpful starting point but believes that there are still serious questions to be addressed; notes the referral of the report by the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to consider what action should be taken; recognises and supports the substantial case made by the families of Clostridium difficile victims for a public inquiry; notes that the Scottish Ministers can instruct such an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 and acknowledges the need for wider lessons to be learned throughout the NHS in Scotland in preventing and tackling Clostridium difficile, and therefore calls on the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing to return to the Parliament to make a statement when the views of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal are known.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I am pleased to respond to the debate. First, I acknowledge the contribution of the families of those who died as a result of the C diff outbreak at the Vale of Leven hospital. I have already apologised to them directly on behalf of the NHS for the loss that they have suffered and for the failings of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, which Margaret Curran has already narrated. I take this opportunity to reiterate those sentiments.

There is no issue to which I attach greater importance than the battle against infection in our hospitals. I know from personal experience the devastation that it causes for patients and families. I know that fear of infection undermines confidence in our national health service. As both a user of the NHS and Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing, my commitment to ensuring that everything possible is done to combat infection is absolute.

I do not underestimate for a moment the scale of that challenge. The point prevalence survey that we published last year revealed that one in 10 patients in our acute hospitals had an infection, which is entirely unacceptable. That said, there are, of course, some encouraging signs. Methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus rates are at their lowest level in Scotland since surveillance began. Evidence is emerging of the success of new approaches in fighting C difficile. In Lothian, for example, the use of the care bundle approach promoted by the Scottish patient safety programme reduced C diff by 50 per cent in the two hospitals in which the approach was piloted. We need to ensure that that approach quickly becomes the norm in Scotland.

Although there are encouraging signs, I am absolutely clear that there is no room whatever for complacency. As we all know, the scale of the problem is large and the nature of infection is complex—as soon as we get on top of one infection, it is likely that others will emerge. We must continue to up our game, which is why we are investing £54 million over the next three years in measures to help to reduce infection. It is why we have in place a robust hospital-acquired infection action plan and a new policy on antimicrobial prescribing. It is why we will continue to demand high and continuously improving standards of cleanliness and hand hygiene in our hospitals, and it is why tackling infection is a central plank of the new Scottish patient safety programme. It is also why we will consider carefully the form of assessing NHS boards against the new NHS quality improvement standards on HAI now and in the future.

Lastly, the importance of tackling HAI is why we and I personally will never shirk from learning lessons when standards are not as they should be. I had no hesitation in ordering an independent review of the dreadful circumstances that occurred at the Vale of Leven hospital in the first half of this year, and we have acted to ensure that all the recommendations of that report and the accompanying Health Protection Scotland report are taken forward as quickly as possible.

That brings me to the issue of a public inquiry. Let me say first—as I said to the families involved when I met them—that I understand entirely the call for a full public inquiry. The fact that I have powers under the Inquiries Act 2005 to order such an inquiry is not, and never has been, in dispute. I am not just aware of those powers; I have already exercised them in ordering a public inquiry into the hepatitis C situation. I also want to make it clear that such a course of action has never been ruled out, and I do not rule it out today. However, the findings of the independent review team were so serious—Margaret Curran mentioned some of them—that an immediate referral to the Lord Advocate was both necessary and appropriate.

As a result of the referral, the area procurator fiscal for Argyll and Clyde is conducting a full investigation into all the facts and circumstances surrounding the outbreak at the Vale of Leven and will report the findings to Crown counsel. It would be wrong of me to pre-empt what the investigation might find, but members are aware that a range of different actions are open to the Crown Office. For that reason, it is right to allow that investigation to conclude before any further decisions are taken by ministers. If ministers took a decision at this stage—or if I said more than I have already said about what further decisions might be appropriate—we would be in danger of pre-empting and prejudging the outcome of the Lord Advocate's considerations.

It is, of course, my intention to make a further statement to Parliament at the conclusion of those investigations, to comment on them and to announce any decision on further proceedings. I have no difficulty in giving an undertaking to Parliament today that I will make such a statement at the earliest opportunity. In the meantime, the Government and I will continue to take all possible action to prevent and control the scourge of infection in our hospitals. In doing so, I hope that we will have the support of all members.

I move amendment S3M-2524.1, to leave out from "and supports" to end and insert:

"the case made by the families of Clostridium difficile victims for a public inquiry; acknowledges the need for wider lessons to be learned throughout the NHS in Scotland in preventing and tackling Clostridium difficile; notes that Scottish Ministers can instruct a public inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005, and therefore calls on the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing to return to the Parliament to make a ministerial statement when the views of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal are known."

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I congratulate the Labour Party on according the important subject of the deaths of 18 people and the contraction of C difficile by 39 others at the Vale of Leven hospital a debate in the chamber.

As a West of Scotland regional member, I shared the general anger and dismay as events unfolded earlier this year. I pay tribute to the local member Jackie Baillie, and once again on behalf of the Scottish Conservative party I express our sympathies to all the relatives concerned for their loss and the circumstances that brought about the loss—which, in most cases, will have been entirely unexpected. I join Margaret Curran in welcoming their presence in the gallery today and I welcome the moving of her motion. Let me also say that not only were the deaths unexpected, they were inexcusable, and they may well have been avoidable.

Relatives have faced something of a dilemma. There was clearly a colossal failure at the Vale of Leven, but my impression is that local people are understandably but needlessly nervous that by pursuing the investigation of the tragedy they may in some way contribute to a further general undermining of the hospital.

Let us be clear, as the independent review was: the threat of closure under which the Vale of Leven hospital laboured for more than a decade led to a significant lack of investment and, one has to suppose, a general lack of interest from the management of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde. However, we should not confuse a desire to investigate the deaths properly with any lack of support for the future of the Vale of Leven, a hospital for which tens of thousands have demonstrated their sustained support.

The independent review is excoriating: there was a failure of leadership and supervision and inconsistent infection control and isolation practice. The hand washing facilities were inadequate, there were insufficient toilets and there was a lack of space between beds. Since the outbreak and the independent review, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde has announced urgent investment to remedy those basic failings, and to a significant extent other recent announcements have made clear that there is a permanent future for the Vale of Leven hospital.

The independent review also uncovered the frankly astonishing lack of clarity among staff or supervision of staff when it came to basic hygiene. There was a lack of understanding about the role of soap and water in the control of C difficile, despite health board assurances of adherence to all manner of action plans. That apparent paying of lip service to fundamental standards should concern us in our examination of the broader lessons that should be learned throughout the NHS.

Scotland does not have a proud record on hospital-acquired infection. Our incidence rates are higher than those of our United Kingdom neighbours, and the costs of £183 million are substantial and were unheard of even a decade ago. In 2006, 164 lives were lost to C difficile—the chilling reality that underpins any financial cost.

I have detailed the foregoing without any political spin or attribution of political blame. Like Margaret Curran, the Scottish Conservatives are not interested in rooting today's debate in the customary partisan political exchanges. We will not indulge in denunciations of political masters past or present. We want the lessons learned to have an impact on the NHS battle against health care-acquired infections throughout Scotland.

We believe in a named individual with executive authority being in charge of our hospital wards, and we appreciate that the Government's senior charge nurse review may move matters further in our direction. We mean executive control: the power to direct staff, visitors, patients, volunteers and even the hospital royalty—consultants. They should have the power not just to direct but to instruct—to be able to have facility deficiencies rectified expeditiously and without reference to an anonymous bureaucratic approval process.

In one important respect, however, we agree with the cabinet secretary: the independent review is now with the Crown Office and procurator fiscal, and until we know their determination it is premature to call for a public inquiry. Admittedly, that is at one level a judgment about the nuances in the Labour motion, but we do not feel that the relatives' real concerns are best aided by adopting a resolution that is underpinned by premature calls for a public inquiry.

The courses of action that are open to the Crown Office and procurator fiscal are significant in law and are of the utmost seriousness for the individuals and organisations concerned. We acknowledge the powerful representations of the grieving relatives and that calls for a public inquiry may have their moment—sooner rather than later. A public inquiry is, to use Margaret Curran's phrase, "on the agenda". However, for today, we believe that due process must be allowed to complete, and we look to the cabinet secretary to make the Government's position clear with a further statement to Parliament when the views of the Crown Office and procurator fiscal are known.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

Liberal Democrats also acknowledge the real grief experienced by the families and their tremendous efforts in trying to get to the bottom of why their relatives suffered such an untimely death.

Liberal Democrats support the call for a public inquiry simply because the two reports into C difficile—one specifically into the Vale of Leven hospital and the other into all acute hospitals in Scotland—provided prima facie evidence of endemic management failures in the control of health care-acquired infection.

As has been stated, the Vale of Leven report pointed out that the health board's persistent attempts to close the hospital in the past 10 years had resulted in a critical reduction in disease control facilities. In addition, the hospital site appeared to be given a lower priority than other sites in the implementation of disease control policies, systems and staff development. Sadly, the Vale of Leven hospital is not the only hospital that Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board has been attempting to close for the past 10 years.

The report into the acute hospitals in Scotland pointed to the limitations of its own review. It concentrated, understandably, on the surveillance systems for health care-acquired infection, but it made little comment on the adequacy or otherwise of the management systems that are in place across Scotland to combat health care-acquired infection. I stress management failures, which Jackson Carlaw also mentioned, because we have to be clear that there is no evidence that ordinary staff in our hospitals are in any way responsible for the increased incidence of health care-acquired infection. Indeed, the Royal College of Nursing has pointed out that nurses in Scotland are consistently found to be the staff group that complies most with hand hygiene measures. The RCN also points out that the new senior charge nurse role, which is to be established by health boards, will be important in tackling health care-acquired infections. No doubt the establishment of that role and the measures to which the cabinet secretary referred in her speech will assist, but they will not address the question whether the management systems are adequate and robust.

The cabinet secretary has acknowledged that the Scottish ministers have powers to establish an inquiry and that she has done so in the past. However, she also stated that because the Lord Advocate has asked the area procurator fiscal to inquire into the circumstances surrounding the deaths, it would be premature to call for a public inquiry. Liberal Democrats accept that position, but only up to a point. We draw a distinction between an inquiry by the Crown Office into matters of criminality and a public inquiry to establish the facts. Patients and their families have legitimate concerns. They seek not only to ensure that justice is done and is seen to be done but the satisfaction of knowing what happened and understanding what gave rise to the events, even if no criminality was attached to the circumstances. No matter whether Crown counsel decides to pursue a prosecution in relation to Vale of Leven hospital, there remains a compelling case for a public inquiry to establish the facts that were not established by the earlier enquiry and to restore public confidence in the systems that are in place.

The decision as to whether there is sufficient evidence to mount criminal proceedings is properly a matter for the Crown Office. Liberal Democrats do not accept, as the Government amendment clearly implies, that calling for a public inquiry implies criminal culpability. I accept that if criminal proceedings proceed, the timing of an enquiry would have to be fixed to ensure that evidence that was material to those proceedings was not compromised in any way. Because of that, I am happy to accept the last line of the motion, which indicates clearly that the timing would be in the hands of the cabinet secretary, irrespective of whether criminal proceedings are instructed.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Fifty five people were affected and 18 people are dead. Those are the official figures that indicate when clostridium difficile was recorded on death certificates. It is becoming clear that more deaths went unrecorded. Whether recorded or not, the scale is unprecedented. This is Scotland's, if not the United Kingdom's, worst mortality from C diff. The problem is not unique to the Vale of Leven hospital, nor to the hardworking staff there. The incidence of C diff is rising—there have been outbreaks in Stobhill, the Victoria infirmary, Wishaw, Aberdeen, Fife and now the Royal Alexandra hospital in Paisley—but what has been different is the response.

People have claimed that the problem is caused by underfunding or neglect, yet the cabinet secretary herself has said that the prevalence rates at the Vale of Leven are the same as in hospitals in the rest of Scotland. She has also said that what happened at the Vale of Leven was a failure in surveillance. Going by her own words, the issue is much more complex than such claims suggest. If anyone remains in doubt, contrast the Vale of Level hospital and the Victoria infirmary, which are similar in age and condition. At the Victoria, C diff was discovered one day, the ward was closed the next day and the emergency outbreak control team met within 48 hours. At the Vale of Leven, people were dying and we waited six months before the emergency outbreak team met. That is about monitoring and surveillance.

As the constituency MSP for Dumbarton, I have been privileged to work with some of the bereaved families, and I join others in welcoming them to the chamber. I pay tribute to their courage and their determination to find answers to what happened to their relatives. Make no mistake, they do not seek to apportion blame; rather, the aim is to ensure that we will never again see a repeat of the scale of death that occurred at the Vale of Leven hospital at that or any other hospital.

We now have the report from the independent review team. That is a welcome first step but, as others have said, questions remain unanswered. From the families' perspective, it is insufficient: they do not know what questions were asked, what documents were considered or even what people said. The report does not deal substantially with the wider relationships with Health Protection Scotland and NHS Scotland.

The families have been clear and consistent: they want a public inquiry. I welcome the fact that the cabinet secretary has referred the matter to the Crown Office. It is considering whether there should be a fatal accident inquiry, a public inquiry or any criminal prosecution. Having said that, I know that the cabinet secretary has the power to initiate a public inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005, to which she referred. It states that a minister can call a public inquiry if

"it appears ... that—

(a) particular events have caused, or are capable of causing, public concern, or

(b) there is public concern that particular events may have occurred."

Of course, the matter is not reserved within the meaning of the Scotland Act 1998. There is clear public concern. There have been 18 deaths at the Vale of Leven and many more throughout Scotland. Lessons need to be learned fast.

Why should there be a public inquiry rather than a fatal accident inquiry? A fatal accident inquiry would take place before a sheriff, the focus would be too narrow and it could consider only what happened at a given hospital over a given period. The recommendations would not be binding, the inquiry would be adversarial rather than inquisitorial and, perhaps most significant, a fatal accident inquiry would exclude and disenfranchise the victims who survived. In contrast, a public inquiry would be wider in scope, the recommendations would go straight to ministers and the inquiry could propose legislation. A public inquiry could deal with all who were affected, and the fact that such inquiries are chaired by a judge would send a strong signal of the seriousness of the matter.

In a former existence, the cabinet secretary called for many public inquiries—I have not always agreed with her—and in government she and her colleagues have initiated a number of them. I hope that she will agree that it is right that the victims of C difficile should benefit from a public inquiry, too.

However, this is not only about the victims; it is about ensuring confidence in the national health service. The problem of C diff requires to be investigated as widely as possible. We need to put in place the right system, the right guidance and the right resources to ensure that we minimise the possibility of such events ever happening again. That objective surely is shared by the whole Parliament.

We need an independent inspection and monitoring regime for HAIs in Scotland. If I went on the internet, I could run off an environmental health inspection report about my local restaurant and takeaway, a report about the performance of my local school and a report about my local care home. I could even run off a report about the Vale of Leven hospital tea bar, but I could not do so for a report about the hospital itself.

Issues such as whether there is a need for an independent inspection regime are too wide for a fatal accident inquiry—that is the terrain of a public inquiry.

This debate is about Parliament's view, not about the minister taking a view. It is about how we move forward to provide answers for the bereaved families, how we support NHS staff and how we provide confidence in our NHS. A public inquiry gives us the basis for doing that.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I acknowledge, as other members have done, the distressing circumstances that have brought us to this debate, which will never be a party-political one.

I thank Jackie Baillie for her speech and acknowledge her powerful representation of her constituents in this tragic matter. The statistics are damning in themselves, but we all acknowledge that each of those statistics represents an individual person and leaves an enduring trail of tragedy for family members and friends.

This must also be a difficult period for staff at the hospital. There will be very good staff in the Vale of Leven hospital—some of them will be very good indeed—and they must feel stigmatised by the cloud that has hung over the hospital.

I will not go back over the review report, to which other members have referred. I will move on from the specific tragedy at the Vale of Leven hospital to consider the general issue of hygiene and cleanliness, with which, as many of us knew anecdotally, there are serious problems in hospitals throughout Scotland. Hygiene and cleanliness used to be taken for granted in my younger days, never mind my mother's day. The present problems can be attributed partially to the break-up of the esprit de corps that used to exist in our hospitals, whereby the cleaner and the janitor were part of the same team as the much-lauded consultant. Quite often, it was the cleaner or the janitor who had the time to speak to patients and to ensure that they were comfortable. Now we use agency nurses. I am not blaming them, but their connection to hospitals is transitory. They are rewarded through their salaries, but they do not feel part of the hospital family. That feeling, which money cannot buy, has been lost.

We should also consider the more relaxed approach to visiting hospitals that has been adopted, and which I have been guilty of. Sometimes six or seven people surround a bed that is close to another bed, and visiting hours in many hospitals are no longer restricted. It goes without saying that that must cause simple hygiene problems. The issue is largely practical. As someone important once said, there is nothing to beat soap and water for your hands. Simple measures must be taken, such as cleaning the walls and floors of hospitals and ensuring that the bed linen is clean and that wards are not crowded.

I want to challenge what Jackie Baillie said about the holding of a fatal accident inquiry. She said that such inquiries are adversarial, but they are not—they are inquiries. I have called for two fatal accident inquiries in my part of the country—one on the death of Pascal Norris from anthrax and the other on the death of Irene Hogg following an inspection by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education. It was not mandatory to hold a fatal accident inquiry in those cases, in which due process was followed. Both cases went first to the procurator fiscal to consider whether there should be criminal proceedings, because such proceedings, in which the standard of proof is "beyond reasonable doubt", take precedence. The process then moved on to consider the question whether it was appropriate to hold an FAI.

What is important about FAIs is that they are extremely flexible. At any point in an FAI—which is an inquiry—the sheriff or the senator in charge can decide that criminal proceedings are appropriate and that the inquiry must be stopped. It might even be decided that a public inquiry should be held. Rather than a decision, an FAI produces recommendations and determinations. That is why the standard of proof is different.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I accept what the member says about fatal accident inquiries, but the broader issues are the problem. Clostridium difficile-associated disease is an issue not just for the Vale of Leven but for the whole of Scotland and the whole of the NHS.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

With respect, I think that I mentioned that when I discussed the general problem of hygiene in our hospitals. The broader issues might emerge in a fatal accident inquiry. Such an inquiry might not even be held, if the procurator fiscal decides that there is sufficient evidence to pursue a criminal prosecution.

I understand the call for a public inquiry—that would be the first thing that I would call for, were I a member of an affected family. However, we must keep a cool head and think about how to get to the root of the problem. The best way of examining forensically what took place would be to find out first what the procurator fiscal has to say about criminal culpability. If there is no criminal culpability, the holding of a fatal accident inquiry will allow the sheriff or judge in charge to make determinations about the way forward. An FAI will not prevent us from considering all the issues; it will give us an opportunity to examine all the evidence coolly and to take a range of views on how to deal with the problem. It is in the interests of all patients in Scotland, especially our older patients, that we get to the bottom of what has been happening for a long time in Scotland's hospitals.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

Other speakers have made it clear that clostridium difficile-associated disease is not just a problem in one hospital. On 5 September, the Paisley Daily Express reported that the fact that there had

"been eight cases of the deadly Clostridium Difficile infection in one ward at the Paisley hospital over a four-week period ... was a contributory factor in the death of one patient",

so it is clear that people in my constituency are worried about what is happening in our hospitals.

I welcome the content and tone of the cabinet secretary's speech. I thought that she made some helpful comments and recognised the scale of the problem. This is a debate on which we should try to reach some common ground on behalf of the wider public. People will not forgive us if we are seen to squabble for party-political reasons over an issue on which there is general agreement. I worry that the cabinet secretary might inadvertently—I am not suggesting that she is doing so deliberately—be teasing people with the possibility of a public inquiry. She said that she did not rule out such an inquiry, but that issue is separated out in the amendment, which is otherwise similar to Labour's motion.

I hope that during the day, the cabinet secretary might reflect on where we are. We do not want to give out a signal to the general public that politicians are squabbling and cannot agree on taking serious action on a significant issue. I hope that we will send out a clear message that we are intent on improving the situation in our hospitals.

Several speakers have highlighted the problem. Christine Grahame was right to mention some of the cultural and practical issues in our hospitals. Staff are not deliberately casual, but the fact that they can move from one institution to another and not have any long-term commitment to a hospital can cause problems.

Like the cabinet secretary, I have experience of elderly relatives suffering hospital-acquired infections. The state of cleanliness of some wards leaves a lot to be desired. There seems to be some confusion about who is responsible for cleaning certain things at certain times. Sometimes unclean and unsafe conditions are left for far too long.

Jackie Baillie made a good point about inspection. Why is it that we can find out about the tea bar at the Vale of Leven hospital, but we cannot find out before we go into a hospital whether it has a bad record, relative to other hospitals, on cleanliness and hospital-acquired infection? We should put such information into the public domain.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

Like the member, I have many constituents who use the RAH. They would like Government front benchers to tell them why the Government is suggesting that we proceed with a health board by health board web reporting system rather than a hospital by hospital reporting system. After all, it is in hospitals, not health board headquarters, that people acquire infections. The prerequisite for an inspection regime is the ability to obtain data hospital by hospital. The decision to move to a web-based reporting system was made during the recess—

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Interventions should be brief.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

It would be helpful to be given a justification for the decision that information is to be provided health board by health board, rather than hospital by hospital.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The member must begin to sum up, I am afraid.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

I do not disagree with Wendy Alexander. Before they go into a particular hospital, patients should have the right to access the data for that hospital. I see no reason why we cannot have unannounced inspections of the cleaning and safety standards in hospitals. It is a concern that more progress seems to be being made on the issue in England than is being made here. We should be big enough to learn from what is happening elsewhere.

I acknowledge that time is short and that other members want to speak. Suffice it to say that we must find a way of coming together to take action on what is a significant issue for the public. There is an opportunity for us to have further debate on inspection regimes and other specific issues on which practical suggestions have been made. The last thing that we should do on such a major issue that has had tragic consequences is divide along party-political lines over of what will be seen as splitting hairs and playing with words.

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

We meet in the light of the personal tragedies at the Vale of Leven, but many of us have our own experience of the problem and its environment. I spend a lot of time as carer to two 90-year-olds. My father has prostate problems, which mean regular hospital visits. Forty years ago, as a postgraduate student, I was the first archivist of Edinburgh royal infirmary, and found out that before the age of Lord Lister and antisepsis, patients often did not expect to leave hospital. Hospital-acquired infections are nothing new.

Are we reverting to the pre-Listerian time? Comparisons with Germany suggest that we have 10 times the occurrence of hospital-acquired infections, but why? Besides resistance to antibiotics, we have perhaps greater environmental problems, such as old buildings. We use inappropriate floor coverings, for example carpets instead of tiles or linoleum—I declare an interest as an MSP for the Kirkcaldy area—which is seen to have an antibiotic effect. I have never seen a carpet in a German hospital. Hospital notes, making their progress round the wards, can appear rather toxic, since they are grubby and, in the case of elderly patients, often date from a long time back.

There are social factors. Besides our alcohol problem, we have three times the German rate of drug addiction. Accident and emergency at Borders general hospital can be a scary place for the staff, let alone the patients. Can people from a chaotic background be expected to observe clinical rules? Inevitably, the problems will increase in areas that have profound social difficulties. There has been a lack of investment in the Vale of Leven, but even favourable developments, such as the replacement of a hospital or of facilities in a hospital, can have unfavourable effects. How many of us have been in a hospital that seems like a building site, where everything is in a temporary state, making one wonder whether everything is being kept up to the necessary standard?

Three and a half years ago, I was constantly in the Middlesex hospital in London. The condition of the hospital was poor because a new building—the new University College London hospital—was only weeks from opening. However, the new building could not affect the patient at whose bedside I waited, as she was in the last stages of cancer. She was tended by the Middlesex staff clinically—in the true Latin sense of the word—and with love. However, it was a hospital in its last weeks, and the sources of possible infection—ill-cleaned corridors and public toilets, and the absence of hand wipes and of facilities for adequate hand washing—were all too obvious. Hospital improvement is good, but it always leaves a vulnerable interval.

It is important that we establish the primacy of hygiene. That means keeping all infrastructural support in-house. In NHS Wales, which has a good record in combating HAI, all cleaning is done in-house, and the guiding principle is hygiene. Before that, many contractors had left it to cleaners to wash their uniforms at home and wear them when travelling to work, increasing the risk of infection transmission. How much of that still goes on?

The issue also involves the wider public. Earlier this year, I got stick from the Daily Record and The Sun for objecting to teenagers planting their shoes on bus seats. All the buses on which I travel pass the Borders general hospital, and medical staff use those seats. There is a major contamination possibility there—just consider where those shoes have been. That represents the sort of casually indifferent behaviour I have almost never seen among young people in Tübingen, which is a major hospital centre in Germany. I think that there is a reason for that, which might also be a way forward. Most German teenagers spend a year doing social service, often as a hospital orderly, a worker with the elderly or a paramedic. Such social service is far more demanding than any form of military service and, as anyone who has worked with youngsters here who have done first-aid training will know, that experience, particularly over a year, does not just change lives, but saves them.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

I support the motion in the name of Margaret Curran and pay tribute to my colleague and friend Jackie Baillie for her usual tenacity in pursuing an issue with diligence and fortitude. I extend my sympathy and condolences to the relatives who have come here from the Vale of Leven to listen to the debate.

No matter what any member says today, I imagine that those relatives will be inconsolable in their grief over the loss—which may have been avoidable—of their loved ones. I do not blame the Government for the existence of such infections—no one would dream of doing so. However, what is important is how we as politicians react to the situation. Lives have been lost, and the question is how avoidable each death from the dreadful infection C difficile was. A public inquiry can tell us, and holding one would send out a political message. The kind of inquiry that you are talking about, cabinet secretary, does not give the issue the gravity and urgency that it requires, nor does it address the crisis of public confidence that exists throughout Scotland. How avoidable were those deaths?

On Sunday, at a constituency engagement in Cardenden, I was told of a patient whose death in the Queen Margaret hospital in Dunfermline may well be another that was caused by contracting C difficile in the hospital. My constituent's mother was admitted to the Queen Margaret in January, and was moved to bay 7B, in ward 7, which had been closed for a week due to a bug. The patients in the bay provided my constituent with all the information; the medical team said nothing. A few weeks later, the family arrived to visit and found their mum in a side ward on her own. No one in the hospital provided the family with any information. At their next visit, the family were greeted by a nurse refusing them entry. An apron and gloves were presented, and family members were advised that C difficile was suspected and that a test had been arranged.

My constituent's mother had visitors non-stop that day—the whole family had unrestricted access. Despite what other members have said, there were no restrictions on being close to the patient or sitting on the bed. My constituent said that the ward was never closed during that period, and that the level of cleanliness left much to be desired. My constituent's mum was then moved to ward 1 in Lynebank hospital.

What I find most shocking in that case is the absence of information for or instruction to visitors. Why was the family not given clear direction and instruction about hand washing, contact with the patient and so on?

The cabinet secretary will be aware that ward 6—a general medical ward—at the Queen Margaret hospital in Dunfermline was closed to new admissions just three weeks ago, after seven patients developed diarrhoea and later tested positive for C diff. Samples were taken to discover whether the patients were infected with the virulent 027 strain of C diff. The results will be known this week.

I reiterate my call for a full public inquiry into the matter. Such an inquiry is important for every patient in Scotland. There is a crisis of public confidence around infection control and, for the reasons so eloquently put by Ross Finnie, there is a compelling case for a public inquiry. What is happening in the Queen Margaret hospital in Dunfermline underlines the need for a full public inquiry into C difficile, so that lessons can be learned from the recent tragedy at the Vale of Leven, where 18 people died. Families have an absolute right to know that when their loved ones go into hospital they will be cared for in clean and safe conditions. Sadly, cabinet secretary, you are not taking on board the message about the difference between a public inquiry and a fatal accident inquiry. The latter is not the way forward.

In February, and again last month, the Dunfermline Press highlighted the issue on its front page. It reported that the number of deaths in Fife hospitals where C diff was mentioned on the death certificate had rocketed from 23 up to 41. A national survey carried out by Health Protection Scotland said that just under 10 per cent of patients at the Queen Margaret hospital had a hospital-acquired infection such as C diff or MRSA.

Cabinet secretary, can you put your hand on your heart and state that you have kept faith with your promise

"to raise the issue with every Board during this summer's Annual Reviews"?

Did you do that with every health board at its annual review this summer?

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The member should be winding up.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

Finally, cabinet secretary, the constituents whom I represent in Cardenden form part of the Glenrothes constituency. Unless you give us an absolute and categorical assurance that you will go ahead with a public inquiry, I will print every word that you have said on the leaflets that I will put out in the Cardenden and Kinglassie part of my constituency, to say—[ Interruption. ]

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Order.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

—to say that you are not taking the case—

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The member should wind up.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

—for a public inquiry seriously.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Order. I remind members that all their remarks should be made through the chair. If the word "you" is used, it refers to me. Several members have been ignoring that stricture during the debate.

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

I am fortunate in my constituency in that Caithness general hospital in Wick enjoys an enviable reputation for cleanliness. I have done a short course on hand cleaning, and it is a much more scientific and thorough process than I had realised.

I know something about hospital-acquired infections. Following neurosurgery, my wife went down with MRSA. She survived—we are the lucky ones. We were incredibly lucky. However, I can remember the sickening feeling when someone—after going through major and traumatic treatment in hospital—then goes down with a hospital-acquired infection. I have been there; I have got the T-shirt, and my family has got the T-shirt. I remember the visits and having to wear the gloves, the masks and the whole paraphernalia—just to see my own loved one in hospital. For that reason, I have a real understanding—as do all of us in the chamber—of what the relatives of the 18 people who died so tragically have gone through. I understand exactly where they are coming from.

Jackson Carlaw said that such things are inexcusable and avoidable. It is the avoidable aspect that so sickens us all. He gave the best description of the independent review when he said that it was "excoriating". Indeed it was.

I applaud Jackie Baillie's speech in every way. The point that she made about such a situation never happening again is the real issue. As she said, we are not dishing out blame—this is not a culture of blame—but we have to ensure that safeguards are put in place so that such events are never repeated. We must do that as far as humanly possible, given human intelligence.

Some of Christine Grahame's points were very fair. We must not forget the staff at the Vale of Leven hospital, who will be feeling very down. I would hate to be in their position; they have worked extremely hard and yet their reputation has been damaged. Christine Grahame's point about hospital visitors was absolutely correct—we have all seen examples of such behaviour. Until recently, it was possible to have six people round a bed in a ward and there would be no washing of hands.

Hugh Henry's contribution—complete with Wendy Alexander's intervention, long though it was—was right. We are not interested in health board data; we are much more interested in knowing specific hospital data. As Jackie Baillie said, at the moment we can get information about the tea in the canteen but not about the rates of HAIs in the hospital.

In closing for the Liberal Democrats, I echo what my colleague Ross Finnie said: there is a clear distinction between the work that the Lord Advocate and the Crown Office are undertaking and a public inquiry. The Lord Advocate and the Crown Office are looking into aspects of criminality in what has happened. They may rule one way or they may rule the other way—we know not.

However, the issue goes way beyond the Vale of Leven hospital and the Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board. The whole of Scotland and the United Kingdom sat up when people heard of those 18 deaths. The issue is at the back of everyone's mind when they go anywhere near a hospital. Public fear is real. Constituents of mine have died of MRSA, and every death is one too many.

My party believes that a public inquiry is very much in the public interest. As others have said, a public inquiry could do more than the Lord Advocate or any other person could do, and more than a fatal accident inquiry could do. A public inquiry would be wide and—crucially—it would restore public confidence among ordinary people who might be facing hospital treatment.

Of course we will respect the cabinet secretary's views on timing, but Ross Finnie made a point that I hope will be acceptable to the cabinet secretary. He said that one evidence-taking session must not compromise another; they can be dovetailed in order to achieve the best possible outcome for the concerned people whom we represent.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

We join others in sending our condolences to all the families who were affected by the outbreak of C difficile and the 18 deaths at the Vale of Leven hospital. The Scottish Conservatives agree with much of Margaret Curran's motion, and we confirm that a public inquiry is not off our agenda.

Undoubtedly, serious questions remain to be addressed. However, where we differ from the Labour Party and its motion is that we support and respect due process, allowing the procurator fiscal fully to investigate the C difficile outbreak and consider what action should be taken. However, we do not rule out supporting a public inquiry at the appropriate time, following the investigations and conclusions. It may be that a fatal accident inquiry will be recommended by the procurator fiscal; it may be that civil proceedings will be taken against Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board; it may be that actions will be pursued against individuals as they are held accountable for the outbreak; and it may be that persistent failures and negligence will be identified. However, we do not wish to pre-empt the findings of the procurator fiscal, and we respect the due process of the investigation.

I also hope that the findings will consider the lives that could have been saved had action been taken at the Vale of Leven hospital at the appropriate time. Given the high level of expenditure on the NHS in Scotland, it is shocking to read the litany of failures at the Vale of Leven hospital, which many members have highlighted. The failures include: underinvestment; ineffective isolation and infection control; lack of leadership; poor facilities; poor information on hand washing and laundry; and failure to monitor antibiotic levels. It is hardly surprising that staff morale was low. All of that should be placed against the statement from Health Protection Scotland that evidence from several countries concludes that hospital-acquired infections are avoidable. Jackson Carlaw and others have made that point.

I will make a couple of points that have not yet been made today. I hope that the cabinet secretary will take up the issue of an inquiry and will consider the problem in a wider context, because it exists not only in hospitals. Infections also exist in nursing homes and care homes for the elderly, and many of those patients are then transferred to hospital. I am not saying that that happened at the Vale of Leven hospital, because I am not familiar with where the patients came from, but when people are transferred they can bring infections with them. We cannot simply concentrate on infection control in hospitals; we have to be just as rigorous in nursing and care homes.

I hope that, when she responds to the debate, the cabinet secretary will advise us what the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care is doing in terms of inspections and infection control. What is its role? Is it as rigorous as we hope to be in the NHS? There is no point in considering hospitals unless we consider the whole sector. Neither is the prescribing of antibiotics wholly in the domain of the hospitals. We cannot blame just the hospitals for prescribing antibiotics. Before patients go into hospital, much more needs to be done to reduce the prescribing of antibiotics. That is true for all patients, but especially the elderly.

I welcome the increased use of day surgery, and I also welcome last week's report from Audit Scotland report, which concluded that more procedures could be done by day surgery. Not only would that save money and provide a less disruptive experience for the patient, but it would cut down on hospital-acquired infections, because the stay in hospital would be shorter. We are pleased that the report recommends the empowering role of the charge nurse—something that Conservatives have long called for.

We support the Government's amendment today, and we may well support Labour's call for a public inquiry at an appropriate point in future, following the current investigations.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

In the time that I have available, I will try to respond to some points that were made in the debate. I thank all members who contributed; on almost every occasion, their contribution was considered and helpful.

I thank Margaret Curran for initiating the debate. She narrated some of the report's key findings. As I said on the day of its publication, the report painted a picture of conditions at the Vale of Leven that were entirely unacceptable. That view is echoed by absolutely every member in the chamber.

Jackson Carlaw made a considered speech, in which he raised the important—probably the central—issue of the downgrading of the Vale of Leven over a period of 10 years with the resulting lack of morale amongst staff and all those who were associated with the hospital. He rightly stated the importance of ensuring the future of the hospital and of ensuring that it gets the investment that it needs. I am pleased that NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde has given a commitment to the sustainable future of the hospital. I am sure that that is a commitment on which we all will want to hold the NHS board to deliver.

Ross Finnie and I may not be on the same side when it comes to the vote at decision time, but his speech was very good. He drew a distinction between criminal liability and the wider circumstances of a case. I say to him in response that the purpose of the Lord Advocate's investigations is not only to establish criminal liability; criminal prosecution is one possible outcome of her investigations, but not the only one. As other members have said, in theory it is open to the Lord Advocate to order a criminal prosecution, a fatal accident inquiry, or a public inquiry. That range of options is open to her.

I acknowledge Jackie Baillie's role as the local member. As she rightly said, although we are focusing today on the Vale of Leven, the issue is not only for that hospital—infection is a challenge in all our hospitals. The issue is also not new; infection has been a challenge for all our hospitals for many years. Indeed, the challenge is not unique to Scotland; every country is battling it.

I agree with Hugh Henry that the issue should not be made party political. I assure him that he will hear no party-political squabbling from me on the issue—it is far too important for that. Hugh Henry made legitimate points on the nature of assessment and inspection in our hospitals, as did Wendy Alexander when she intervened on him. As I said in my opening remarks, the issue is under my active consideration.

What I am about to say, therefore, is not intended to be party political; it is intended as a statement of fact. The present system of assessment for our hospitals and health boards was put in place by the previous Government, and inherited by this Government. If we are to change the system, instead of making the issue one of politics, I hope that we can come together and agree on changes, based on experience.

I agree with what both Christine Grahame and Christopher Harvie said on cleanliness and hygiene standards. Christopher Harvie made an excellent point on the outsourcing of cleaning contracts. My views on the subject are well known.

Mary Scanlon's point—that the issue applies not only to hospitals—is central to the debate. If one looks carefully at the latest statistics on C difficile, for example, one finds that a quarter of all cases are contracted not in hospital but in the community. The issue must be viewed more widely, as Mary Scanlon said. It is essential that we widen our focus to include homes that the care commission inspects, including nursing homes.

Three questions are at the heart of today's debate. First, should further action be taken? As I said in my opening speech, I understand the calls for further action. If I was convinced that there was no case for further action, I would not have referred the report to the Lord Advocate. I repeat what I said earlier: I have not ruled out anything, including a public inquiry.

The second question is: what process do we pursue in coming to a decision? Having referred the report to the Lord Advocate, it is right that we allow her to consider the various possible courses of action. If a further inquiry were to be made in future, her investigations would be invaluable in helping us to divine its scope and shape.

The third and final question is: what do we do in the meantime? Notwithstanding action that may or may not be taken, it is essential that none of us gives the impression that we should sit back and await the outcome of some future inquiry before making the improvements that we need to make to ensure that we are constantly upping our game in the battle against infection.

I know that we will return to the issue. I have given an undertaking to return to Parliament at a later stage. In the meantime, I will continue to do everything possible to ensure that we fight infection as effectively as possible. I will do that because, whatever else members think we owe to the families of those who are affected at the Vale of Leven, I am in absolutely no doubt that we owe them that.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

C difficile is somewhat different from MRSA. That recognition should be the starting point for the debate. The prevalence of C difficile in the population at large means that, when someone goes into hospital, it is important that every measure is taken to ensure that the infection is not spread or does not become more serious.

Given that we know many of the factors, I will mention just three: overcrowding, poor hand hygiene, and failures in antibiotic policy. Under the previous Administration and continued under this Administration, attempts have been made to tackle some of those issues. For example, overcrowding was exacerbated by delayed discharge, an issue that has been largely eliminated. The Government achieved that in March 2008. I accept that the antibiotic policy that was put in place in 2002 has been updated, but its implementation still needs to be questioned. For example, NHS Lothian has implemented it much more strictly, with good results. That has also been done at the Maidstone hospital in Kent following the outbreak there, and the results have been demonstrated to be effective. The matter has to be taken seriously.

Hand washing is a matter of considerable concern. The cabinet secretary has indicated a target of 90 per cent, which sounds good—indeed, it sounds excellent to have such a target. As Ross Finnie said, we know that nurses are better at hand washing than doctors are. Other measures can also be put in place. One of the problems is that the alcohol gels that are widely used in the system are not the answer, because they do not deal with C difficile. Also, the current inspection regime does not distinguish between hand washing and hand hygiene. There are therefore two flaws in setting the target, which is intended to help to restore public confidence. In the self-reporting that occurs under the inspection regime, staff are not required to wash their hands at all times. The reporting is therefore meaningless, which is regrettable. The issue could be addressed in a public inquiry—

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

rose—

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I will finish the point, cabinet secretary, and then let you in.

If one looks at the latest figures under the hand hygiene inspection regime, the denominator—the number of observations—reported by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde was 300. However, the number reported by NHS Forth Valley, which is a much smaller board with only two hospitals, was 480. Those figures show that no pattern is emerging from the inspection regime. There is an absolute need for an independent inspection regime. That issue should be looked at.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I wanted to agree with the point that Richard Simpson was making when I rose to intervene. Notwithstanding my previous comments on a public inquiry, I assure him and the chamber that I do not want to wait to be told in a public inquiry report that I must ensure that any flaws or failings in the current system of hand hygiene are rectified. We should be getting on and doing that now.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I absolutely accept that. The problem is how we can see the whole picture.

Many things cannot be understood by reading the report conclusions. For example, why did 55 cases produce 18 deaths at Vale of Leven? The expected mortality level for C difficile—and there is such a level—is around 2 to 3 per cent, although in associated cases it may go up to 6 per cent. At the Vale of Leven, the level was almost 30 per cent. The report says that people did not know why that occurred. With due respect to the cabinet secretary, if neither her specialist committee nor her civil servants know the reason, a public inquiry is needed in order that we can understand all the factors and know where we should be going. The Lord Advocate's inquiries will not achieve that.

As other members said, the reports that we have received are helpful. However, they give us neither the full picture nor the full answer. Too many questions have not yet been answered. As I mentioned, the number of deaths at Vale of Leven is not explained. Also, the HPS review was undertaken over only a six-month period. We do not know whether deep cleaning, which both Gordon Brown and the cabinet secretary have ordered, does any good. We need to understand that.

Too many issues remain unanswered. The families are entitled to understand, as far as possible, that all the composite measures that were undertaken by this Administration and the previous Administration, based on the knowledge that we had at the time, were sufficient and will be sufficient going forward if we are to restore public confidence.

All testing and surveillance is not yet standardised, and reporting is not done hospital by hospital. Hugh Henry and Wendy Alexander referred to that. In England, reporting is done by hospital so that if things move in the wrong direction, that can be identified right away. The HPS report now refers to that for the first time, and shows that deaths in the Vale of Leven hospital were above predicted levels in January and March. If a reporting system that indicated that had been in place in March, we would not have had to wait until the Dumbarton and Vale of Leven Reporter invited us to examine the issue.

Some reporting systems are in place, but they are not effective and they are not being used properly. Do we want a hospital-based reporting system? Will that restore confidence? We need to consider that as part of a public inquiry.

HPS issued the C difficile associated disease care bundle only on April 1, but its status was only advisory. The website said only that HPS

"would like to hear from"

people who were using the care bundle. That does not indicate attention to what actually needs to happen. There should have been directives that were independent of inspection and which had teeth.

The cabinet secretary has said repeatedly that the issue is being taken seriously—I do not deny that—but the families and the public do not believe that the Parliament is taking the issue seriously enough. We need a public inquiry to show us the way ahead and to help us to understand what has happened.

Teachers

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-2525, in the name of Rhona Brankin, on the Scottish National Party Government failure on jobs for newly qualified teachers.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Labour has raised this important issue because it is of concern for the teaching profession, parents, pupils, employers and everyone else in Scotland who cares about our education system. When figures for the employment of newly qualified teachers were released last year, a spokeswoman for the Scottish Executive told the Sunday Herald that the Scottish National Party Administration had

"inherited a difficult situation with more shortfalls in jobs than planned as some councils have failed to employ as many full-time teachers as expected."

A year down the line, the situation has got demonstrably worse. The annual Times Educational Supplement Scotland survey of local authorities shows that the proportion of newly qualified teachers securing permanent teaching jobs in 2007 was about 50 per cent higher than for the same period this year. If the situation last year was "difficult", to use the SNP Administration's own word, what word would the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning use to describe the markedly worse situation that has been engineered by her failed policies during the past year?

Whether we look at the TESS figures or those from the General Teaching Council for Scotland, the facts are clear. Increasingly, newly qualified teachers are struggling to secure permanent teaching posts.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The GTC survey shows that more post-probationers were in permanent jobs—whether full time or part time—under this Government in April 2008 than under her Government in April 2006. Does the member acknowledge that fact?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I wish that the cabinet secretary would stop trying to hide behind statistics. It is clear that an increasing number of primary school teachers are in temporary posts; that is a main feature of the research that we have seen. The cabinet secretary must be open to recognising the difficulties that exist, especially in the primary sector.

Last week, the Deputy First Minister told the chamber that the concerns of parents and teachers were "downright stupid". Does the cabinet secretary share that view?

On this side of the chamber, we have come to expect the increasingly tired SNP accusations of scaremongering; I doubt that this morning will be any different. However, I urge SNP ministers to look beyond their minority position and take heed of the chorus of criticism from teaching professionals. For example, the Educational Institute of Scotland's Ronnie Smith has called on the Scottish Executive to tackle the issue. He said:

"This is not something it can regard as being at arm's length and say it is not our problem."

May Ferries of the GTC said:

"Because of local authorities' budget difficulties, there is a squeeze on any potential growth of teacher employment, and that will hit the post-probationers."

School Leaders Scotland said:

"This is a disgraceful situation where we are jeopardising the excellent probationer programme by not being able to provide job opportunities at the end of the probation."

In the past few days, I have had phone calls and e-mails from teachers voicing concerns over low morale and staff cuts around the country, and thanking me for raising the issue in Parliament last week. Either SNP ministers take those comments seriously and acknowledge that there is a problem, or, in effect, they dismiss as Labour stooges the people who made the comments. The Deputy First Minister believes that such concerns are "downright stupid", but a glance at comments from teachers on the TESS website shows a remarkably different picture to that on planet Sturgeon. One person said that they were a probationer last year and they applied for jobs across Scotland and travelled all over for interviews, but that with the current job situation, they felt forced to take a teaching position in England. Another said that if all else fails, Dubai is looking for teachers. Yet another said that the SNP

"must be kidding, a rosy situation it is not, they must be aware of it!"

The problem is that while the cabinet secretary might be aware of the crisis, neither she nor her ministerial colleagues shows any inclination to resolve it. In fact, the impact of John Swinney's much-hyped concordat with local authorities, which has cut councils' share of Scottish Government spending by approximately 2 per cent, is being felt across Scotland. For example, in SNP-run Aberdeen, cuts have resulted in primary and secondary schools being staffed at 97 and 95 per cent of previous levels respectively and, in common with many other parts of the country, cuts have been made in the number of teaching posts. There has also been a steep increase in the number of teachers who are on short-term contracts. That picture will become even clearer in the coming weeks.

Such is the education funding crisis in many schools that hard-pressed headteachers are staffing their schools in the short term with more probationer teachers to help to balance the books. That is the reality of the SNP's historic concordat with local government, and it risks destroying our hugely successful teacher induction scheme. Perhaps when the minister sums up, she will explain how the SNP plans to meet its promises on class sizes and teacher numbers when it is reducing employment opportunities for newly qualified teachers.

"We should be told why more teachers are not being employed in the classroom, why probationer teachers are struggling to find appropriate places for next year, and why post-probation teachers are finding it well-nigh impossible to find a permanent post."

Those words are not mine; they are the words of Fiona Hyslop on the situation in 2006, which was far brighter than the disaster area over which she presides today. I am disappointed, but not surprised, that the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning is sitting there smiling at this debate. Perhaps she has decided that the Scottish Executive stands a better chance of winning the argument or finally winning a vote on education—that would be a first.

At decision time, the cabinet secretary might well buy herself a few much-needed weeks to come to terms with the problem, which is of her Government's making, and in which to produce a coherent strategy to replace the current dismissiveness and complacency. It is no use trying to blame cash-strapped councils or the previous Administration for this mess. The cabinet secretary must demonstrate some long-overdue leadership to address the crisis. If she is unable or unwilling to do so, she should step aside for someone who can. I urge members to stand up for Scotland's pupils, parents, teachers and the Scottish education system by supporting the motion in my name.

I move,

That the Parliament notes with concern the recent Times Educational Supplement Scotland and General Teaching Council for Scotland surveys showing an increasing number of post-probationary teachers who are unable to secure a permanent teaching post; believes that this development represents an appalling waste of talent and is grossly unfair to those newly-qualified teachers encouraged to train to join the profession; further notes that this comes at a time when many class sizes are rising, and calls on the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning to show leadership and ensure that the Scottish Government, in conjunction with local authorities, takes early and decisive action to address this growing crisis and to make a ministerial statement before the October recess with recommendations for immediate action.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The debate needs to benefit from some cold hard facts rather than hot-headed attacks on Scotland's education system as the Labour Party seeks to undermine it.

Fact—the TESS survey was out of date on the day that it was printed, on 29 August. It showed that almost 50 per cent of post-probationers had jobs but failed to mention that, only the week before, on its back pages, the TESS had advertised more than 300 additional permanent jobs, taking the number of those in employment or about to get a job to more than 2,000—hardly the crisis of thousands not in work that Rhona Brankin wants to whip up.

Fact—the GTC survey does not show that an increasing number of post-probationers are not getting permanent jobs. In October 2006, when the Labour Party was in power, 54.7 per cent of all respondents to the GTC were in full-time or part-time permanent jobs. In April 2008, when the SNP Government was in power, 55.3 per cent of post-probationers were in a permanent job. That is an increase in the number of permanent jobs under our Government, not a decrease. Perhaps we need to introduce numeracy tests for some MSPs. Also, Presiding Officer, perhaps you could check the standing orders and inform us whether there are any rules that prevent Parliament from agreeing to a motion that is factually inaccurate. The self-same GTC survey also showed that 93 per cent of teachers were in teaching jobs of some sort by April 2008—more than when Labour was in power. The challenge is to make more of those jobs permanent, especially in the primary sector.

Nineteen per cent of Scotland's teachers are over 55 and 6,000 teachers out of a total of approximately 53,000 that we are funding are due to retire this year, providing job opportunities for approximately 3,000 probationers and the 3,000 who have finished their job guarantee year. Vacancies will also arise during the year as older teachers reach their retiral date. Furthermore, I would have thought that colleagues across the chamber would have welcomed the establishment of the teacher employment working group that I set up in June.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Does the cabinet secretary accept that some councils in Scotland are cutting their teacher numbers?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I am aware that, despite its convener saying that it has an increased education budget, Glasgow City Council is not replacing teachers who are retiring. The Labour member might want to take up that matter with the Labour-led Glasgow City Council and ask what the situation is there.

Fact—the Labour Party might not like it, but there are now thousands of children in primaries 1, 2 and 3 who are already in smaller classes than they would have been in under the previous Government. In Dumfries and Galloway, P2 class sizes have been reduced from 30 to 25, and extra resource is being targeted at areas of deprivation. In Fife, 27 additional teaching posts have been created to start to reduce class sizes. Moray Council is reducing P2 class sizes in 2008. In North Lanarkshire, P1 classes have been reduced to a maximum of 23 this year. In Renfrewshire, the council is reducing P2 and P3 class sizes to a maximum of 25, and South Ayrshire Council has indicated that it will do likewise. There are already smaller class sizes for thousands of children.

Yes, the list includes councils—Fife Council and Moray Council, to name but two—that did not volunteer to have their class size reductions appear in their single outcome agreements. The Tory dossier is not a secret—that information is freely available. There was no requirement to include class sizes in the agreements.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Why not? It is your flagship policy.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Fact—the concordat with local government notes the specific arrangement that means that the Government has provided funds to maintain teacher numbers at 53,000. With falling rolls in most parts of the country, that gives scope to reduce class sizes. That is what we have agreed with local government—that is the accountability structure that Mr McLetchie questions. I add that, since coming to power, the Government has provided an extra £9 million for 300 additional teaching jobs.

Fact—we do not need legislation to reduce class sizes. However, placing requests may put pressure on some—albeit few—classes; therefore, we will keep the situation under review.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I am conscious of the time.

Margaret Smith may want to note that the current court cases cite the previous Administration's policy, not ours.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

Change it—legislate.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I hear calls for legislation. We have said that we will keep the situation under review. I expect that, should the Government decide to introduce legislation to address matters, we would get full support from Labour and Liberal Democrat members. That might be difficult for the Conservatives, who do not want to see any class size limits because, if headteachers are to have discretion, that might cause difficulty for legislation on placing requests in the future.

I warn those members who appear to be in haste to oppose the Government that they may taking at face value what they would like to believe rather than what the facts tell us. I rest my case on the facts. I do not pretend that the system cannot be improved. I have set up a teacher employment working group to assess the situation, which involves the unions, the employers, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the headteachers. The truth is far from the situation that is portrayed in Rhona Brankin's motion. I let the facts speak for themselves.

I move amendment S3M-2525.3, to leave out from "with concern" to end and insert:

"that the Scottish Government has set up the Teacher Employment Working Group, due to report in October 2008, which includes members from the General Teaching Council for Scotland, teacher education institutions, COSLA, the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland, teacher unions, the headteachers' associations and the Scottish Government, to establish whether the long-standing teacher workforce planning process remains fit for purpose."

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

In 2006, the GTC's probationer programme was described as world class, as were many of the methodologies that are used in the continuing professional development programme to increase incentive and professional standards. Personally, I do not think that there is any doubt that the quality of aspiring teachers who are moving into the profession is as good as it has ever been.

It is ludicrous to assert that any Government must be able to find every qualified teacher and probationer a permanent job. That is naive in the extreme and pays no heed to the nature of the teaching profession. Nonetheless, the current situation, as outlined by Labour this morning and by many reports in the media, is totally unacceptable. I will spell out what needs to be done and will focus on two slightly different issues. The first is the lack of certain jobs; the second is a mismatching of skills. In my opinion, those two issues require different solutions.

In talking about the lack of jobs, especially in some urban areas, let us be clear about what has happened. Councils such as the City of Edinburgh Council and Glasgow City Council, which have the potential to employ a large number of teachers and are often seen as attractive areas in which to teach, are under huge financial pressures in their education budgets. Those pressures arise from the class size policy, from uncertainty in the school building programme for the school estate, and from curriculum change.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

Is the member aware of the fact that Labour-controlled Glasgow City Council had a £15.3 million underspend last year but refused to put an additional penny into its education services?

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am very aware of that fact.

I want to concentrate on the fact that the financial strictures are causing part of the problem. The financial strain on councils is enormous. Although, in theory, the class size policy ought to provide more jobs in primaries 1 to 3, it is abundantly clear that the financial pressures are far too great to permit that. They create the potential for cutbacks in other year groups—indeed, many councils have said that.

Last week, I was strongly critical of the rigidity of the Government's class size policy, and I will be so again this morning. Indeed, I will ask for the abandonment of the policy as a directive from central Government. Having spent a great deal of time listening to evidence in the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee and to the parliamentary responses that have been given to my colleague, David McLetchie, I am utterly convinced that the cost of the policy to the rest of the education service—especially in respect of teaching jobs—has not been properly thought through. If, on one hand, we try to free up the market by allowing COSLA, through the historic concordat, to have more say in the placing of teachers yet, on the other hand, we fix one side of the market, we will end up with two incompatible economic systems. Given Alex Salmond's recent conversion to Thatcherite economics, I would have thought that the Government could work that out for itself.

The rigidity of the policy manifests itself in other ways. Yesterday, I listened to a headteacher telling the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee that, if he wants his school to advertise a vacancy, three things can happen. The vacancy can be advertised in the newspapers; there can be a transfer of a surplus teacher from another school; or a commitment can be made to take on a probationer, once they are fully qualified. However, the decision is not his—it is the local authority's, and he has to go along with it even if he has interviewed some very good candidates. Because of the barriers of the situation, he is in a difficult position. That cannot be right. There is a complete inconsistency between the aspirations in the teaching profession and what councils will allow because of red tape and budgetary restraints. We need a much more flexible approach that is properly driven by the demand for jobs as opposed to the artificial targets that the Government is trying to impose. Above all, headteachers must have far more power.

Another issue is the mismatch of skills, and I find it especially worrying that the Government is not spending enough time on the matter. I appreciate that the cabinet secretary has given £9 million to create 300 more jobs, but are those jobs the right ones? Is some of the problem not down to geographical immobility or a poor knowledge of the marketplace?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

We provide resources to local government, which then seeks to deploy them.

As for the geographical issues that the member has referred to, we wanted more teacher training places in Aberdeen and on the Crichton campus in Dumfries to address those very challenges.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I simply hope that the cabinet secretary appreciates that the issue is very important.

It goes without saying that we cannot have excellent schools unless we have excellent teachers. Scotland has the potential to have just that, but not under the present structure. Government needs to understand the nature of the problem, to address the right issues and, above all, to abandon its unworkable policy on class sizes, which is doing so much damage to everything else in education.

I move amendment S3M-2525.1, to leave out from "show leadership" to end and insert

"make a ministerial statement on this subject as soon as practicable following receipt of the report of the Teacher Employment Working Group."

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

Anyone who attended yesterday's meeting of the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee will realise the importance of this debate. The committee heard the EIS, the GTC, School Leaders Scotland and a recently qualified teacher who is searching for a permanent post refer to the situation confronting probationer teachers as being a "tragic waste of talent", "a betrayal", "an economic waste" and "soul destroying". No one will claim that the previous Administration delivered a 100 per cent job guarantee, but the cabinet secretary is doing the teaching profession and the Scottish education system no favours by acting as if there is no problem. Even if she chooses to ignore our voices, she cannot ignore theirs.

The Times Educational Supplement Scotland's survey suggests that of 3,426 probationer teachers who were looking for employment last year, only 770 found permanent jobs—just 22 per cent.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I must correct Margaret Smith; the survey is not about last year. TESS took a snapshot in August, which showed that 700 had permanent jobs and another 700 had temporary jobs. Moreover, the week before, the paper had advertised an additional 300 permanent jobs—which, I think, takes the total to over 2,000.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

The survey was about last year.

TESS also recognised that the logjam of probationary teachers is a result of the Government's failure to implement its class size pledge, and of the tight education budgets that it has passed on to councils.

Since 2004-05, not only has there been a decrease in the proportion of probationers being employed but, worryingly, there has been a decrease in the number of permanent posts for those who are already employed, especially in primary schools where, according to the GTC, only 40 per cent are on permanent contracts. That represents a serious waste of talent in what is probably the best generation of teachers we might ever have in our schools. It is of mounting concern for the young and not-so-young Scots who are in the process of qualifying as teachers. Despite being encouraged to take up careers in education, many of them now seem to be destined for unemployment and disappointment. That situation will have a medium-term impact on the number and quality of those who might come forward—possibly, as we heard yesterday, from other professions—to train as teachers.

The longer newly qualified teachers remain unemployed, the more they become deskilled and the more difficult it is for them to compete in interviews. We should never lose sight of the human stories behind the statistics or of the demoralising effect that the situation has. After all, their inability to get permanent contracts impacts on people's ability to get mortgages and to make other financial commitments to their families' futures.

Our amendment focuses on class sizes simply because if the Government had made the necessary funding available to give its class sizes policy any hope of being delivered, one welcome by-product would have been the employment of many of the newly qualified teachers who are currently sitting at home watching daytime television or who are leaving the profession before they have truly entered it. Although the Government said it would cut class sizes, it has not provided the cash, nor is there—as recent court cases have shown—the legal framework that would be needed to do that. The legal requirement for classes of 30 remains—it would be interesting to know whether the cabinet secretary intends to change that. From what she has said today, I do not think that she will.

The cabinet secretary also said that there is no need for legislation. She probably feels that way because introducing any legislation would require the production of a financial memorandum, which would be very unlikely to happen, given that the SNP is trying to run away from the true costs of the policy.

The Government said that it would match the previous Administration's school building programme "brick for brick", but there is still no clarity about from where we will get the £422 million that is, according the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland, needed to build the school buildings that would be required to reduce class sizes.

The pure and simple fact is that the class sizes pledge lacks the necessary funding. We know that councils are struggling with the issue; indeed, 21 of the 32 single outcome agreements fail to mention it. The cabinet secretary says that that is because the agreements did not need to mention it. Why not? If this is a flagship policy, why did the Government not insist on its being given central place in the agreements? For the past 15 months, we in this chamber have heard nothing else but how the historic concordat is going to make everything okay. Nine of the other 11 councils said what we all know: they do not have the money that is needed to implement the policy.

The witnesses at yesterday's Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee made it clear that although workforce planning is important, the essential mismatch between SNP Government rhetoric and the day-to-day financial reality for councils means that councils in Aberdeen and Glasgow are cutting teacher numbers, not increasing them. Indeed, the EIS said that that is a trend across Scotland and that no sector is immune. Cuts are being made across the board, even—which I am sure we all deplore—in additional support for learning.

We welcome the establishment of the teacher employment working group, which is why we are happy to support the Conservative amendment. It will very sensibly allow us to have the group's input before the cabinet secretary makes another statement to Parliament on this important issue. However, given that the group's remit does not cover funding, it will obviously not be able to answer all our questions. The EIS, the GTC and others have made it clear that long-term workforce planning cannot anticipate the short-term political decisions that councils might have to take in the face of financial difficulties.

As I have said, many local authorities have already acknowledged that they will fail to implement the Government's commitments. It is crucial that access to quality education does not become yet another postcode lottery. The Scottish Government made a national commitment: its job is to uphold it throughout the country.

I hope that this debate will be a shot in the arm for the SNP. We need to take action on this vital issue for the hundreds of Scots who have trained so hard to deliver improved education for our children. All they are asking for is a chance to do just that.

I move amendment S3M-2525.2, to insert after "class sizes are rising,"

"highlighting that the SNP's manifesto commitment to reduce class sizes to 18 in P1 to P3 is in utter chaos, with insufficient funding, a lack of a legal framework and the omission of the policy from 21 out of 32 local authorities' single outcome agreements,".

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

Given that the probationer teachers scheme has received a lot of praise from Audit Scotland, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and many educational commentators, and has been admired by professionals from all over the world, why are there such problems? Are teachers a year later facing the same uncertainties that they faced before the scheme was introduced?

As various members have already pointed out, the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee took evidence yesterday on the current situation. We heard from a teacher about her problems in finding a full-time permanent post and the financial and personal pressures that she is under. However, she is content to face all those pressures, because she wants to teach and believes that she has much to offer our children. I agree with her.

Headteachers' leaders told the committee that although they would like to employ many of the people who have completed the probationary year, they cannot do so because they do not have the finances. The EIS expressed the same concern and stressed that local authorities do not have enough money to fund additional teachers. The fear is that budgets will get tighter; in fact, the EIS told us that two thirds of councils are cutting their education services.

Those concerns have been raised not by Opposition politicians but by those who work in our education services every day. However, the most worrying aspect of the situation is the cabinet secretary's complacency over the issue. She has told us that she has acted, so let us look at what she has actually done. As she said this morning, in 2007-08, £9 million was provided to local authorities to employ extra teachers. However, only £6 million was available that year and only £5.7 million was applied for through the national priorities fund. To be fair, I should point out that the funding provided 245 extra teachers.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I remind Mary Mulligan that this Government came to power in May 2007, after the start of the financial year. The £9 million that was made available for 300 jobs was not just for one year, but for every year. As the measure was implemented in September—that is, after all, when the new autumn term started—the full £9 million was not, of course, going to be available in the first year. However, that £9 million, and the 300 additional jobs that it provides, is still in the budget.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

So the £9 million is not for one year but for more than a year, which means that it is even less than we thought.

The cabinet secretary has just made it clear that the money has now been baselined. Have the local authorities been told that? Are they using this money to employ extra teachers? Are we talking about £9 million, £6 million or the £3 million that was left over? Does the cabinet secretary know the answer to those questions?

Setting up the teacher employment working group was the second thing that the cabinet secretary did. In the Jim Hacker ministerial school, when a minister is in trouble, setting up a working group is always the first line of defence. As Margaret Smith said, that group's remit focuses on workforce planning and processes. To focus on those things might be useful, but the real issue is finance. All the policies on lower class sizes, non-contact time and children with additional support needs point to the need for more teachers.

It was made clear to the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee that none of the Government's aims will be achieved without additional money. That is the problem. The cabinet secretary did so badly in the spending review that there is no money. Ministers may say that they have given local authorities the necessary money to fund the commitments that have been made, but that is inaccurate. I think that when the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee starts to scrutinise the outcome agreements and local education spend, as we have agreed to do, we will see that what the ministers have said is inaccurate.

The cabinet secretary needs to show leadership. She needs to stop believing Mr Swinney's line about being a team player in the Cabinet; rather, she needs to stand up for education. She needs to stand up for the children, young people and teachers in our education system. She has the job of helping all our post-probationers find jobs for the benefit of our education system. I say to the cabinet secretary, please try to act.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

Workforce planning many years ahead is difficult, and primary schools know that particular difficulties exist. However, we should not be too hard on the former Lib-Lab Executive, which six or seven years ago decided the number of people who would apply to university to be teachers in 2002, begin their bachelor of education degree in 2003, graduate in 2007 and complete their probationary year last June. Decisions about the number of undergraduates who would enter the one-year postgraduate diploma in education course and graduate this year would, of course, have been taken in 2004.

Scotland has been haunted by teacher shortages for decades. I recall that there were 59 children in my primary 1 class and that, at secondary school, I had no science teaching until my third year. A Labour Government was in power then. Even now, there are shortages of primary teachers in some local authority areas, where local authorities have recently had to look for teachers overseas. That is why some pre-probationers are paid a £6,000 bounty to train wherever they are needed. There are also shortages of teachers to teach some secondary school subjects, such as maths, English and physics.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Kenneth Gibson talks about class sizes being larger when he was at school. Does he accept that class sizes, especially in secondary 1 and S2 English and maths, are going up?

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

I am afraid that I do not accept that.

We know that 100 or more teachers apply for jobs at some schools. That has always been and always will be the case at the best schools. However, if teachers applied for jobs at 10 schools and each of those schools received an average of 50 applications—some schools receive many fewer applications—that would mean that five teachers were applying for each job rather than 50. In addition, new vacancies are continually being advertised; indeed, some 539 have been advertised in TESS in the past three weeks alone.

Projections far into the future on the number and geographic spread of teachers who will retire, the number of undergraduates who might drop out of their courses and budgets are difficult to make. However, the TESS of 29 August estimated that 3,359 teachers will be needed this year and that 3,426 will complete their probationary year—a 98 per cent fit. Perhaps the number of new teachers who will be required will be more or slightly less than that. This is not an exact science. However, I am pleased that, according to the General Teaching Council for Scotland, 93 per cent of the 2007 cohort of probationers have now found work. That is due partly to the SNP Government's full funding of 300 additional teachers last autumn, which is now included in baseline local government funding.

Some councils are, of course, playing games. In Glasgow—one of only two Scottish councils under outright Labour control—despite the £15.3 million underspend in the previous financial year that I mentioned earlier, and despite the urgings of the SNP opposition, not a single penny extra was committed to education and to reduce class sizes, even in the most deprived parts of that city. That is despite Glasgow City Council's level of educational attainment being the poorest of any local authority and its having the lowest proportion of spend on education. Some 25 per cent of its total budget has been committed to education, compared with 47 per cent of the budget of East Renfrewshire Council, which has the highest level of attainment. It is curious that Labour and the SNP are in the administration there. Many Glasgow parents try to send their children to East Renfrewshire. We know that Labour in Glasgow places a low premium on education, because it dispensed with 61 nursery nurses between 2004 and 2007, when the Labour Party was in power in Glasgow, Holyrood and Westminster.

A little more common sense and a little less hysteria—particularly from Rhona Brankin—are required when it comes to teacher numbers. In The Herald last week, Rhona Brankin ludicrously declared that Labour had provided

"An additional 53,000 teachers since 1997."

Given that there is roughly that number of teachers in Scotland, is she seriously suggesting that Scotland's education system truly began only in 1997, as its year zero? I now wonder who those mysterious men and women who wrote on the blackboard at the front of my classrooms were.

The Scottish Government has established a working group on teacher employment. I look forward to reading its findings when they are published in October and to significant progress being made over the coming year.

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate, and rise to support Labour's motion.

The debate, which comes at a crucial time for education in Scotland, is important. Three quarters of probationers do not have full-time jobs, the school building programme has ground to a halt and the SNP's class size policy is in tatters. I particularly welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate because the issue of probationary teachers not finding employment has dominated in my constituency. In recent days, I have received e-mails and messages by other means from probationers who have urged me to say clearly in the chamber that probationary teachers are fed up with training for unemployment and that they want practical action.

The cabinet secretary gave a blizzard of statistics. The crucial thing about statistics is the trends that they show. Last year, 32 per cent of probationary teachers were in full-time employment; that figure has now declined to 22 per cent. The numbers have gone down.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The member says that we should consider trends, and he mentioned teachers on the dole. Perhaps we should consider the fact that in 2006, 295 teachers claimed jobseekers allowance and that, out of 53,000 teachers, the same number—295—are claiming that allowance this year. There is the same trend.

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

I am absolutely clear that the policies that the SNP is pursuing are putting probationary teachers on the dole instead of in classrooms. That is a waste of talent.

What response has there been from the ministerial team? Maureen Watt tells probationary teachers that they should "broaden their horizons". That is a lazy response; probationers deserve better.

A probationer in my constituency left her previous professional career to study teaching, for which she retrained at her own expense. On completing her probationary year, her school described her as being "bright and innovative", but she has found only a part-time position. However, she has been described as being one of the lucky ones, although she cannot get a loan for a car or a mortgage because she does not have a permanent job. What sort of reward is that for her dedication and hard work? I lay the blame for that squarely on the SNP.

The SNP goes on about the much-heralded historic concordat. In fact, there has been an historic bail out, because the concordat has resulted in a hands-off approach being taken to education policy. In addition, the lack of funding, the council tax freeze and the efficiency savings of 1.5 per cent have resulted in education budgets being squeezed. Some three quarters of EIS associations in Scotland have reported cuts in their council areas. As we have heard, councils are starting to employ probationers and to cut back on full-time posts. The direct result of the SNP's policies has been a weakening of morale and an undermining of potential.

In summary, it is time for action to reverse the situation. Rather than spend £280 million on a local income tax and make Scotland the most taxed part of the United Kingdom, the money should be spent on creating real full-time jobs and providing hope to post-probationers. If the ministers believe in a smarter Scotland, it is time to get their act together and put teachers in the classrooms, rather than in the dole queues.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

As a member of the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, which only yesterday considered post-probationary teachers, I am glad to have the chance to debate this important issue further. As others have said, the education of our children is of fundamental importance. As parliamentarians, we owe it to them to ensure that the system works and that each child has a good-quality learning experience and is taught by motivated and accomplished teachers. I am pleased that that is the case for the large majority of Scotland's children—it was, on the whole, the case under the previous Administration and it will continue to be the case under the Scottish Government. I would not be so petulant as to fail to acknowledge the achievements in the past few years.

As those who gave oral evidence to the committee confirmed, the post-McCrone set-up for new teachers is recognised internationally as being one of the best. The committee heard yesterday from a new teacher that her probationary year was essential in making her a good teacher. It gave her confidence that she had much to contribute in her chosen profession and to the children whom she will teach.

Of course it is upsetting to read stories about probationers who have not yet secured jobs. No member, regardless of their political colour, wants anyone who has dedicated time to achieve the necessary qualifications to become a teacher—their chosen vocation—not to get a job. Likewise, I have never liked to hear about graduates of the history, economy, physiotherapy or engineering departments in universities the length and breadth of the country ending up in temporary employment in call centres or similar while they pursue their dreams and aspirations for employment in their chosen fields. However, we all accept the importance of teachers, which is why the Government is doing all it can to help probationary teachers. As a result, as we heard from the cabinet secretary, in June 2007 the Government provided an additional £9 million to local authorities, which has provided 300 more teaching job opportunities.

Furthermore, the cabinet secretary has formed the teacher employment working group, which has the remit of examining workforce planning, finding out where improvements can be made and considering whether better matches can be made between student numbers and employment opportunities. That is surely a positive and proactive approach to finding out how things can be improved. It is easy for people to say that something should be done, but until we know where the weaknesses and potential hurdles are, we can only stick on plasters, which is not a long-term or proper solution. As Kenny Gibson does, I welcome that sensible move and wish the cabinet secretary well with it. I hope that the group identifies not only where the problems may or may not lie but, crucially, that it recommends solutions.

For those who are seeking employment, I understand completely how difficult it is to cope without a job. However, it has never been the case that every single post-probationer has obtained a job immediately. As the Deputy First Minister said in Parliament last week, it has always been the case that new teachers have gained employment as vacancies have arisen during the year. That happened under Labour and will continue to be the case under the present Administration. We must heed Murdo Maciver's comments to the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee in May, when he said:

"the prospects of obtaining a teaching job are bright, even if some appointments will not be made immediately. We are approaching the targets. Probationers will be employed on a permanent basis sooner or later."—[Official Report, Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, 28 May 2008; c 1099.]

It is not responsible politics to create a culture of fear and to scaremonger on the issue. I accept that opposition parties have a duty to hold the Government to account, but I do not accept that negativity should be allowed to prevail to the extent that it begins to put off people from embarking on careers in teaching.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

The last thing that the Opposition wants to do is to put off people from choosing a career in teaching. However, does Aileen Campbell accept that it is the Opposition's responsibility to ensure that people hear the truth? Does she accept that many education cuts are being made the length and breadth of Scotland?

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I accept that scaremongering is not responsible politics. We heard in committee yesterday that the negative environment surrounding teaching and probationers is making people decide not to follow that career.

I am confident that the teacher employment working group will make suggestions to improve workforce planning, and that the Government will consider them carefully. I hope that Parliament supports efforts to give all our post-probationary teachers the very best chance to flourish in their chosen profession, and that we realise quickly that finger pointing and negativity are not the way to ensure that our Scottish education system retains its international acclaim.

David Whitton (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate and I support the motion in the name of my colleague Rhona Brankin. I am sure that every member has a tale about their favourite teacher. I had two: Mr Muir, who taught me English, and Mr Wallace, who taught me economics and, probably more important, gave up his free time to teach me the basics of shorthand, which is a skill that I can still use today. The two men entered teaching by totally different routes: Mr Muir came through university and teacher training college, while Mr Wallace came into teaching at a later stage of life after spending time in the world of business and commerce. Both were inspirational in their own ways and I am indebted to them in ways that they will probably never know.

There are no teachers in my family, but I am acquainted with several teachers. Some have taught members of my family and others I have met while visiting schools in my constituency, including probationers. I have met others who are just starting out on their careers. Today, we are focusing on those who are just starting out.

There is no disagreement on the need for more teachers. Even filling the gaps that are left by those who retire requires a steady stream of new recruits. Teachers do not have an easy job. Indeed, given the statistics that show that assaults on teachers are increasing, and the stories about the misbehaviour that they must deal with daily, it is a wonder that anyone would want to become a teacher in the first place. However, teaching has always attracted excellent candidates—people who see the role of educator more as a vocation than as a career. That is why the Government's inability to meet its promises on class sizes is such a betrayal—it is a betrayal of trust and of opportunity.

Unlike the cabinet secretary, I congratulate TESS and its editor, Neil Munro, on the survey that it published on 29 August, which highlighted the scale of the problem that Scotland's probationary teachers face. It seems that the SNP is only fond of surveys that it commissions. The cabinet secretary said that the survey was partial and "out of date", but even if the vacancies that she talked about were filled, that would leave 2,000 probationary teachers looking for a job.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

There are 770 post-probationers in permanent jobs and another 750 have temporary jobs, which makes about 1,500. Another 300 jobs were advertised in just one week. That is 2,000 post-probationers who are in a job or about to go into one out of a total of 3,000. That is before we take into account retirals throughout the year. It might be helpful if Mr Whitton thought about addition in considering the matter.

David Whitton (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

A blizzard of statistics, but no answers—that is typical of the cabinet secretary.

The survey's table of probationers who are and are not in employment contains figures for my council area of East Dunbartonshire. It shows that 81 probationers were employed in 2007-08, with 45 in the primary sector and 36 in the secondary sector. The table states that only 10 of those have secured permanent jobs, although when I asked about that this week, I was told that the actual figure is only six.

What would be the assessment of our probationary Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning? On grasp of detail, she lacks focus; on communication skills, there is room for much improvement; and her continued employment depends on the favour of a sympathetic headteacher. The report card on the Minister for Schools and Skills, Maureen Watt, has been censored to avoid intrusion into private grief.

Tomorrow in East Dunbartonshire, I will meet three headteachers from Malawi who are visiting my constituency. They will be astonished to learn that we have 2,000-plus teachers looking for jobs. Consider what they would give to employ those teachers in their country. Recently, we heard that schools in Glasgow are struggling to teach English to the children of immigrants who have arrived in the city. Is it beyond the wit of the cabinet secretary to make money available so that probationers can be employed to provide special English classes for those children? That way, they would learn the language much quicker.

The cabinet secretary may want small class sizes for primaries 1 to 3, but she knows that that will not happen any time soon in many parts of Scotland. It will certainly not happen in East Dunbartonshire, where the council estimates that it would cost more than £4 million to implement the policy. That means that the cabinet secretary and her colleagues must consider more innovative ways of offering jobs to probationers to keep them in the profession—before it is too late.

Hugh O'Donnell (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

It is sad that we are faced once again with a debate on the appalling record of the SNP Government when it comes to supporting our pupils, teachers and schools. David Whitton referred to the litany of statistics on the burgeoning numbers of unemployed newly qualified teachers who have been driven to seek casual employment on supply lists; indeed, some have left the profession out of pure economic necessity. It is a national scandal.

The Government should hang its head in shame at the growing list of broken promises on the education system, which is to say nothing of the money wasted on training teachers who are increasingly finding that, because they cannot get appointments, they are demotivated, demoralised and wondering what their future holds.

The cabinet secretary spoke—in the smarter Scotland debate, I think—about the 300 additional teachers and the money that pertains to them. How much impact has that money had on improving employment rates and reducing class sizes? Moray Council estimated last year that it would need 45 extra teachers to meet the class-size obligation; it recruited nine probationers. Angus projected that it would need 70 teachers to meet the class-size commitment, but it recruited 31 probationers. Overall, the figures show approximately a 50 per cent success rate. That is serious.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I think that the member refers to information from individual councils and directors of education. Indeed, the Association of Directors of Education provided information to the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee on the subject. That information was a snapshot to demonstrate what would be necessary if a big-bang approach were taken. Everybody recognises that that is not the case, therefore the progress that has been made, even by Moray Council, should be welcomed.

Hugh O'Donnell (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

Any reasonable person would welcome the employment of probationers, but Glasgow asked for 397 teachers and was able to recruit only 14, notwithstanding the comment about its underspend. That does not constitute progress of any substance.

What have the cabinet secretary and her department done? Her department is our Nero—while the school system and the Government's support for it go up in flames, the Government fiddles about with self-congratulatory debates and passes the buck to other agencies, rather than take one iota of responsibility for the chaos. There is not one iota of clarity about timescales, funding, support or anything else. Who suffers? Our children, their teachers and the future of our country.

We need look only at the Government's responses to some written questions to confirm my assertion about passing the buck. To use the cabinet secretary's phrase, this is just a snapshot. Since June last year, 69 per cent of questions about education were passed to local authorities to answer; 7 per cent were passed to higher and further education bodies; 7 per cent were passed to the Scottish funding council; 7 per cent went to Skills Development Scotland, about whose remit we are not clear and whose strategies are not yet fully evolved; and 7 per cent were passed to Architecture and Design Scotland. That is not acceptable. As various speakers have said, the situation needs leadership. It needs the Government and ministers to acknowledge and accept responsibility.

If we look at the performance of the SNP Government in pure marketing terms, we see that it is nothing like Ronseal—it does not do what it says on the tin. As far as I can see, it is much more like Teflon because nothing sticks.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Today we are debating manpower planning in the teaching profession but, of course, we have had similar problems with other professions. Members who were here during the previous session will recall, for example, being lobbied by physiotherapy students complaining about the number of physiotherapy graduates who were unable to find employment in the national health service. Earlier this year, there was a focus on the employment prospects of junior hospital doctors.

For every regulated profession with a compulsory training and registration system it seems that we invariably end up with the expectation that the Government—of whatever complexion—that controls and regulates admission to such professions, and which encourages people to undertake such courses of training and study, and which finances those studies from taxation, should somehow ensure, if not guarantee, that those who emerge at the other end will have a job. Although that situation is not peculiar to the public sector—the same applies to solicitors and architects, for example, who are based more in the private sector—it is particularly acute in the public sector because government, in the widest sense of the word, whether it be a health board or local authority, is seen as the monopoly employer and, as such, is believed to be capable of controlling both supply and demand. That is a dangerous and false assumption.

The previous Executive put in place the teacher induction scheme, which guarantees graduate teachers a probationary year and much praise has been heaped upon it. We must resist the temptation, however, to believe that employment thereafter can be planned to the nth degree and that, somehow, a perfect match can be achieved between teacher supply and teacher vacancies in all 32 local authority areas in Scotland. That is a Stalinist mindset that is doomed to fail.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Will the member give way?

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Oh, here is—[ Laughter. ]—no, I will resist the temptation.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

The member might have been sorely tempted to call me that, but he would have been inaccurate.

Does the member not accept that the budgetary settlement for education has a direct impact on teacher employment at local level?

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

It absolutely does; the budget is a huge factor and should be taken into account when trying to achieve a broad match between the numbers of people starting out on teacher training, whether for primary or secondary, and the numbers likely to be required, with a bias towards the supply side. Having done that, the Government should stand back, let teachers and councils get on with it and resist the temptation or compulsion to interfere, overregulate and overdirect.

One policy that could make a difference to employment prospects for probationer teachers is the infamous SNP class size policy. As we know from one of the few single outcome agreements that bothers to refer to the policy, the implementation in Edinburgh of even a scaled-down version of the policy would require the employment of an additional 205 full-time teachers at an annual revenue cost of £7.7 million. However, there are a few problems with the policy, as Mary Mulligan and Margaret Smith pointed out. The first problem is that the council does not have a spare £7.7 million per annum to employ 205 teachers. The second is that the council does not have another £16 million, which it would need to spend on adaptations to school buildings.

Accordingly, the council is now working on plans for supersize classes using team teaching, which means that our youngest schoolchildren could find themselves placed in classes of between 36 and 60 pupils with two teachers. When the SNP said emphatically and unequivocally in its manifesto,

"We will reduce class sizes in Primary 1, 2 and 3 to eighteen pupils or less",

little did parents in Scotland know that the reality would be more supersize classes.

The policy is an ill-considered nonsense that will distort investment in our school estate, in teacher recruitment and employment and will have negative impacts on the education of older pupils in primary and secondary schools. The Government should put its policy on the crowded broken-promise shelf where it can jostle for room with grants for first-time home buyers and the cancellation of student debt. Having done so, the Government should then focus on the real challenges facing Scottish education and on giving our newly qualified teachers opportunities to work at all levels of school education.

I support the excellent amendments from the Smiths, who are in perfect harmony and who will produce a wonderful composite motion of which the Parliament can be proud.

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

In lodging the motion that we are debating today, the Labour Party has sunk to new depths. By initiating a debate on the basis of a newspaper article whose accuracy it has failed to check, it has shown just how lacking in flair and imagination it has become. Labour members' attitude is to say, "Och, if we can't think of anything else, let's have a go at the hoary old chestnuts of class sizes and teacher numbers. We'll get a cheap political headline even in the face of the real picture." They fail to recognise that in June last year the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning put in place funding for an extra 300 teachers; I point out to Mary Mulligan that that money has now been mainstreamed into local government funding. They fail to recognise that in June this year the cabinet secretary set up a working group, to report within four months, on teacher workforce planning and on whether the current policy is fit for purpose.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

Can the minister guarantee to the chamber that the £9 million that has been made available—if it is £9 million this year—will be spent on additional teachers?

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Mary Mulligan knows that in the concordat local government agreed to maintain teacher numbers at 53,000 in the face of falling rolls.

Labour members fail to recognise that, as the cabinet secretary indicated in her speech, class sizes in primaries 1 to 3 are falling in local authority areas throughout the country, regardless of whether that is specified in local outcome agreements, because local authorities know that reducing class sizes is national Government policy.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Will the minister indicate whether class sizes are falling in her home local authority area of Aberdeen? Will she confirm that the number of teaching posts in Aberdeen schools in this school year is 30 lower than it was in the previous school year?

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the member never accept responsibility for the fact that the decisions that Aberdeen City Council now faces should have been taken on the Labour Party's watch?

Labour members are unable to admit that the vast majority of new teachers know well and accept that the Government must provide a supply of teachers ready for deployment throughout the year and throughout the country. Directors of education, the GTC, education ministers and others make that perfectly clear whenever they meet probationers and newly qualified teachers.

Aileen Campbell quoted Murdo Maciver, who said that most probationers obtain permanent jobs. On 29 August, John Stodter of ADES said in the Times Educational Supplement Scotland:

"You want some competition—you don't want a market where everybody gets a job easily. If folk were more willing to move as they were in our day, they might have less of a problem".

The Opposition parties would have us think that it is outrageous that some teachers go to work in England or further afield, but it is a well-known fact that for decades Scottish and Welsh teachers were the backbone of the teaching profession south of the border. The speeches of Opposition members have been sadly lacking in practical suggestions, other than throwing some non-existent pot of money at their perceived problem.

Spending some time in different schools can be a useful experience for teachers, as it enables them to see different approaches to learning and teaching in different environments. The prospects for newly qualified teachers in Scotland are excellent. They are entering a profession that faces exciting and challenging opportunities in the way in which we deliver education in our schools. They will enjoy a professional autonomy that has not been available to teachers for a generation. Yesterday the Civitas think-tank became the latest body to support smaller class sizes; at the same time, an OECD report noted that we still have some of the largest class sizes, compared with our competitors. Today it is argued in The Scotsman that smaller class sizes are indisputably a good thing.

Just imagine the outcry if by next spring there were not enough teachers in the system to cover for illness, retirements and maternity leave—would the Opposition have the brass neck to say that we had underestimated need? The Government is travelling in the right direction, a fact recognised by the Scottish people, even if the Opposition parties in the chamber are slow on the uptake.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

"Soul destroying", "a betrayal" and

"a tragic waste of talent and skills".

Those are not my words—to use the First Minister's favourite expression—but the words used by a panel of witnesses at yesterday morning's meeting of the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee to describe the scandalous lack of teaching posts for this year's probationers. Hundreds of teachers have been left demoralised. Hundreds of motivated, highly trained, bright young graduates have been left wondering where they went wrong. Surely, a year and a half in, the new SNP Administration could not let teachers down so badly.

I doubt that there is an MSP in the chamber who has not heard from anxious probationers in their constituency. What makes matters worse is the fact that this year's letters do not signal a new problem. The situation is not a surprise to the minister—it is utterly and depressingly predictable. The surveys that have been carried out by the General Teaching Council for Scotland and The Times Educational Supplement Scotland make it absolutely clear that the problem has been growing over the past three years. Fewer probationers are securing employment in the teaching profession. Of those who find a job, especially in the primary sector, fewer are securing permanent contracts. In her speech, Aileen Campbell suggested that the evidence that we heard amounted to scaremongering. By that logic, we should hear only positive evidence—a new, pollyannaish approach to committee witnesses.

Around the country, in authority after authority, stories are repeated of little more than a dozen permanent jobs for hundreds of applicants. More depressing are the attempts of SNP ministers to use the one and only survey that has been carried out this year—in April—as proof that there is no problem. "Crisis? What crisis?" I hear ministers say. On the radio yesterday, the cabinet secretary not only used the one-off survey that was carried out in April to pooh-pooh the TESS's reporting of growing anxiety among probationers, but claimed that teachers were in "a very good position". Is the minister the only one who does not know what is happening in our schools?

The GTCS has carried out three annual surveys, in October 2005, 2006 and 2007. The TESS compared the figures that it gathered this year to a similar survey that was carried out last year. As the minister knows—or should know—the trend that surveys reveal has the greatest significance. James Kelly made that point. Is it not striking that nearly everyone who looks at the figures recognises a very worrying trend in employment? The exception is the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, who declares herself satisfied on the basis of a one-off survey in April that is not comparable.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Does the member acknowledge that more teachers were in employment in April 2008, under this Government, than under the previous Government? Does he acknowledge that the number of permanent jobs for secondary teachers has increased under this Government, compared with the last year of the Government that he supported? Those facts are in the GTC survey, which is the basis of the inaccurate motion for which Ken Macintosh is asking members to vote. Surely he should put the facts on the table. That is what the Government is doing.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

The cabinet secretary's gall is astounding. She is prepared to dismiss the surveys out of hand because they do not support her rose-tinted perspective on education. At the same time, she is willing to quote selectively parts of the GTC survey that back up her position. I am quite prepared to recognise that there is no decline in the number of permanent posts at secondary level. Is the cabinet secretary prepared to admit that there is a problem of a declining number of permanent posts at primary level?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I said that I do.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

I believe that that is an admission.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I am more than happy to acknowledge that the biggest challenge is at primary level. The Official Report will show that I said that in my speech.

Will the member acknowledge that the GTC survey indicates that there were more teachers in permanent posts in April 2008, under this Government, than in the last year of the Government that he supported, when a similar survey was conducted? That makes the motion that he is putting before Parliament factually inaccurate.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

As the minister knows, we cannot compare a survey in April with three surveys in October. They are not comparable. For any trend to be discernible, we need previous surveys in April. The logic that the cabinet secretary brings to the debate is false.

The cabinet secretary now seems to be happy to quote from the surveys, but their findings are damning. For instance, two local authorities failed to offer a permanent job to a single one of their probationers. Can members guess which councils? They were the SNP-led Renfrewshire Council and SNP-led Aberdeen City Council. Renfrewshire Council's behaviour is worth examining more closely. It was willing to take on 170 probationers but not willing to offer one a permanent contract. The SNP-led council is cutting staff at each of its secondary schools so, in a disgraceful abuse of the system, class sizes are actually rising while probationers are used as some sort of cheap labour.

The problem is not only one of absolute numbers. Throughout the country, from council to council, there are huge variations in probationer employment patterns. As Margaret Smith said in her opening speech, that starkly illustrates the inherent weakness of the so-called concordat: the SNP central Government is able to say one thing, while local authorities—SNP-run local authorities—do another and our young probationers are caught in the middle.

Mary Mulligan, Mr McLetchie and other members referred to local outcome agreements, none of which seem to offer any hope to newly qualified teachers or parents who are keen to see the class size reductions that were promised avidly at the election and that, if implemented, would deliver the required teaching posts. More than half of those local outcome agreements failed to mention class sizes at all. That is why responsibility must rest with the SNP ministers. The cabinet secretary is happy to recruit all those new teachers, but equally happy to sign concordats with local authorities that make no mention of class sizes or staffing levels. That is fundamentally wrong and a dereliction of duty.

Witnesses at yesterday's Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee meeting were united in praising the teacher induction scheme. They described it as infinitely superior to the previous system—a point that Aileen Campbell generously recognised. They were united, too, in identifying the causes of the problem: it comes down to a mismatch between SNP central policy direction and the reality of SNP education budget cuts. We were told that two thirds of local authorities are cutting their education budgets. That gives the lie to the talk of a generous settlement and of the money being there. The SNP Government is prepared to recruit teachers on the promise of a national policy of reducing class sizes funded from the centre but fails to agree on the priority that local councils should give the policy or to provide the funding to implement it. In every case, the cuts not only mean a loss of services but have a knock-on effect on the number of probationers.

With her repeated denials of any problem, the cabinet secretary is merely sticking her head in the sand. She needs to show leadership—not the kind that Maureen Watt showed in her overheated speech, in which she suggested that councils are to blame, and not only current councils but councils from several years ago. Recent court cases have demonstrated the need to set practical and legally binding class size limits, so why not legislate? Ministers appear to prefer to hide behind local government.

With no direction from the SNP Government, the short-termism and short-sightedness of each local decision has long-term consequences for the lives of too many young teachers. The minister needs to think again and come back to the Parliament with a plan of action.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

As we have reached the end of the debate before the time set out in the Business Bulletin for the next item of business, I suspend the meeting under rule 7.4.1(d) until 11.40 am.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — General Questions

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

To ask the Scottish Executive when it will make an announcement on a nationally funded school building programme to help deliver school buildings around Scotland, including a new Eastwood high school and a new Barrhead high school. (S3O-4100)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

In response to parliamentary question S3W-16167, I informed Parliament this morning that the Scottish Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, in accepting the recommendations of the Audit Scotland report of March 2008, have established a joint working group to discuss future policy, funding and delivery and to prepare a new school estate strategy by next spring.

Under the current local government settlement, we are already providing local authorities with almost £3 billion of capital resources over three years—an increase of £115 million for this year and the next two years—to secure investment in schools and other infrastructure. We expect around 250 schools to be delivered over this parliamentary session. I met East Renfrewshire Council only last month and made it clear that investment priorities for individual schools are matters for the local authority.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

Having lodged my question before I heard about yesterday's statement on the Scottish Futures Trust, I fully expected to be overtaken by events. Imagine my surprise when, in a full parliamentary hour yesterday, the minister's colleague, Mr Swinney, seemed unable to provide any information on the new funding programme other than the name of the chairman—oh, and that it has no funds. I ask the cabinet secretary a simple question: will any pupils in Scotland benefit from a Scottish Futures Trust-funded school before the end of the parliamentary session in 2011?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I am delighted that yesterday's announcement means that the Scottish Futures Trust is being established. We have a new chair for it and we also, as of this morning, have an answer to Ken Macintosh's question that indicates that we will produce our school estate strategy in the spring.

Yes, pupils will benefit from SNP policies. I was delighted this morning to visit Denny high school, which is under construction. That project was agreed to and committed to by this Government. Construction was started in June or July last year and the school will open for the benefit of pupils in the Denny area next year. I also point out that it is being funded on a not-for-profit basis.

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

Wick high school in my constituency is in a dreadful condition, as I have mentioned in the Parliament many times. Councillors of all political complexions in Highland Council say that they simply do not have the funds to build a new school under the existing settlement. As the Scottish Futures Trust progresses, will the minister conduct an audit of school structures throughout Scotland and require councils to give the figures so that problems such as those with Wick high school will be brought to the top of her agenda?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The discussions that will take place with COSLA will do exactly what Jamie Stone asks: they will identify where in Scotland the priorities are and where attention is required. However, I acknowledge that, in discussions that I have had with Highland Council, it acknowledges that it has resources to make improvements. The council has made decisions about its priorities for its funding for the next four years. I understand that some funding will go to Wick high school but the council will, no doubt, be able to inform Mr Stone of that. His point is well made. That is exactly why we are responding to the Audit Scotland report's recommendations and will produce a school estate strategy in the spring.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Is the minister aware of comments that were made by Mr Macintosh's Westminster parliamentary colleague—a Mr Murphy—who, following the meeting between Mr Swinney and East Renfrewshire Council to progress the new schools, claimed:

"This is a real blow to local families"?

Does the cabinet secretary agree that the co-operative approach that Conservatives, the SNP and local councillors in East Renfrewshire are pursuing is much more likely to bring about the creation of the schools?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The simple answer to that is yes. When I met East Renfrewshire Council, we had a constructive discussion. Too many Opposition members are prepared to take a cannot-do attitude; the can-do attitude that we are witnessing in councils throughout Scotland will be helpful. I enjoyed my visit to East Renfrewshire Council very much and I hope to progress the matters that we discussed at the meeting.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

I thought I heard the cabinet secretary say that the school under construction that she visited this morning is being constructed because of a decision that the present Administration made. She said that the construction work started in June or July of last year, which would mean that the planning and approval for it would have been made before May 2007. Can the cabinet secretary confirm that, in fact, this Administration gave approval for that? If not, will she correct the misleading impression that she gave?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

My understanding is that the Government came to power in May 2007. The approval for the Falkirk schools was given in May 2007. It is this Government, under our funding settlement, that supports Falkirk Council to the tune of £5 million on an annual basis. I would take the word of the site construction manager, who said that construction work started in June and July 2007, over the member's understanding.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether its position remains that a reduction in class sizes to 18 for primaries 1 to 3 will be achieved in the lifetime of this parliamentary session, as stated by the First Minister on 5 September 2007. (S3O-4082)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

An historic concordat was signed with local government on 14 November 2007. Under that agreement, local government is committed to make year-on-year progress on the reduction of primary 1 to primary 3 classes to a maximum of 18 pupils.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I have a simple supplementary question: are class sizes rising in any Scottish National Party-led council in Scotland—yes or no?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I am delighted that there are class size reductions across Scotland in a number of areas, including those of SNP-run administrations, not least in Fife and West Lothian, where we have seen significant progress.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

Does the cabinet secretary agree that one of the difficulties in implementing the class size reduction policy is that there is wilful opposition from, for example, Labour-controlled Glasgow City Council which, despite a £15.3 million underspend, refuses to invest in reducing class sizes, even in deprived communities, and places hostility to the SNP Government ahead of the educational future of children in Glasgow?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I understand from something Gordon Matheson said on Radio Scotland that Glasgow City Council's education budget has indeed increased over the past year. It is for the council to make decisions about the employment of teachers, but it would be disappointing if it did not use the opportunity of retirals this year to replace such teachers with the probationers and post-probationers we discussed in the debate earlier today.

Bashir Ahmad (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

To ask the Scottish Executive when it last met officials from Glen Oaks Housing Association. (S3O-4127)

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I met officials and committee members from Glen Oaks Housing Association in September 2007 to hear their concerns about the regeneration of the Arden neighbourhood. Since then, Scottish Government officials and the Scottish Housing Regulator have had a number of meetings with officials of Glen Oaks to discuss the work of the association. The most recent meeting was on 25 June 2008, to discuss the association's draft inspection report.

Bashir Ahmad (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I thank the minister for that response. He will be aware of the deadlock between Glen Oaks Housing Association and Glasgow City Council, which has not been forthcoming with the money that is desperately needed for regeneration in Arden. How can he assist in that matter so that residents in Arden can benefit from the investment that they need and deserve?

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I am aware of the frustration that is felt in Arden, particularly by members of the Glen Oaks Housing Association. It is for Glasgow City Council to consider proposals for the regeneration of the Arden area and their relative priority for funding. From my meeting with the association and from recent correspondence, I am aware that there is frustration in Arden that a regeneration strategy has not yet been agreed. I have written to the council asking that it update me on its timescales and I await a response. I am also aware that Councillor Gibson in Glasgow has written to the council and to me in pursuance of the same matter.

I understand the difficulties. I met the association and heard about the problems it faces. At that meeting, the constituency MSP for the area, Johann Lamont, expressed the view that there are real difficulties with taking the regeneration of Arden forward.

I still await a response from Glasgow City Council. I hope that it will arrive soon. I am happy to assist, if I can, by asking my officials to set up a meeting between Glasgow City Council and Glen Oaks Housing Association to try to get them in the same room and agree a timescale for taking forward a strategy for the regeneration of the Arden area.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I welcome the minister's comment that he is willing to convene a meeting to address the issues. That is a welcome step forward. Can he indicate how much of the up to £100 million that the First Minister announced can be expected to be secured for Glasgow?

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

The up to £100 million that the First Minister announced on 1 August will be allocated in the normal pattern of events, using the projects that housing associations across the country propose, according to the normal criteria. Money will be allocated to those areas that are in most need. That process is underway, and I look forward to announcements in due course.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will compensate national health service boards for the costs of running hospital car parks, following the recent announcement of the abolition of hospital car parking charges. (S3O-4091)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

Funding of £1.4 million is being made available to assist NHS boards that currently charge for car parking, over the transitional period to 31 March 2009. Thereafter, those NHS boards will be required to absorb the costs of providing and managing car parks from their unified budgets in exactly the same way as do other NHS boards that have not introduced charges for parking.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Concerns have been raised by NHS Highland that it will have to find an additional £600,000 to cover the cost of running its car park year on year. In addition, it will need to find ways of improving the car park facilities to deter people who have no business at the hospital from parking there. Will the cabinet secretary give a commitment that that money will not be taken out of front-line patient services?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

As the member will be aware, income raised from car parking charges was never used to fund front-line services. It is important to draw to her attention the fact that the income raised from car parking charges across the five NHS boards that have charging amounts to one twentieth of 1 per cent of the total NHS budget. The nine health boards that do not charge manage to meet the costs of maintaining their car parks from within their budgets. It is fair and reasonable to expect the five that do charge to do likewise when car park charges are abolished at the end of this year.

I would have hoped that Labour members, who have complained bitterly about charges since May last year—something that, curiously, they did not do when their Government introduced car park charging in our hospitals—would find it within themselves to welcome the decisive action taken by the SNP Government to abolish car parking charges instead of trying to find reasons to complain, as per usual.

Marlyn Glen (Labour, North East Scotland)

Does the minister agree that allowing car parking charges to remain at Ninewells hospital in Dundee and at the infirmaries in Edinburgh and Glasgow sets up a two-tier system that discriminates against those who use and work in the hospitals, which is hardly fair and reasonable? [ Interruption. ]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Marlyn Glen (Labour, North East Scotland)

Thank you. Does the minister also agree that that is an unacceptable extra financial burden on patients and staff, some of whom live in areas with high levels of deprivation? [ Interruption. ]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I heard somebody behind me say, "Unbelievable!" I could not agree more. I am not "allowing" car park charges to remain at Ninewells and the other two private finance initiative hospitals; I cannot stop the charges—because Labour tied the NHS into ridiculously expensive PFI contracts. It would cost tens of millions of pounds to get out of the PFI contract at Ninewells, which would hit front-line budgets. That fact simply serves to illustrate the scandal of Labour PFI, and all Scotland says thank goodness that it is in the past.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it holds statistics on work-related assaults and, if so, what they were for 2006-07 and 2007-08. (S3O-4156)

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

Only police officers and other emergency workers are identifiable in the recorded crime and court proceedings statistics on assaults.

In 2006-07, there were 723 minor assaults of an emergency worker, 113 incidents of obstructing or hindering emergency workers in pursuance of their duty and 3,274 crimes of obstructing a police officer.

Also in 2006-07, 4,061 people were proceeded against for assaulting or impeding police officers and 212 were proceeded against for assaulting or impeding emergency workers.

Figures for 2007-08 are not yet available.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

I thank the minister for that full reply. It is clear that the legislation is now beginning to have an impact and that many people are now feeling the benefit of it, and I welcome the Government's extension of the number of people who are covered by it. It was right to start with emergency workers, but will the minister now reflect on the success of the legislation and on the fact that many others workers in Scotland, such as shop workers and transport staff, face not only intimidation but violence and assault day and daily? Will he consider ways of extending the legislation to give those workers the protection that the public believe they deserve?

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

I agree with the sentiments that Hugh Henry has expressed. I think that we all accept in principle that an assault on any citizen of Scotland should be condemned and that the forces of the justice system have to be applied strongly to crimes against the person. Hugh Henry makes a case for the Emergency Workers (Scotland) Act 2005 being extended to cover other workers. I am always willing to look at that. Following Shona Robison's representations with regard to an odious assault on Scottish Water workers, we are looking at that. I am pleased that, this year, we have already extended the act to cover general practitioners, other doctors, nurses and midwives working in the community. I am pleased that we have a cross-party approach to this issue and I am sure that it will continue.

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee West)

To ask the Scottish Government what action can be taken to reduce the burden on patients, their families and staff caused by car parking charges at Ninewells hospital in Dundee and other hospitals with private finance initiative contracts. (S3O-4135)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I am asking those national health service boards where parking charges remain because of PFI contracts to enter into discussions with the PFI providers to explore the opportunities for reducing charges for parking. Those NHS boards will report to me on the outcome of those discussions and I will give full consideration to those reports.

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee West)

I understand that the cost of buying out the PFI contract at Ninewells hospital could be up to 30 million public pounds. Will the cabinet secretary confirm the size of the financial noose that the previous Administration's PFI contract has placed around NHS Tayside?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I thank Joe FitzPatrick for that question and acknowledge the strong representations on the issue that he has made as the local MSP. I confirm what I said earlier: it would cost tens of millions of pounds to escape from the PFI contract at Ninewells, which was imposed by the previous Labour Administration. That illustrates the scandal of Labour-supported PFI. I confirm that we will do everything possible to get the charges down, but make no mistake—every person who has to pay car parking charges at Ninewells hospital is suffering the legacy of Labour's obsession with privatising our NHS.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

To ask the Scottish Executive when it last had discussions with chairs of NHS boards about staffing levels. (S3O-4087)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

Staffing issues are routinely discussed with national health service board chief executives and other members of board management teams. General workforce issues are covered in the annual reviews of all boards. The general workforce implications of "Better Health, Better Care" were also discussed collectively with health board chairs on 25 February this year.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

Is the cabinet secretary aware that, in Dunfermline, nursing staff are under so much pressure owing to the shortage of nurses that a number of patients have experienced problems—such as my constituent, Mrs Thomson, who is in her late 70s and was required to wait for more than 30 minutes when she made a request for toilet assistance? Does the cabinet secretary agree that that is unacceptable? What will she do to address the needs of patients and alleviate the pressure on our hard-working nurses, who have complained to me about the shortage of nurses and are feeling pressured?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I value greatly the contribution of nurses and all the other staff who work so hard in our national health service. The number of nurses and the overall number of staff in the NHS have continued to rise over the past year. If Helen Eadie has any particular constituency cases in which she thinks the standard of care has fallen below what it should be, I will be more than happy to take them up with NHS Fife.

First Minister's Question Time

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

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-984)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

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

I am sure that all members will join me in celebrating a week of Scottish sporting success: the victories of our Paralympians in Beijing; Andy Murray's progress to the US open final; and of course the victory of George Burley's team in Reykjavik last night. I know that Cathy Jamieson will join me in ensuring that this is not the last world cup competition in which a Scottish international team competes, regardless of pressure from anywhere else.

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

I would just note that last night's successful Scotland team was led by manager George Burley, a good Cumnock boy.

On a serious matter, I will quote from a letter sent to the First Minister by the daughter of Scottish National Party Councillor Hanif, who has been exposed in the media for encouraging his children to fire a Kalashnikov assault rifle. She said:

"My siblings and I were put in an environment where people were pointing loaded AK-47 guns at each other. I cannot believe you have taken it so lightly."

Has the First Minister replied to that letter yet?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I have not replied as yet. I have seen the letter in the press, but I have not read the actual letter. I will certainly reply to the letter when I receive it.

I do not accept that the matter has been taken lightly by the SNP. Suspension from a political party is a serious matter. Councillor Hanif's actions have been condemned by the party as extremely unwise. I do not accept the interpretation that the matter has been taken lightly in any shape or form.

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

I will draw members' attention to the comments of the First Minister's colleague John Mason, who believes that SNP Councillor Hanif has been harshly treated by being suspended for a mere two months, describing that as "a bit severe"—

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Ms Jamieson, I find that this is a matter of party rather than political interest.

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

I appreciate that this is a party matter, but I think that it is also something that the people of Scotland are concerned about.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I believe that this is a matter of party interest, but I will do my best to keep my answer within first ministerial responsibilities.

In terms of the general interest in such matters, perhaps the Labour Party would now like to join the Cabinet Secretary for Justice in taking action against the guns that are available in Scotland and to support our claim in Westminster that this Parliament should have the right to restrict air-gun access throughout Scotland.

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

I have no difficulty in working with any party that wants to reduce violent crime across Scotland. It is incumbent on politicians to set an example in that regard.

Does the First Minister agree with his colleague John Mason, who has branded critics of the SNP councillor as "racist"? [Interruption.] This is a serious matter. Does the First Minister believe that the editor of the Evening Times, the MP for Glasgow Central, Mohammed Sarwar, and the Conservative justice spokesperson, Bill Aitken, are racist?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

No.

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

I am pleased to hear that response from the First Minister. Councillor Shaukat Butt, a senior and respected member of Glasgow's Asian community, said:

"John Mason's comments are ridiculous. It is wrong to suggest reports of Councillor Hanif's"—

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Ms Jamieson, can I be assured that the question that you are going to put falls under first ministerial responsibility?

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

I believe that it does, Presiding Officer.

Councillor Butt said:

"John Mason's comments are ridiculous. It is wrong to suggest reports of Councillor Hanif's actions have anything to do with race."

This is a serious matter. I believe that most ordinary, decent families will agree with Councillor Butt that John Mason's comments are disgraceful. Will the First Minister apologise for his colleague's comments?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Not for a second does John Mason accuse the range of people to whom Cathy Jamieson referred—or somebody else commenting on what John Mason said—of being racist.

I looked at one of the blogs on the matter and saw comments—not from any of the people whom Cathy Jamieson mentioned—that could be described only as totally unacceptable, about who was and who was not a real Scot. I believe—[Interruption.] They were not on SNP blogs; they were on the blog of the Glasgow Evening Times, commenting on the story.

I believe that everyone in this country is a real Scot and that we should approach these matters without any tinge—as there was on that blog—of racist comment. The whole chamber should unite in deploring and deprecating racism in Scottish society, wherever it emerges. That point of unity should not be lost in an attempt to say what somebody might have said about somebody else and to gain party advantage.

Finally, I say to Cathy Jamieson—I wish her good luck on Saturday—that there is a whole range of issues across Scottish society for which I, as First Minister, have responsibility, and I would like this Parliament to have many more responsibilities. If she is successful in her competition on Saturday, perhaps in future she might choose one from that array of subjects and not ask about internal party matters.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S3F-985)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I have no immediate plans to meet the Secretary of State for Scotland, although according to some of the reports in the newspapers I had better be quick or there might not be a Secretary of State for Scotland to meet.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

There will be after the next election.

Last week, I asked Nicola Sturgeon a simple question to which she had no answer. Let me repeat the question to the First Minister: by how much could we cut everyone's council tax bills if the £281 million subsidy that he says he can find for his Scottish national income tax were used to cut council tax instead? As I am ever ready to help the First Minister, I can give him the answer. With that money, the Scottish Conservatives would cut the council tax bill of every single household in Scotland—there are 2 million of them—by £150. In every year in which he can find that money, we can cut the tax for those 2 million households. Whatever their bill is, we will cut it by £150.

In these rough economic times, real help is needed as soon as possible. When will the First Minister find this money so that we can pass it on to those 2 million households?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

It is precisely because real help is necessary that this Administration has frozen the council tax over the course of this parliamentary session.

The news that Annabel Goldie's party would restore the post of Secretary of State for Scotland, if it is abolished, must be considered good news for Mr David Mundell given that, if he survives the election, he would appear to be a strong candidate for such a post.

I draw attention to the fact that many people in Scotland, particularly pensioners who suffer under the burden of the oppressive council tax more than any other group, tend to support the abolition of the council tax rather than its modification.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The only thing that matters is that the First Minister finds the £281 million, because in every year in which he can find that money we can cut the tax for 2 million households. Whatever their bill is, we can cut it by £150. The sooner he finds that money, the sooner we can start.

Last week, the Deputy First Minister said:

"the vast majority of people in Scotland would be better off under a local income tax than they are under the council tax."—[Official Report, 4 September 2008; c 10509.]

Quite simply, that is no longer correct, because the majority of people in the 21 examples that the Scottish Government cherry picked for its website would now be better off under Scottish Conservative plans. When will the First Minister find even some of that £281 million, so that we can make a start in cutting the council tax bills for 2 million Scottish households?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I think that the council tax freeze—something that was never achieved by the Conservative party, which introduced the council tax and then increased it year after year—represents an extremely good start in cutting the bills that families across Scotland face.

In comparing our proposal for the local income tax, and all the fairness and equity that it will bring, with the Conservative proposals, we face one key problem: every time Annabel Goldie tells us what her proposals are, they change. Only a matter of months ago, the change to the council tax that she proposed was to halve the bills of pensioners. Now she has come forward with a different proposal across the range. I repeat that the vast majority of people in Scotland support the abolition of the oppressive tax that was introduced by the Conservative party and increased by the Labour Party, not merely its modification.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I will allow Miss Goldie a very brief final question.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I just want to clarify that my party's commitment to cutting the bills of older pensioners remains, so they would receive a double benefit if the First Minister would kindly even consider the good sense of what I am advising him to do.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

So that is in addition to the member's proposal for the £281 million.

I am delighted that Annabel Goldie led her party to support the council tax freeze in the budget that came to Parliament earlier this year. Who knows? With a bit of persuasion, and if the Conservatives carry out some further analysis of their plans, they might be won round to the idea that a fair and equitable tax that is based on income is a better idea than a tax that is based on property and which has little relationship with ability to pay.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-986)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

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

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

The First Minister's Government has been big on talking about fuel poverty. Following today's announcement, what new investment will he be making to cut the fuel bills of people in Scotland? Does he have a new programme of action to cut fuel bills ready to go?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Yes, we do. We have made extensive preparations for our programme. We have carried out an analysis of the carbon emissions reduction target scheme from its initiation in 2002 until 2005. The figures tend to indicate that there was a 22 per cent shortfall in the Scottish pro rata allocation under the scheme. That is extraordinary, when we consider that fuel poverty in Scotland is three times higher than it is elsewhere in Britain.

We have done two things. First, we have set up the energy advice centres, which are being rolled out across Scotland. They will help to fill the gap in applications under the scheme. Secondly, just this week, we have received an undertaking from the power companies that, as a minimum, Scotland should have a pro rata share of the new CERT scheme. I am sure that Tavish Scott will agree that, whatever the reasons for the scandalous position in the past, our proposals represent substantial progress in attacking fuel poverty in Scotland.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Does the First Minister accept that those people who have significant fears about fuel prices are not that interested in arguments between Governments? If Scotland does not get its fair share from the United Kingdom Government, the First Minister will have our support in getting that money. Advice is good, but action is rather better. People know that the First Minister already has real powers at his disposal. He has had plenty of warning of the crisis that people face. What levers will he use this year to get money into people's pockets? He knows that more people than ever are feeling the pain of high energy costs. For many this winter, the decision will be, "Boiler on or boiler off?" Will the First Minister give a guarantee that he will rise to that challenge and that his action will benefit more families and pensioners than ever before?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The CERT scheme is not implemented by the UK Government. It is financed by the power companies and implemented by the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets. My argument is just a reality. We are taking firm action to close the gap and to ensure that Scotland gets its fair share of energy efficiency investment. I do not know why that is a matter of controversy in the chamber.

Today's initiative is not enough. People need help and support with fuel bills now, as well as energy investment in the future. I have made a number of comments and indications about how that could be done, which I think are in common at least with what I have seen from Liberal Democrat spokesmen south of the border. In the next three years, under the new figures, the UK Government plans to spend £874 million on fuel poverty. The Scottish Government plans to spend £135 million, which is almost 50 per cent more pro rata than what is proposed by the UK Government.

However, I am disturbed by the early indication that, for all the announcements today, there are no Barnett direct consequentials of revenue coming into the Scottish Government. I will not make a definitive statement on that until there can be further analysis. The argument seems to be that the warm deal money is merely restoring a cut in the England and Wales scheme that had been administered previously. That is disturbing news. It will be analysed further, and I will report back to members if that turns out to be the case.

On helping families, there are few bills that are not rocketing amid the food and energy bill crisis that we face throughout Scotland. However, people can look at their council tax bill and see some stability in comparison with all their other household expenses, which are going sky-high at present.

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Western Isles)

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government supports the establishment of a Scottish digital channel alongside the new Gaelic digital channel, as recommended by the Scottish Broadcasting Commission. (S3F-1000)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Yes. The Scottish Broadcasting Commission's recommendation for a new public service Scottish digital network is of enormous importance and represents a major opportunity to develop the broadcasting industry in Scotland. The commission's report and the launch this month of the new Gaelic channel, BBC Alba, mark a significant and exciting time for broadcasting in Scotland. The Scottish Government will respond positively to the report, within our powers to do so, later this year. We look to the United Kingdom Government and the broadcasting authorities themselves to respond in the same constructive spirit to that independent report from the commission, which enjoyed cross-party membership and at least a degree of support.

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Western Isles)

Will the First Minister join me in giving MG Alba best wishes for its launch next week? On broadcasting more generally, does he believe that network broadcasters need to move quickly to increase their revenue share to 8.6 per cent to allow Scotland to experience the kind of television service to which it is entitled and which most other countries take for granted?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Yes, I do. That is part of the Scottish Broadcasting Commission recommendations. There cannot be a shadow of doubt, given the analysis and the evidence submitted to the commission, that Scotland has been underprovided for in its share of public service broadcasting revenue. The sale of the new digital spectrum—which, it is argued, will raise billions of pounds for the UK Exchequer—is another ready source of revenue that should be allocated to Scottish public service broadcasting.

As far as giving good wishes to the Gaelic channel is concerned, I have recorded mine already. One of the great arguments for having that wonderful new channel is that I am appearing on it on its first day of broadcasting. I am sure that the nation is suitably reassured. As a fluent Gaelic speaker, Alasdair Allan will be delighted to know that I expressed deagh dhùrachdan—the Gaelic for best wishes. I am sure that the Gaelic community will join members in saying that everybody loves a trier.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Yes, a trier certainly.

There is much in the Scottish Broadcasting Commission's report with which we can all agree. I hope that the First Minister will agree to the holding of an early debate in the chamber on the report, so that we can explore further some of the very good ideas in it—some of which reflect very closely the views that I expressed to the commission when I gave evidence.

A key aspect of the report concerns developing the skills base in Scotland—

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Come to a question, please.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I am just coming on to that—because of the importance of having the skills, if we are to have a Scottish broadcasting channel and if we are to increase the commissioning in Scotland—

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Would you come to the question quickly please?

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Does the First Minister agree that there is a need for clarification in the landscape? The commission clearly identifies that there is a lack of clarity as to who has the lead for developing skills in the broadcasting industry in Scotland in terms of economic development. Will the Government act quickly to—

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

No, you must stop now Mr Smith.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Skills and opportunities will be crucial to the future of broadcasting.

As Iain Smith has asked a question, I would like to take the opportunity to say a word of appreciation about the late Ray Michie, who served on the Scottish Broadcasting Commission despite her full knowledge of the severity of her illness. She believed passionately in many of the issues that the commission was putting forward, and she was determined to serve. I deeply appreciate that. I know that the whole chamber will want to take this opportunity to send our best wishes to Ray's family. Ray was a wonderful Scot and a passionate supporter of the Gaelic language. [Applause.]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I say to the whole chamber that I am always keen to take supplementary questions, but they really must be brief.

Ted Brocklebank (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the First Minister tell us whether he agrees with the commission's recommendation that the proposed new Scottish digital channel should be funded on a not-for-profit basis, or does he see a role for the private sector, perhaps including local commercial television companies?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The essence of the channel should that of a public service broadcasting operation, and that should be the essence of the funding. I have already pointed out the lack of return from the licence fee that viewers in Scotland receive in terms of our broadcasting contribution.

Ted Brocklebank has knowledge of these matters, and I am sure that he would agree that the sale of the digital spectrum is an entirely appropriate identified source of revenue. The channel may choose to earn additional revenue, in the same way that BBC World and a number of other BBC services do at the moment, and I see no great objection to that. However, the channel should be at the core of public service broadcasting in Scotland.

David Whitton (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

Does the First Minister agree with paragraph 51 of the executive summary of the Scottish Broadcasting Commission's excellent report? It says:

"We do not believe, at the present time, that broadcasting should be devolved."

Does the First Minister, like me, welcome calls for more accountability through the controller of BBC Scotland being made a member of the BBC executive board, and through Scottish representation on the main board of Ofcom?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I agree with the very next paragraph of the report, which sets out a range of powers that should be devolved from the Scotland Office to this Government and this Parliament. With the imminent demise of the Scotland Office, that becomes very urgent indeed.

The key part of David Whitton's quote is "at the present time". I welcome his acknowledgement of the report, which I hope is made on behalf of the whole Labour Party, as it contrasts markedly with the tone of the evidence that people in the Scotland Office submitted to the commission. The commission was established precisely to generate a consensus, and the people who went on to the commission did so with that in mind—so that we could make an immediate advance for broadcasting and culture in Scotland, as well as having this party and this Government's aim of having the normal powers of a normal country.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

To ask the First Minister what opportunity the Parliament will have to influence the remit and funding of creative Scotland. (S3F-993)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

In June, Parliament unanimously supported the principle and functions of creative Scotland. Parliament and its committees will get another opportunity to consider both the costs of setting up the new organisation and the funding available to it to support arts and culture as part of the proper scrutiny of the public services reform bill.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Does the First Minister accept that Parliament supports the establishment of creative Scotland but has legitimate questions about its funding and remit? Why, therefore, have he and the minister for culture refused to answer such legitimate questions over the past two weeks, and why are they postponing parliamentary decisions until an indefinite time next year, after the establishment of creative Scotland in April? As the First Minister will no doubt blame us for voting down the financial memorandum—[Interruption.]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

—I remind him that, if he had followed the advice that we gave him at decision time on 18 June, he could have reintroduced the Creative Scotland Bill right now.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

As I recollect, there was a lot of conflicting advice from the Labour Party. What Malcolm Chisholm says is a bit rich, given that the chaos and confusion and the destructive behaviour of Labour Party members—admittedly, at the end of term, when they were looking forward to their holidays—were entirely responsible for the delay in setting up an organisation that could carry unanimous, cross-party support in Scotland.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government remains committed to its proposal to ban under-21-year-olds from purchasing alcohol in off-sales. (S3F-1005)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Our consultation paper "Changing Scotland's relationship with alcohol: a discussion paper on our strategic approach" makes clear that we consider that there is a case to be made for raising the minimum age for purchasing alcohol to 21 for off-sales as part of a package of measures to tackle alcohol abuse. We have invited views on that and on our other proposals, and we will consider those further in light of the consultation, which closed on 9 September.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

The First Minister will be aware that the Government referred this week to the experiment that was carried out in Larbert and Stenhousemuir, which revealed reductions in crime rates. Based on that evidence, the Government has reached the conclusion that 18 to 21-year-olds are the cause of the problem and must therefore be banned permanently from off-sales premises. However, for that conclusion to stand up to scrutiny, can the First Minister confirm that, in the corresponding period, 40 per cent of antisocial behaviour offences were committed by 18 to 21-year-olds, as well as 40 per cent of breaches of the peace, 30 per cent of minor assaults and 60 per cent of serious assaults? Because—

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Briefly, please.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

If the First Minister is unable to confirm that position, it is fallacious for him to assert that barring 18 to 21-year-olds will result in an equivalent reduction in crime rates.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The problem with Ross Finnie's percentages is that he seems to forget the substantial decline in antisocial behaviour in police reports that occurred not only in the Stenhousemuir experiment but across all three areas—Armadale, Stenhousemuir and Cupar. In Stenhousemuir, calls to the police about antisocial behaviour were down—and here is a percentage—40 per cent on the previous year, from 113 to 67. That happened with no additional police resource in the area.

All that I saying to Ross Finnie, other Liberal Democrat members and anyone else who wants to dismiss the proposal out of hand is that, before we do that, we should talk about the evidence that we are getting from the areas where this has been tried. If the evidence shows a substantial decline in police recording across a range of areas, surely there is a powerful argument for giving support to the proposals in the Government's document.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Does the First Minister agree that, in looking at the policy, a proper balance should be struck between the rights of under-21-year-olds and the rights of people who have suffered in the past from antisocial behaviour and who have benefited from the reduction in antisocial behaviour in their area? [ Interruption. ]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

It is our duty—one that we take seriously in other areas—to offer protection and support to young people in Scotland.

It is well known that one phenomenon that lies behind increased public disorder in Scotland, particularly at the weekend, is the availability of very cheap and, in some cases, very strong alcohol. People are not drinking and celebrating when they go out for an evening; they are going out for an evening already having drunk a substantial amount of alcohol. Every member who is in touch with the grass roots in their constituency should know that full well.

In three areas—Stenhousemuir, Armadale and Cupar—with the full support of off-licences, an experiment was introduced to see whether the restriction in sales caused by banning under-21s from buying alcohol in off-licences would have a considerable effect. Whatever the arguments, those three areas have seen an observable and significant decline in the number of incidents reported to the police, and the constabulary has verified that. If that evidence stands up to examination, is anyone in the chamber saying that it should be disregarded or that it should not be taken into account? Incidentally, the victims of antisocial behaviour are often young people themselves, who are most at risk from such antisocial behaviour.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

Does the First Minister agree that, rather than targeting one age group, which would send the wrong message on tackling alcohol misuse, given that we know that people from a broad range of ages misuse alcohol, the right message would be to target licence holders who sell to underage drinkers and ensure that, after three breaches of their licence, they lose their licence for good?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

If a licence holder does it once, they can lose their licence. The Labour Party presided over a doubling of alcohol consumption per person in Scotland during the past generation, with all the impacts that that has had for public health and disorder, so it is a bit rich for Labour to say that it wants to take action but then find some reason to disagree with every single one of the courageous proposals in Kenny MacAskill's consultation document. People who want to see Scotland genuinely face up to its difficulties with alcohol will look askance at politicians who say that they want to do something but always find a reason for not supporting proposals to do that.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — Finance and Sustainable Growth

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

West Dunbartonshire Council will be aware of all the various funding routes for major capital projects. They include direct capital allocations—both grant and supported borrowing—in the local government settlement and opportunities for prudential borrowing. We are providing local authorities with almost £3 billion of capital resources over three years, which is an increase of £115 million this year and in each of the next two years, to secure investment in schools and other infrastructure, according to authorities' own priorities.

My announcement yesterday on the establishment of the Scottish Futures Trust shows our commitment to pursue best value for public money in Scotland, rather than continuing with the expensive private finance initiative and other practices of the previous Administration.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

The minister will recall the First Minister's commitment to match Labour's school building programme "brick for brick". Let me share with the minister yesterday's response from Maureen Watt to my parliamentary question, in which she spoke about the £115 million extra capital this year and for the next two years. When that is divided by 32 local authorities, it comes to roughly £3.5 million each. A new Dumbarton academy—which has not been taken forward by the Scottish National Party—will cost at least £25 million.

I have two simple questions. Where will we get the money from, and when will we get it? It certainly does not look as it if it will come soon from the Scottish Futures Trust.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I would have thought that Jackie Baillie would have taken a different tack today, rather than adopting the failed tactics that the Labour Party used yesterday. I persist in living in hope of the Labour Party changing direction towards a more positive route.

As I said in my original answer to Jackie Baillie, the Government is making significant resources available to local authorities, with a very substantial first-year increase in the spending review for capital allocations, which will be replicated in the next two years. As I set out yesterday, I am keen to ensure maximum participation in the work of the Scottish Futures Trust, and I look forward to West Dunbartonshire Council playing its part in that exercise, as I am sure that it will.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

We get a different story from Mr Iain Robertson, the SNP leader of West Dunbartonshire Council. Mr Robertson says that there is no money and no prospect of getting any money. Should I refer him to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth, or should I refer him and others who wish investment to be made in education in my and Ms Baillie's constituencies to Sir Angus Grossart?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I suspect that having a constructive discussion with both would help—one that is based on evidence. Sadly, evidence was missing from Mr McNulty's contribution to Radio Scotland's news programme this morning, in which he asserted that not-for-profit vehicles do not work. That was a strange proposition, given the construction work that is proceeding under the non-profit-distributing model in schools in Falkirk, to name just one local authority area. I suggest that Mr McNulty and Jackie Baillie play a constructive role in the discussion on the Scottish Futures Trust. I would be happy to discuss the matter with them at any time.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Executive what assessment it has made of the merits of its economic strategy in relation to the Council of Economic Advisers' recommendations on education, skills and lifelong learning. (S3O-4121)