Scottish Parliament, 30 April 2009

478 contributions from 81 members. The official report.

Official Report 30 April 2009

Education

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

The first item of business this morning is a debate on motion S3M-4007, in the name of Margaret Smith, on education. We have some time in hand, so we can be a little flexible on speaking times.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

Earlier this week, we were reminded of the Government's broken promises to Scotland's students. Today, we will focus on some others, such as class sizes and teacher numbers.

After two years of the Scottish National Party Government, truly glacial progress has meant that just 13 per cent of our children in primaries 1 to 3 are in classes of 18 children or fewer and, with even that slow progress now stalling, it does not take a maths teacher to figure out that the Government is on course to fail to meet its target by the end of this four-year session.

I make no apology for focusing today on issues affecting Scotland's 53,000 teachers. They are at the heart of our education system and they are fundamental to the delivery of first-class education. That is why the minister must support teachers, from new trainees and probationary teachers to those who are heading to retirement. The sad fact, however, is that the Government is letting teachers down, just as surely as it is letting down children and parents.

Today's debate is particularly topical, given this headline in today's Herald:

"Teachers may take industrial action over new curriculum".

The story under that headline expresses the frustration of the Scottish Secondary Teachers' Association over the implementation of the curriculum for excellence.

The SNP promised parents that smaller classes could be achieved by keeping teacher numbers constant while school rolls fell. However, instead of class sizes, it is teacher numbers that have fallen, by nearly 1,000 in a year.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Does the member acknowledge that we now have the lowest class sizes since devolution and, indeed, the lowest pupil teacher ratio, despite a reduction in teachers? That is progress. The member implied that there had been no reductions in class sizes but there have been.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

I think that I said that progress has been glacially slow—which is not easy to do at this time in the morning. The main point is that that is not what the Government claimed that it would make happen. A better pupil teacher ratio was not what was all over its election leaflets. The Government's leaflets said that it was going to reduce class sizes to 18 in primaries 1 to 3, and the fact is that the progress towards that target has been in the nature of about 1 per cent. At that rate, we are about eight decades away from the target being achieved.

There is a record slump in teacher numbers, which is concerning to parents across Scotland. The reduction in maths and science teachers also runs directly contrary to the Government's pledge to boost the study of science among Scotland's young people. Recent figures show a real terms fall in funding for secondary school education. In this time of recession, that is deeply concerning. There has never been a more crucial time to provide adequate funding for secondary school education. The real-terms increase in primary education funding is just 0.5 per cent, and the national spend on employing teachers has fallen in real terms in primary and secondary education.

As the recession deepens, the concern is that, in the face of Government inaction and tightening council budgets across Scotland, the situation in Scottish education will only get worse. What chance of success does the curriculum for excellence have in our schools if we do not have the resources or the dedicated teaching professionals that are required to implement it properly? No wonder the SSTA and the Educational Institute of Scotland have raised concerns.

Last week, I met Universities Scotland and the principals of Scotland's universities. Many of them told us that undergraduate applications were up by about 5 per cent and that, interestingly, postgraduate applications in some places were up by more than 50 per cent. That is hardly any wonder given the economic situation, but against that backdrop there is uncertainty about the numbers that will enter teacher training this year.

Last month, the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council announced intake targets that involved an overall rise of 9 per cent. Since then, however, there has been intense media speculation that the minister has ordered universities to slash the student intake in the coming year by a fifth. Today's debate gives the minister an ideal opportunity to tell us whether that is the case and, if it is the case, to tell us whether those cuts will mean a drop in teaching student numbers of 500. The funding council has said that it will release a revised circular in a couple of weeks.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The level of initial teacher training intakes will be roughly the same as it was in 2007. The reduction on the initial target for this year is a drop of only 4 per cent. That will amount to 157 teachers, which—funnily enough—is less than the number by which the Labour-run Glasgow City Council reduced teacher numbers in only one year.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

I am sure that we are all delighted at the fact that we have got that on the record. [ Interruption. ] The minister might scoff, but the fact is that there has been a certain amount of speculation about what is going to happen. People across Scotland are making decisions about their futures and deciding whether they want to go into a teaching career. All of us want the best and brightest people to go into teaching, so it is helpful that the minister has put that information on the record. It is disappointing that there will be a fall from the numbers that were originally talked about—157 teachers being lost from our schools is a move in the wrong direction. Those issues matter to parents and to people who are thinking about becoming teaching students.

We remain concerned about the number of trained teachers who are failing to find permanent employment. In the past year, The Times Educational Supplement, the General Teaching Council for Scotland and various surveys have pointed to the problems that are faced by post-probationer teachers trying to find work. Only last week, I met probationer modern studies teachers who raised concerns over a lack of supply positions, which is partly due to schools' use of recently retired teachers.

I know that this issue has been considered in the past. Perhaps the minister can tell us whether action will be taken to address the issue and whether she plans to set up more permanent supply pools, which would go some way towards assisting.

That was one of the many issues that were addressed by the teacher employment working group. I have a number of questions about what progress has been made on those issues since the group reported last October.

None of us should underestimate the difficulty of workforce planning. The group highlighted the difference between decisions on national workforce planning that were taken at the end of the year and decisions on local staffing needs that were taken by councils in the spring. Last October, the minister committed herself to addressing the matter. What progress has been made?

What progress has been made towards increasing the number of permanent teaching positions, particularly in the primary sector?

Scottish Liberal Democrats have consistently warned that local authorities are struggling with education budgets and class size targets with little assistance from Government. There is a fault line through the heart of the SNP's education policies—it is called the historic concordat. The SNP went into the 2007 election making education commitments that it knew that it could not keep. It is not good enough to pass the buck continually to local authorities when those commitments are dropped. The SNP must take responsibility for its own inactions. The reality is that it is the SNP that made promises on class sizes, teacher numbers, nursery teacher numbers and the school building programmes. It made those promises knowing that it could not keep them.

Scottish Liberal Democrats in Government delivered year on year increases in teacher numbers, bringing them to a record high. Our manifesto for the 2007 elections contained a clear and costed commitment to deliver 1,000 teachers to cut class sizes in our schools. We agree that that is a target that is worth aiming at; yet, halfway through the SNP's term in office, we are looking at a fall in teacher numbers of 1,000 and a fall in the number of those going into teaching training. That means that the SNP's commitment to reduce class sizes remains as elusive as ever.

The Government has the brass neck to try to sidestep an investigation of its broken promises in Government by attacking us. Let us, therefore, consider a few points. We extended nursery places to three and four-year-olds; the SNP promised an increase in nursery teachers and delivered a whole-time equivalent decrease across Scotland of 13. We introduced sure start schemes in our communities to bring together early education, child care, health and family support in one place; the SNP promised the earth through an early years strategy that has no financial teeth. We delivered new schools the length and breadth of this country; the SNP promised that the Scottish Futures Trust would help to match our policy brick for brick, but the reality is that it has yet to commission any new schools—perhaps ministers cannot deliver because they are too busy traipsing around Scotland opening schools that were begun by the Labour and Liberal Democrat Executive.

We stand accused of investing in education—guilty as charged. We also stand accused of focusing on inputs rather than outputs. That is the complete opposite of this Government, which produced an election manifesto of unattainable outputs on class sizes and teacher numbers. That manifesto was long on unattainable outputs, and for the past two years the Government has failed to produce the inputs needed so that councils across Scotland could go any way towards achieving any of the outputs.

What we need now from the Government is not more empty gestures or more promises to be broken but a detailed plan to tackle the problems facing schools and teachers. We need a properly timetabled workforce plan from the Government to restore teacher numbers to the levels that it promised to maintain, to deliver the staff needed for the smaller class sizes that it promised, and to provide the training places required by the young people whom it encouraged to get into teaching.

I move,

That the Parliament notes that, on the second anniversary of the election of the Scottish Government, the index of its broken promises contains more references to education than any other area of public policy; believes that the failures of the SNP on teachers and teaching are potentially the most damaging to the long-term interests of Scotland; notes the drop of 1,000 in the number of teachers in Scotland's schools despite the SNP promise to maintain numbers; regrets the microscopic progress on class size reductions; recalls the failure to offer ongoing job opportunities for newly qualified teachers and laments the pressure on teacher training places when demand for such places from talented graduates remains high, and calls for the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning to publish, by the end of the school year and in time for September, a detailed workforce plan for teaching that can restore teacher numbers, increase training places, get newly qualified teachers into work in schools and provide assurance that the Scottish Government is prepared to learn from the mistakes of the first half of its term of office as it embarks on its second.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

I welcome the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Government and to move the amendment in my name.

Since this Government took office, we have debated many Opposition motions that were misconceived and that, by trying to score narrow party political points, often missed the bigger picture. However, this particular motion is rare indeed, given that it so completely and profoundly misses the point.

I noticed when she spoke that Margaret Smith mentioned the curriculum for excellence, which her motion does not. We in Scotland are in a unique, and perhaps historic, position in relation to our education system in so far as we are faced with a once-in-a-generation opportunity to transform education for Scotland's children and ensure that the education system of the future equips our children, and their friends and peers across Scotland from whatever background, to meet the demands of the future. It is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to drive up standards in Scottish education through ensuring the provision of a single system of lifelong learning, from the early years through school and beyond, that puts the child—the learner—at the centre. That opportunity is the curriculum for excellence, and it is instructive indeed that in a motion of "War and Peace" proportions those words, that concept and that opportunity do not appear.

I will come to the issues raised in the motion about teachers presently, but it would be remiss of me not to remind Margaret Smith what the curriculum for excellence is about and why it is such an important opportunity. At its heart, the curriculum for excellence is about raising standards of education for all children and young people. The standards embedded in the experience and outcomes that were published on 2 April—a hugely important milestone for the programme and for Scottish education that seems to have escaped the Liberal Democrats completely—are demanding and stretching.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

The minister made the point that the motion does not mention the curriculum for excellence, so why is he focusing on something that is not meant to be debated and, so far, not speaking about teachers?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

When the member spoke, she said it was important to focus on "outputs"—I would say "outcomes". I made the point at the start that in my view the motion misses the point completely. The biggest change for education is the curriculum for excellence, but for some reason the Liberal Democrats seem immune to that point. The member did not even mention the experiences and outcomes published on 2 April.

Standards that are demanding and stretching are appropriate for an education system that is ambitious for its learners and a nation that is ambitious for its people. It is unfortunate that the Liberal Democrats appear ambitious only for themselves.

The curriculum for excellence will drive up standards—

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I must ask the minister to speak to the terms of the motion. It is up to the members who lodge the motion to dictate its terms.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

I repeat the point that I believe the outputs mentioned by Margaret Smith are extremely important; that is why I mentioned the curriculum for excellence.

On the question of teachers raised by Margaret Smith, the most recent final outturn figures we have available are for 2007-08 and show that net revenue expenditure on education by local authorities continued to increase to more than £4.4 billion, up more than £180 million on the previous year.

For too long in Scotland we have rested on our laurels in relation to education. I acknowledge the fact that successive Governments have raised the level of investment in schools—as Margaret Smith mentioned—and in education, and we now invest record amounts of resources in education, more than 40 per cent more in real terms since the advent of the Parliament. Despite all that investment, however, a range of national and international reports and indicators tell us that we have not yet made the progress that we might expect.

John McLaren, who is well known to the Labour Party, said before the previous election:

"England has continued to progress while Scotland has stood still since 1999".

Very worryingly, international comparisons for standards tell us that, while we have reached a plateau, some of our competitor countries have forged ahead. We are being overtaken, and unless we raise our game we will be left behind. The curriculum for excellence is the means by which our game will be raised.

This Administration works in partnership with local government. Margaret Smith made the point that we have signed up to various commitments, but so have her councillors across Scotland in signing up to the concordat. Perhaps she should remember that fact.

The Administration, in partnership with local government and a wide range of other partners, is making excellent progress. The experience and outcomes were published on 2 April, and two more of the key building blocks of the programme of transformational change, on assessment and on skills, will be published in the coming months. I will make an important announcement about qualifications in due course.

The importance that we place on education is clear. At the start of the Administration, we invested an extra £9 million in teachers for the curriculum for excellence and in general terms.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

Will the minister give way?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

No, I will not.

A total of £4 million was specifically invested to allow teachers to come in to help us with the implementation of the curriculum for excellence. In that context, we should ask where the Liberal Democrats would have us concentrate our efforts. They would have us return to the culture of compliant central direction that I described, and with a vengeance.

The Government will not take that route. We believe that our new relationship with local government is the right one and that local decision making in education authorities and in schools about how to drive forward improvement and raise standards will pay the highest dividends. Of course, that means we need to have a robust, honest and frank relationship with local government and COSLA. We have exactly that.

I make no secret of the fact that the Government was disappointed by the results of the teacher census published on 24 March. We said that publicly at the time and I have said it since privately in discussions with COSLA and local authorities. We were also disappointed that the proportion of children in P1 to P3 classes of 18 or fewer increased by only a marginal amount.

However, we should not let that disappointment cloud the facts that remain. Average class sizes in P1 to P3 in Scotland are at a record low, which Margaret Smith did not mention, and pupil teacher ratios across Scotland are also at a record low. Councils have made significant and important progress in reducing the proportion of children in P1 to P3 in the largest classes of more than 25. Immediately that the Government took office—and to clean up the mess we had been left by the Labour-Liberal Democrat Administration—we invested £9 million in providing 300 new teaching posts in schools, funding that was baselined into the settlement. We have invested record amounts in local government in Scotland—£23 billion for the period 2008 to 2010—and local government knows that, which is why—

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

No, I will not.

We are investing £4 million in new resources to create 100 new teaching posts for the next school year, which means that 100 teachers who would not otherwise obtain employment will be given jobs in the classroom and 100 experienced teachers will be freed up to support the curriculum for excellence implementation plans that authorities are pulling together.

We established the teacher employment working group, and to her credit Margaret Smith acknowledged the difficulties in teacher planning. Although that group concluded that the system was fit for purpose, it recommended a closer liaison between national and local planning. We are taking that and the group's other recommendations forward.

Let us not forget that when the teacher census was published on 24 March we acted, as all responsible Governments would, to ensure that we have enough teachers to fill vacancies and maintain a pool of supply teachers but not to train more than we need.

These are the real facts of this debate. The Liberal Democrats say they would have employed 1,000 more teachers. How can they square that with an £800 million cut in public service expenditure?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Can we tell the minister?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

No, and if the member put it in front of maths teachers, they would not accept it either: the sums do not add up. There is a certain degree of disconnect between what the Liberal Democrats said they want to do and the fact that they wanted to cut expenditure by £800 million.

I hope that, when Rhoda Brankin speaks on behalf of Labour, she mentions the £500 million cuts that we all have to face—some say it will be substantially more than that in future years.

My ministerial colleagues and I are engaging with COSLA and councils to discuss how progress on teacher numbers and on reducing class sizes can be improved in the next school year. That dialogue will continue, and it will deliver results.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

No.

The half-baked plan set out in the motion before us today will not do that. Unlike the Liberal Democrat plan, our dialogue is not solely focused on inputs. Our dialogue will focus on how through the curriculum for excellence—which is missing from the motion—we can deliver the transformational change in Scottish education that our children and society depend on for our continued prosperity.

I move amendment S3M-4007.1, to leave out from "the index" to end and insert:

"spending on education has risen by more than 40% since the advent of devolution; further notes that, despite a decade of investment, standards of attainment and achievement have only been maintained while key international competitors have improved; welcomes the recent report by HM Inspectorate of Education, Improving Scottish Education 2005-2008, highlighting the need for further and faster improvement in our education system; believes that the focus on inputs under previous administrations masked the lack of significant improvement on standards of attainment and achievement; further believes that the reform of the curriculum is a critical step in improving standards of attainment, and calls on the Scottish Government to maintain progress towards implementation of the Curriculum for Excellence."

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Education debates in this chamber currently seem to fall into two categories. There are those that are led by the Opposition parties, as we systematically expose the catalogue of broken promises in the SNP election manifesto, and there are those that are led by the Scottish Government, which seeks to select the appropriate spin that will most conveniently divert attention away from the extent of those failures.

I am not surprised by the Scottish Government's tactics, but even a Government that has used every opportunity to hide behind the convenient excuse of the historic concordat—which, as Margaret Smith said, shifts the blame on to local authorities—cannot ignore the facts. On class sizes, school meals, teacher numbers, nursery staffing and school discipline, there have been huge let-downs for the Scottish electorate and—more important—for parents, pupils and teachers.

It is desperately sad that that comes at a time when so many good things are happening in Scottish schools and when there is huge potential for exciting new developments within the curriculum and the examinations structure. It is simply unacceptable, as is the evidence that each of the local authorities supplied in response to two freedom of information requests that the Scottish Conservatives commissioned last month.

In response to the first request, the answers from local authorities exposed the true extent of the postcode lottery in determining which higher and advanced higher courses are on offer in different schools. In response to the second, there were shocking statistics about the lack of accurate data held by local authorities on teacher numbers.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

With regard to the first freedom of information request to which the member refers, does she realise that there has been a net increase of 33 in the availability of highers and of 114 in the availability of advanced highers? That completely negates some of the comments that were made at the time of the request.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am sorry, but I do not accept that. It is true that the presentations of highers and advanced highers have increased, but there is a postcode lottery with regard to where certain subjects are on offer. The point is that there is no level playing field.

The response to the second FOI request flagged up a huge amount of inaccurate data on teacher issues. I have a great deal of sympathy with the section of the Liberal motion that flags up our concern about teacher recruitment, especially as the cabinet secretary assured us that the joint working party on workforce planning would address that issue. Broken promises are broken promises, but positive action is important now, so I turn to the amendment in my name.

The Government amendment states the need for

"further and faster improvement ... on standards of attainment and achievement".

We all agree with that sentiment, but it is time to take full responsibility. Every party in the chamber agreed—and confirmed by a unanimous vote—in the first debate of this year that no issue is currently more important in education than ensuring all our pupils are properly schooled in the three Rs. I want to hold the Scottish Government to its duty to do something about that.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

Although I agree with the member about literacy and numeracy, does she agree that it is worrying that one reason why the SSTA appears to be concerned is that it is not so keen for the testing and the work on literacy and numeracy to be carried out in the way that has been discussed in the Parliament? Does she agree that the cabinet secretary should turn her attention to that?

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Many aspects about the testing issue are concerning, but when I canvass opinion among the teaching profession—and particularly among secondary level teachers—I find that they are adamant that we must have more rigorous testing: end of story.

I suspect that virtually every member agrees that, when parents send their children to school, the one thing that they expect them to do when they come back is to be able to read, write and count. Parents rightly expect us, as members of Parliament, to ensure the teaching of the three Rs is at the top of the schools agenda. They know, as we do, that it is completely unacceptable for only 30 per cent of secondary 2 pupils to have a competency in maths when 85 per cent had that competency in primary 3; and for 10,000 pupils to leave Scottish schools each year unable to read, write and count properly. They see the unfortunate slide in Scotland's position in too many international league tables, and they know as well as we do that we should be doing so much better.

It is the depth of that concern that makes every party in the Parliament deeply anxious about what the future holds if we cannot improve those outcomes and rebuild confidence in our system. That is why we voted for better testing of primary school pupils. We did not vote for more testing, or for tests that are applied only when a teacher thinks that the child is ready to cope with them or when the league tables are about to be announced, but for more rigorous tests that are conducted against nationally agreed standards and that truly reflect the ability of the pupil by the end of primary 7, before they move on to secondary school.

There are two important facts. One is that far too many Scottish pupils are leaving school without competency in the three Rs, and the second is that the Parliament voted unanimously to introduce more rigorous, nationally agreed tests by the end of primary 7.

I move amendment S3M-4007.1.1, to insert at end:

"and calls on the Scottish Government to bring forward detailed proposals by the start of the 2009-10 academic year as to how it will implement amendment S3M-3164.1, which recognised the need for the Scottish Government to ensure that pupils in Scotland are properly tested in the basic skills of literacy and numeracy by the end of primary 7 and which was given unanimous support by the Parliament on 7 January 2009."

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I congratulate the Liberal Democrats on bringing forward a ringing denunciation of the SNP's record on education.

It was education that brought me and many other people into politics, where we work and try our hardest to create a Scotland of opportunity in which people can get on no matter where they live or who they are. That is what drives many Labour members, including me, and that is why education and our children should be at the heart of our thinking and our politics.

Our ambition is to have the best education system in the world, in which no one is left behind and all young people can develop their full potential. I think that all members recognise that we face significant challenges to that in Scotland.

As has been said, Labour, working with the Liberal Democrats in Government, made real progress in improving our education system, which included the delivery of the biggest school building programme that Scotland has ever known. The SNP has squandered that progress; yet now, more than ever, we need a world-class education system. As we seek to come through the global financial crisis, we cannot afford to waste the talent of a single person.

The SNP election manifesto made lots of promises on education, but so many of them have now been ditched or broken. The SNP said that it would deliver class sizes of 18 in primaries 1 to 3 by 2011, but the latest figures show that, at the current rate of progress, that promise will not be delivered until 2096. Teacher numbers are down by 1,000, which makes a mockery of the SNP's manifesto promise to maintain teacher numbers in the face of falling rolls.

To reverse the previous Government's record numbers of teachers is bad enough, but to preside over the loss of 1,000 jobs in one year since coming to office is unforgivable—and Scotland's teachers will not forgive the SNP.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

Will the member take an intervention?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

No—the minister did not take an intervention from me. I am happy to take interventions from other members, but the minister has something to learn and should perhaps try listening.

Newly qualified teachers are not getting jobs. Barely a day goes by in which I do not receive another heartbreaking e-mail from a newly qualified teacher who is desperate for work. Such people are still passionate about their chosen career, but they are bewildered and increasingly angry at an SNP Government that has cruelly misled them with empty promises about a teaching career.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Is the member aware that the post-probationers who are currently seeking jobs started their training under the workforce planning that was devised, implemented and decided on by the Labour-Liberal Democrat Administration?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I am aware that under Labour and the Liberal Democrats we had a record number of 53,000 teachers, whereas the SNP has lost 1,000 in one year.

The SNP pledged to match Labour's school building programme "brick for brick". To be fair, Alex Salmond and Fiona Hyslop are scuttling around in ministerial cars to open quite a few new schools—but every one was commissioned by the previous Government.

The SNP Government's promise to have more than 20,000 teachers in training between 2007 and 2010 is yet another empty promise, as we now know that teacher training places are being cut. New schools are an abject failure, which is why SNP ministers are scuttling around to open schools that were started by the previous Government.

Last night, I met two outstanding pupils from Lasswade high school, both of whom were the first from their families to go to university. Lasswade is a great school, but the school buildings are simply not fit for purpose: they are category D. Midlothian Council was told by the previous Labour education minister that Lasswade high school was a priority for the new round of funding, but today, under an SNP Government, there are still no plans for Lasswade. There will now be no new school before the next election—it is a disgrace.

On nursery education, the SNP manifesto promised to increase access to nursery teachers. No amount of SNP spin can hide the truth of the real figures that the Government's own statisticians use, which show a cut in whole-time equivalent nursery teachers. Perhaps the cabinet secretary should listen to what I have to say: the fact is that there are now fewer, not more, nursery teacher hours. I would be interested in getting an honest response to that—indeed, I challenge the cabinet secretary to tell the truth for once on the issue.

These failures are serious and put at risk the progress that has been made in the past decade at Holyrood and in local authorities across the country. One cannot run an education system by press release. SNP spin will not build new schools, it will not teach a single child to read, and it will not employ any teachers. As the recently released figures on pupil expenditure clearly show, this Government has presided over the worst ever education budget settlements and the lowest real-terms improvement in expenditure—0.3 per cent—since the Scottish Parliament's establishment. No amount of spinning can get away from that. That is not political point-scoring; it is simply the truth. I urge members to support our amendment.

I move amendment S3M-4007.2, to insert after "remains high",

"; deeply regrets that the SNP government's response to the reduction in full-time teaching posts has been to cut teacher training places by 18% despite its pledges to maintain teacher numbers and reduce class sizes".

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

Two years ago, the SNP came to power on a manifesto that contained a raft of bold promises, and none of those promises was more radical and bold than those on education. The SNP not only promised parents that their youngest children would be taught in classes of no more than 18 and that their pre-school children would be taught by qualified nursery teachers; it promised that it would match the previous Executive's school building programme brick for brick.

This morning's mid-term debate provides us with a valuable opportunity to reflect on the SNP Government's progress. I have to say that, despite Ms Hyslop's protestations, its report card two years on looks very poor indeed. Those bold promises have quickly become broken promises, producing a catalogue of disappointments that has left parents throughout Scotland feeling disappointed and betrayed. For example, on class sizes, the Government has singularly failed to meet its flagship pledge to reduce all P1, P2 and P3 classes to 18. In fact, recent Government figures show that only 13.2 per cent of P1 to P3 classes have 18 pupils or fewer. Class sizes of 18 look more distant than ever; indeed, based on the current rate of progress, it will take the SNP another 87 years to meet its own manifesto pledge. Of course, it will blame our local authorities for that.

I find it astounding that, in the face of such failure, the SNP Government has made matters even worse by reducing teacher numbers and training places. Despite its promise to maintain teacher numbers, the latest Scottish Government figures show that there are now 1,000 fewer teachers in Scotland. To compound the situation, the SNP Government has decided to cut teacher training places by 500, which is an 18 per cent reduction.

It is little wonder that for an increasing number of Scotland's young people who might have wanted to enter teaching, the profession is becoming insecure and disheartening. Of the newly qualified teachers who have been fortunate to find jobs, almost 60 per cent are in temporary employment. The situation in primary education is even worse, with the figure standing at 70 per cent. In some local authorities, between 300 and 400 qualified teachers are chasing every job.

All that stands in sharp contrast to the Labour and Liberal Democrats' time in office, when the Executive delivered an extra 2,000 teachers and increased teacher numbers in Scotland to a record 53,000. Indeed, had we remained in office, we would have maintained that figure.

The SNP also made bold promises and pledges on early years education. It suggested that every nursery child would be taught by a nursery teacher, but after the election the Government admitted that such access might mean seeing a qualified teacher only once a week, if they were lucky. According to the Scottish Government's pre-school and child care statistics for 2008, the number of qualified nursery teachers employed in Scotland has declined.

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Western Isles)

The member paints a picture of local authorities that have been starved of the necessary cash to employ teachers. If that is the case, why, at the concordat's launch, did COSLA president and Labour councillor Pat Watters say:

"The package has been agreed within a tight financial context but the role that local government plays in the governance of Scotland has been substantially enhanced and the decline in local government's share of total expenditure has been halted"?

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

Unfortunately the picture that the member paints is not accurate. According to what teachers throughout Scotland and particularly in my constituency have told me, things at the chalkface are very different to what he has suggested.

Let me move from the broken promises on nursery education to school building. Although the SNP promised parents that its Scottish Futures Trust would match the school building programme "brick for brick", not a single brick has to date been laid as a result of that funding mechanism. Nevertheless, the SNP is running around attempting to take credit for schools that were built by the Labour and Liberal Democrat Scottish Executive in partnership with local authorities.

In fact, Ms Hyslop is so desperate to cut a ribbon and open a new school that the Government even opens schools more than once. For example, in Dunfermline, Duloch primary school, which was built by the previous Labour council, was opened to pupils early in 2007, was opened again by Douglas Chapman in May 2007 and was opened yet again—officially this time—by Fiona Hyslop just a few months ago. In other words, one school was opened three times.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

You should close now.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

The Scottish Government is letting down Scotland's children. I urge members to support the motion and Labour's amendment.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Over the two years of this Parliament, I have been delighted to support the massive steps forward that the SNP Government has taken to improve the quality of education that is available to every level of Scottish society. The Government reinstated free higher education, has legislated for free school meals for our youngest children and is making real progress on reducing class sizes. I am happy to defend the SNP Government's strong record on education. On the other hand, the Liberal Democrats' motion is like a broken record, endlessly repeating the same old complaints with little to back up its claims and even less in the way of positive suggestions.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

Are you genuinely happy to stand there and defend the fact that your Government has managed to lose 1,000 teachers in a year and that, as the cabinet secretary herself has admitted this morning, there will be a 4 per cent drop in teacher training numbers in the face of the recession?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I remind all members to speak through the chair, not directly to each other.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I believe that you delivered 1,100 fewer teachers than you said you would, so I am quite happy to stand here and defend the Government.

Perhaps more than any other sector, investment in education is investment in the future. It takes time for the full rewards of any particular policy or funding decision to be seen, because time spent in education is about preparing learners for what they will do afterwards. That is as true for youngsters entering P1 as it is for mature students in one of our colleges or universities. As a result, the Scottish Government has invested in the full spectrum of our education services in order to benefit not just individual learners but, ultimately, society as a whole.

Some of this Government's education legislation is among its finest and most important achievements. Having as a student campaigned for the restoration of free education, I am proud to have been able to vote here in Scotland's Parliament for the legislation to reinstate that policy. The Liberal Democrats might not understand the egalitarian principles behind the introduction of free school meals, but that move was one of the Parliament's most progressive acts. Tavish Scott might dismiss it as feeding "rich kids", but that does a disservice to a policy that reduces inequality in the playground, improves concentration in the classroom and is, in itself, educational by teaching kids from all walks of life healthy eating habits that will last a lifetime.

The Lib Dems complain that progress on reducing class sizes has been neither fast nor significant enough. They might want to tell that to the nearly 14 per cent of P1 to P3 pupils in South Lanarkshire who are now benefiting from being in a class of fewer than 18. In 2006, under the previous Administration—of which the Liberal Democrats were a part—only 6.9 per cent of young primary pupils were in small classes.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Will the member give way?

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I want to make progress.

Of course, the motion says nothing about the previous Administration, which, after all, formulated the plans for training the current number of teachers now entering the workforce. If the Liberal Democrats believe that there are more trained teachers than there are places available, they should perhaps have thought of that when their ministers were signing off workforce planning models before 2007. As the minister made clear, the Government has taken steps to reshape those models for the future to ensure that the right number of teachers are in place to give our children the education that they need and deserve.

There is also a responsibility on councils to spend the funding that they have been given through the concordat in a way that helps to reduce class sizes. February's statistics show that 18 out of 32 councils are making progress and that more than 75 per cent of pupils in the early years are in classes of fewer than 25 pupils, which is an improvement on the figure of 60 per cent in 2006, under the Lib-Lab Administration.

The motion, like most of the motions that the Liberal Democrats bring to the Parliament, could simply read that they are still shocked that the voters of Scotland had the bare-faced cheek not to vote them back into government in 2007. However, two years ago, people voted for a different kind of government, because they were fed up with the lack of ambition and the steady-as-we-go managerial complacency that was the hallmark of the previous devolved Administrations. People in Scotland voted for the SNP Government and Alex Salmond as First Minister because they were ambitious about the future of the country. People believed that the devolution settlement could deliver more than it already had and they were ready for the boundaries of the settlement to be pushed. That is what people voted for and that is what is being delivered. Opposition members might not like it, but that does not mean that the SNP Government is not making real and tangible progress on the ground.

Of course, more can always be done, and the task will become more difficult in the face of the cuts that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer are imposing on the Parliament. The Liberal Democrats might be happy to live with a union dividend of £500 million-worth of cuts to public services, including education, but I believe that the best future that we can build for our teachers and the children whom they teach is in an independent Scotland. If the Liberal Democrats were prepared to concede to the people of Scotland the liberal and democratic option of a referendum, we might be prepared to take some of their arguments a bit more seriously.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

If the SNP Government has failed in one area, it is education, as the motion and some of the amendments make clear. Scotland's established teachers, our newly qualified teachers and our schoolchildren have been failed. Good and enthusiastic young teachers are unable to find anything other than supply posts and the few posts that are available often attract upwards of 300 applicants. Manifesto pledge after manifesto pledge has been broken, and parents, teachers and children have been let down.

Let us not forget what the SNP manifesto said about new schools. The SNP said that it would match Labour's school building programme brick for brick. On Monday, I had the pleasure of visiting a new school in my constituency that was opened to pupils just last week. It is a replacement for two old schools and a nursery, and provides new community facilities, including a library, gym and other opportunities for people to gather together. That is the kind of school that every community wants and that every child and teacher deserves. It is only one of 11 secondary and 53 primary schools that Glasgow City Council has built in the past 10 years, at a cost of about £0.5 billion. However, that school is one of the last that the council will be able to build because, since 2007, the money has dried up and the ability to borrow has disappeared.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Presiding Officer, I know that the debate is meant to be on the motion, but if we are addressing school buildings, I ask the member whether she is aware that the previous Administration left an unpaid bill of £60 million a year for public-private partnership projects. Is she also aware that Glasgow City Council has available to it £300 million in capital over the next two years, but that for some reason it has made the political decision to spend only £5 million on school buildings?

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Of the capital that the member talks about, £115 million is ring fenced to pay for measures such as the M74 extension and the White Cart Water flood prevention measures. Glasgow City Council was at least able to decide to build those 11 secondary schools using PPP, although it decided to use its own resources to build the 53 primary schools in the past 10 years. We do not need to take any lessons from Ms Hyslop.

It is no secret that I have opposed proposed school closures in my constituency. I have done so because I do not believe that all the options have been explored or that all the arguments have been considered. However, I am in no doubt about the real culprit—it is the Government, which has overseen a reduction in capital spend on education in Glasgow of astronomical proportions. Let me put some of the figures on the record. In the past 10 years, Glasgow City Council has spent £550 million building new schools. This year and next, the council will spend £100 million to deliver new-build schools that were commissioned under the previous Labour-led Scottish Executive. The Wyndford and Cadder areas of my constituency would benefit hugely from new joint-campus schools, but it is their misfortune to be part of phase 5 of the on-going school review process and not part of a previous phase, because phase 5 is taking place when the SNP is in power in Scotland and when education strategy is in disarray. What does the minister have to offer the pupils and teachers in the schools in my constituency that look set to close in June?

The Government stands accused of letting down the pupils, parents and teachers of Scotland. It is about time that the Government faced up to its responsibilities and did something to ensure that Scottish pupils and teachers work and operate in the best possible facilities.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I am shocked and stunned to hear Patricia Ferguson, a Glasgow constituency member, being an absolute apologist for Glasgow Labour, which is closing schools in my city. You should be ashamed of yourself. I will remind the parents that you were that apologist.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Speak through the chair, please.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Sorry, Presiding Officer but, like the parents, I get passionate about these issues.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Will the member give way?

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

No, thank you. We have heard quite enough from you.

To borrow a word from the Liberal Democrat motion, it is with much lament that I must criticise that illogical and ill-considered motion. The Liberal Democrats know very well that councils, not the Scottish Government, employ teachers throughout Scotland. They also know that the concordat between COSLA and the Scottish Government sets a direction of travel on class sizes. That direction of travel is clear—class sizes are falling and pupil to teacher ratios are the best in the United Kingdom. The motion is not constructive opposition; it is political opportunism. The figures show that the bulk of the drop in teacher numbers—55 per cent—is attributable to only four councils. I will return to that shortly.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

The cabinet secretary said on 20 June 2007:

"After only a month in office, we are already working to meet other parties' demands for 1,000 new teachers."—[Official Report, 20 June 2007; c 882.]

Does the member accept that the cabinet secretary has not been working very well and that she could do better?

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I am aware that 300 additional places have been funded.

In all likelihood, if the Liberal Democrats and Labour had signed a third partnership agreement, Scotland would now have even fewer teachers. We must remember that the former coalition partners promised 600 fewer teachers than there currently are in Scottish schools. Given that councils, not Governments, employ teachers, if Opposition parties had been in government now, that figure might have been far worse. The record funding of councils by the Government has given councils the opportunity to maintain teacher numbers.

I will assist Opposition members with constructive opposition.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

rose—

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

As a back bencher in the Government party, I am happy to provide Rhona Brankin with that assistance, so I ask her please to listen. Opposition members should ask the Government how it intends to work with local authorities that are not performing to drive forward the agenda on teacher numbers and class sizes. The approach of blaming the Scottish Government for any council that is not making better progress on education surely gives local authorities a get-out-of-jail-free card. For example, in Glasgow, a Labour council is acting with impunity and arrogance in closing schools and not replacing retiring teachers. The Liberal Democrats had an opportunity to use the topic of teacher numbers to place the spotlight on a wayward local authority and to attempt to help devastated parents throughout Glasgow but, oh no, the Lib Dems did not choose that option. Instead, they put narrow party-political opportunism ahead of parents.

Let me help out the Liberal Democrats. Will the minister enter into discussions with those local authorities that we would like to make more progress than they are currently making? When he does so, let us hope that the message that he passes on from the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party is not to encourage councils to do as poorly as possible so that they can blame the SNP Government. Parents will not buy it and voters will not buy it. We will stand up for education.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

I begin by thanking the Liberal Democrats for introducing a useful debate this morning.

As members have made clear, it is unarguable that education has been the poor relation in the first two years of the SNP Government. On teacher numbers, it has failed. On class sizes of 18, it has failed. On physical education in schools, it has failed. On nursery teachers, it has failed. On the school building programme, it has failed. Nowhere in the SNP manifesto did it say, "These are our hopes for education, but it is entirely up to each and every local authority as to whether they choose to fulfil any of these promises," yet that is the policy stance of this Government.

I genuinely welcome the regret that the Minister for Schools and Skills has expressed today—I think for the first time—about the falling teacher numbers in Scotland, and I hope that we will also hear regret about the cuts in nursery teacher numbers in Scotland. However, the disturbing aspect of the Government's approach is that in this place it continues to profess commitments on teacher numbers, nursery teachers, class sizes of 18 and physical education in schools, yet it is not prepared to do anything about them. The Government has a laissez-faire approach to what is happening in schools up and down the country.

The odd private chat with a council does not make a policy. After two years, that is what the schools minister and the cabinet secretary need to address. Even more disturbing than trying to suggest that a private chat amounts to a policy is the fact that while ministers rarely miss the opportunity to condemn publicly the education decisions of Opposition party-run councils—we have just had a spectacular example of that from the back benches—they avoid studiously any criticism of SNP-run councils. As so often with this Government, we are driven to the conclusion that party politics comes first and the fate of our children second. I want to hear from ministers today whether they will do better than praising Renfrewshire Council, whose performance on education, spending, teacher numbers and curricular choice is frankly a disgrace. However, so far, we have had nothing but warm words from the cabinet secretary.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I know that the member is astute in researching her figures. Is she aware that there has been an increase in spend per pupil in Renfrewshire under the most recent council budget?

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

Indeed I am. I will deal directly with the spending issue. This year, the Scottish Government received a 4 per cent increase in cash terms from the Westminster block grant. Renfrewshire Council got a grant increase of more than 3 per cent from the Scottish Government this year, but it spent less than 1 per cent extra on education services—that is a real-terms cut in education spending in Renfrewshire. I would like to hear what the cabinet secretary has to say about that, because when she has been challenged on the point before, she has defended it on the basis that rolls are falling. Let me enlighten her—school rolls in Renfrewshire are falling by less than 2 per cent and teacher numbers have fallen by in excess of 6 per cent. Is that acceptable?

I offer the cabinet secretary more statistics. Renfrewshire now has the worst pupil to teacher ratios of all Scottish secondary schools. Average class sizes in primary 1 did not come down or stabilise last year in Renfrewshire; they rose. Renfrewshire has one of the worst records on curricular choices as regards the withdrawal of highers and advanced highers, and the total number of nursery teachers has been halved.

I will conclude on this point: personally, I have a lot of time for the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning—we sat on the Education Committee together. However, two years into office, she faces a fundamental choice.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The member must wind up.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

Is the character of her leadership of Scottish education simply to defend what her party colleagues have done or will she mount a defence of parents, pupils and teachers irrespective of the political colour of the local administration? I hope for the sake of Scottish education—

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

We now move to the wind-up speeches.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

This morning, the Liberal Democrats have given us yet another opportunity to discuss the SNP's broken promises on education. As members will know, it is a recurring theme in the chamber, in that it does not seem many weeks since we debated the self-same topic. Much to the dismay of members on the SNP benches, no doubt, this is a well that never runs dry when Opposition parties look for a subject to debate.

Although the subject of this morning's debate is education, it is disappointing that the Liberal Democrat motion does not refer to higher education or student funding. This week, an unprecedented coalition of student leaders in Scotland and Opposition education spokesmen have queued up to point the finger at the SNP Government for breaking its manifesto pledges. We well remember that just two years ago, SNP candidates on campuses up and down the land were wooing students with promises to wipe out student debt. How quickly that relationship with the student body has turned sour. Earlier this week, the cabinet secretary told student leaders to grow up and stop complaining. Perhaps she needs lessons in how to win friends and influence people, if that is the way that she approaches an important body of the electorate.

There is much in the Liberal Democrat motion with which we can agree. The Liberal Democrats are right to draw attention to many of the problems in education, such as the drop of 1,000 in teacher numbers in Scotland's schools and the microscopic progress on class size reductions. However, I say to the Liberal Democrats that they seem to have a selective memory when it comes to some of the longer-term problems in Scottish education. We know—and this point is fairly made in the Government amendment—that achievement and attainment standards have stayed steady in Scotland while those of our international competitors have improved considerably. Although Scotland once did well in comparison with the rest of the world, we have been slipping down the table in recent years. For their part in government during the previous eight years, the Liberal Democrats must bear at least some of the responsibility.

We cannot agree with the proposal in the Liberal Democrat motion for a detailed workforce plan for teaching. That is the top-down centralist approach that is exactly the opposite of what we require if we are to improve Scottish education.

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

I am interested in what the member's solutions are to local discretion or a top-down approach. Is he comfortable with the Conservative policy of primary academies, about which we are hearing, but from which the member has distanced himself? That policy would mean a top-down approach from private enterprises.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The member refers to a policy that is being introduced south of the border. Of course we will study the detail of it with great interest.

I am glad that Mr Purvis intervened, because he is the Liberal Democrat finance spokesman. I am interested to know how the Liberal Democrats have costed the proposal in their motion—I listened in vain for Margaret Smith to spell that out.

As the Liberal Democrats will know, the Parliament's Finance Committee heard earlier this week that the Scottish budget is likely to fall in real terms by between £2 billion and £4 billion, a figure that puts in the shade not just the current concerns about cuts of £500 million but, even more significant, the proposed Liberal Democrat cuts of £800 million that we heard so much about during the budget discussions.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

Will the member give way?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am sorry; I do not think that I have time.

We all know that the blame lies entirely at the door of Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling for their economic mismanagement and ruination of the public finances of this country. Notwithstanding that fact, we in this Parliament cannot ignore the impact that those cuts will have on public funding. That means that every time we make a proposal in this Parliament, it is incumbent on us to say how much it will cost and where the money will come from. Once again on that score, the Liberal Democrats have been found wanting.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

I, too, thank the Lib Dems for this morning's debate.

This week, I met a bright young probationary teacher who was full of enthusiasm for his job, school and pupils. However, when I asked him about his plans for the future, his enthusiasm dimmed visibly—his hope was replaced by anxiety and pessimism. I discovered that both he and his wife are probationers and that both are so depressed by their job prospects that they are actively considering finding work in Spain. That is not the first time that I or other members have heard such a story. How long must we hear such stories before the cabinet secretary takes action to help? For how many years is the cabinet secretary willing to preside over such an appalling loss of talent?

The contrast with the record of the previous Administration could not be greater. The teacher to whom I referred was in charge of a small group of pupils. I was asked, as MSPs often are, which achievements we in the Scottish Parliament are most proud of. Like many, I mentioned first the smoking ban, but I went on—as I nearly always do—to point to the difference that we have made over the past decade to our schools and the life chances of so many young people. We have provided new school buildings, smaller classes, better-paid teachers, nursery education for all and classroom assistants in all schools—the list is comprehensive. In fact, it is so comprehensive that it makes a mockery of the SNP's attempt to defend its record by challenging and attacking us. I challenge the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning to find one teacher who does not believe that the previous Administration made a significant difference to Scottish education.

Perhaps what is most ironic, or just depressing, this morning is that I used to think that there was a shared agenda and that at least some on the liberal/social democratic wing of the SNP—if it exists—identified with our vision and shared some of our commitment to education. In government, as in opposition, SNP ministers have not been shy about using our language or adopting our policies. For example, this morning the SNP promised—in theory, at least—to continue the reforms that are encapsulated in the curriculum for excellence. However, in practice, we find that ministers will not provide any money for implementation or continuous professional development. They then wonder why teachers are unhappy.

Another example is the SNP commitment to build schools, which was mentioned by Margaret Smith, Karen Whitefield, Rhona Brankin and almost everyone else who has spoken this morning. The commitment is to match brick for brick what we would have done; it is framed with reference to one of our benchmarks, rather than the SNP's targets. How hollow repetition of that promise sounds now. In practice, the SNP's dogmatic opposition to public-private partnerships comes before the needs of our children. Two years on, we find that not one new school has been commissioned in the whole of Scotland. Given the shortfall in public construction projects, SNP dogma appears to come before the needs of our economy, too.

Over the past couple of weeks, all members of the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee have found out that the SNP has similarly refused to fund the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Bill. Ministers talk a good game and say that they want to work with the committee to identify and improve the rights of Scotland's most vulnerable children but, when put to the test, they refuse to will the means to make that happen.

As many members have reminded us, this week Scotland's students have issued a general reminder to the cabinet secretary to address their needs, especially the issue of hardship. They could have castigated the SNP for breaking its promise to dump the debt; instead, they restricted their comments to questioning whether best use was being made of the limited sum of money that is available to tackle student hardship. As Murdo Fraser pointed out, the cabinet secretary's response was an arrogant and condescending put-down.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

In his discussions with the students, did the member remind them that, if Labour had won the 2007 election, they would still be having to pay for their tuition?

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

Yet again we are presented with the rather puerile defence, "Never mind us, you were even worse than we are." That is not an excuse for the SNP's failures.

I am disappointed by the SNP's contribution to the debate. The motion calls on the Scottish ministers to learn from their mistakes. I urge members to support it and Labour's amendment.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The Government is fully committed to improving Scottish education. Excellence in education is central to the ambitions that we have for Scotland and its people.

Scotland has succeeded and prospered and has historically made its mark on the world precisely because of the quality of our education. We have been at the leading edge of educational innovation in the world since 1696. Of late, under the previous Administration, Scotland has fallen behind the front-runners in education performance internationally, and into the following pack. That point was highlighted most markedly in the trends in international mathematics and science study survey that was carried out in April 2007. Between 2003 and 2007, performance in secondary 2 science declined. The Government is determined that we should regain our place at the forefront of change and improvement. Our education science summit will take place on Tuesday, and we will tackle the decline in performance that took place under the watch of the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party.

The vehicle that will propel us to the front of the field again is the curriculum for excellence—the programme of transformational change that will drive up standards by freeing the professionalism of teachers to support our children and young people. Given how important that agenda is to Scotland's future, the failure of the Liberal Democrats to present constructive education policies in the debate is disappointing.

To address some of the points that have been made, I will focus on the action that the Government has taken on teachers. Despite the fact that we provided funding to maintain teacher numbers fully, despite the fact that we provided an extra £9 million in baseline funding to provide 300 additional teachers in 2007—I make that point to Mike Rumbles—and despite the fact that we have provided £4 million to fund 100 teachers to support the curriculum for excellence this year, the Liberal Democrats still want to attack the Government.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

We provide the funding—we are not the employers.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Is she feart?

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Order.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

No.

Margaret Smith may want to consider raising her concerns with Jenny Dawe in Edinburgh, Kate Dean in Aberdeen and Eileen McCartin in Renfrewshire—all Liberal Democrat leaders—and asking them why they have not used the resources with which they have been provided to maintain teacher numbers. They are the Liberal Democrat leaders—granted, in administration with the SNP—of three of the four local authorities that are responsible for more than 50 per cent of the drop that is recorded in the teacher census.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Is it in order for a cabinet secretary not to take any interventions after members took many interventions from her?

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I suspect that Rhona Brankin, who is a member of long standing, knows the answer to that question. It is up to the member who is speaking to decide whether to take interventions.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

I would like to address some of the points that have been made in the debate. The number of people in teacher training is back at 2007 levels. This year 3,662 students will be trained in four-year and one-year courses. That figure is higher than the average number of teachers who were trained each year under the previous Administration, which was only 3,144.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I ask the member to wait for one second.

The figure is down by only 4 per cent. Teacher training will take place at levels that are comparable with those of 2007. If Mike Rumbles is patient, I will give him the opportunity to intervene.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

The cabinet secretary has already heard me refer to the statement that she made on 20 June 2007, in which she said:

"After only a month in office, we are already working to meet other parties' demands for 1,000 new teachers."—[Official Report, 20 June 2007; c 882.]

Does she accept not only that the Government has failed to do that but that it has dropped 1,000 new teachers? Does she take personal responsibility for that failure?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

If Mike Rumbles had been listening, he would have heard me make the point that in August 2007 we provided £9 million in extra baseline funding for 300 additional teachers. Do I take responsibility for putting extra funding into education to increase teacher numbers? I do indeed.

More primary and secondary teachers are in employment now than in any year of the previous Administration except 2006. Even with the reduction in teacher numbers, we are still making progress. We have the lowest class sizes in primary 1 to P7, the lowest pupil to teacher ratios and record-level funding for pupils. There has been a real-terms increase, despite the tight settlement from Westminster. Murdo Fraser provided us with a reality check. The £500 million of public sector cuts that may extend into the future are a serious agenda, which is why quality in education must be the focus.

I am conscious of time and want to address the Conservative amendment. Elizabeth Smith talked about issues related to assessment. Work on assessment generally, and on literacy and numeracy in particular, continues. I have already stated publicly that the assessment framework plans will be announced this summer. The means for ensuring that primary school children are properly assessed and tested in literacy and numeracy before they leave primary 7 will be part of that framework. As the member knows, the Government is not in favour of external tests in this area, but we need a robust assessment system that is nationally benchmarked.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The cabinet secretary needs to wind up.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I will. I am happy to accept the Conservative amendment on the basis that I have outlined.

The Liberal Democrats want us to revert to a centralist form of administration. We think that local authorities, including those that are led by Liberal Democrats, can and will achieve. We will continue to discuss with them how we can roll out the curriculum for excellence to improve our education system.

Hugh O'Donnell (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

I wish to clarify a couple of comments that Murdo Fraser made in relation to our motion. The workforce planning group, as part of the programme that it is working on, could easily address the point that Margaret Smith's motion highlights, about the plan. It would not necessarily cost any more money. I would be interested to see what progress the cabinet secretary will make on the recommendations that the workforce planning group has made—which she has already accepted, of course.

That aside, birthdays and anniversaries, even second ones, are normally happy occasions. The debate perfectly illustrates the fact that this second birthday of the Government is far from being a happy one as far as education is concerned. The catalogue of failures and broken promises that have been inflicted on Scottish education is thicker than the one than Argos provides. The details of failure have been amply demonstrated by various speakers in the debate this morning, so there is no great value in my intruding on private grief within the SNP and on the part of the cabinet secretary, when so many members have already done so much more effectively than I could.

I agree that everyone here recognises the importance of a good education base for the success of individuals in our country. All the political parties, including the Liberal Democrats, made substantial commitments on education two years ago. In the end, however—this is the point of our motion—the SNP became the Administration on the back of its substantial promises, including a brick-for-brick pledge and the commitment on class sizes. At current rates, as Margaret Smith has already said, it would take 87 years to bring them down. The SNP also made promises on the numbers of teachers, nursery teachers and training places, on student support, and so on. It is the SNP that must be held to account. This is not a comparative exercise about who is doing better. The fact is that the SNP made its commitments, but has universally failed to deliver on them.

"Scottish education has been lacking in strong political leadership. It's time for new energy, actual delivery".

It was not me who said that, but I agree entirely with the cabinet secretary's assessment—although how she could have known when she said it just how badly the SNP was going to do is a mystery.

The lack of teachers in Scottish schools is a ticking time bomb in education. Well, cabinet secretary, that time bomb has exploded on your watch. Who are you going to blame this time? Are you going to blame Westminster? Most of the events concerned took place before there were any indications of budget cuts in the block grant.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

Will the member take an intervention?

Hugh O'Donnell (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

I will not at this stage, I am afraid.

How about the councils? You cannot blame them, cabinet secretary. You are in a concordat with them. You are supposed to be making them do what you want as part of that concordat. That is what Government is about. However, you are so afraid of rocking the boat—

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Could the member speak through the chair?

Hugh O'Donnell (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

I beg your pardon, Presiding Officer. The cabinet secretary is so afraid of rocking the boat in relation to the concordat that nothing happens. The cabinet secretary made promises as a candidate, time and again. There was press release after press release—and I have every one of them with me here.

One deputy minister has already been sacrificed on the altar of failure in education—the failure of the cabinet secretary. The new Minister for Schools and Skills has barely had time to get the seat warm but, if the past is anything to go by, he had better not get too comfortable in the job. The cabinet secretary has to take responsibility for the Government's unmitigated failures. She must stand up and be counted—they are the cabinet secretary's failures. Nobody is fooled any more—if anyone ever actually was—by the SNP blaming Westminster for shortages of money, rolling up budgets and claiming that it has given local authorities bigger budgets. It was all in the SNP's manifesto pledges, with no ifs, no buts, no maybes, and nothing contingent on compliance. It is time the SNP Government realised that Lincoln was right: you can fool some of the people some of the time,

"but you can't fool all of the people all the time."

That is coming home to roost for the Government.

Economy

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-4006, in the name of Liam McArthur, on the economy.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

It is almost a year since Alasdair Allan, Tavish Scott and I were engaged in a Dutch auction as to whose constituency boasted the most outlandish price for a litre of petrol or diesel. I won, or rather Eday and North Ronaldsay in my constituency won, but it was a victory from which I drew absolutely no satisfaction. Since that debate, the price of oil has tumbled from about $130 to just over $50 a barrel. That has provided some relief to islanders and to those who live and work in rural communities throughout Scotland. However, the consensus remains that oil prices will not stay this low for long—that is a reflection of economic and environmental reality.

Consensus exists, too—at least, it did during the debate last May—on the need to take steps to safeguard our more fragile communities and economies. There is recognition that in remote rural areas a car is rarely a luxury, and that public transport alternatives to the private car will inevitably always be limited. There is also recognition that such communities, particularly on the islands, already pay a significant premium through far higher fuel costs. A Liberal Democrat survey that has been published today puts that premium at between 10 per cent and 12 per cent. The financial and social impact of that on households and businesses can be punitive, especially when there are the sort of price rises that occurred through the back end of 2007 and into 2008.

Will that consensus give rise to a solution to the specific challenge that faces remote rural areas? I believe that it could and should. It is a solution that will be achieved through action by the United Kingdom Government at Europe level, but a clear statement of intent from this Parliament can help to bring it about.

The energy products directive, quaintly named 92/82/EEC, states:

"it is possible to permit certain Member States to apply reduced rates to products consumed within particular regions of their territories".

On that basis, France, Greece and Portugal operate derogations for their remote and island areas. Inexplicably, however, although the UK Government has supported that approach in those member states, it has resisted any attempt thus far to introduce such a scheme in any part of UK.

Each time my Liberal Democrat colleagues at Westminster have tabled amendments to finance bills calling for such a derogation for remote rural areas in Scotland, it has been voted down by Labour and Tory MPs.

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Western Isles)

I welcome the support of the member's colleagues at Westminster for the plight of rural car users, but could he explain why some of his colleagues at Westminster—at least Ming Campbell, Jo Swinson and Willie Rennie—all voted to increase the price of fuel in the recent budget?

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

It is interesting that Alasdair Allan issues his attacks before the debate, although it is usually done through Dave Thompson. I will come to that. The SNP supports the establishment of a regulator, which would have absolutely no impact on the premium that is paid by Alasdair Allan's constituents or, indeed, by mine.

UK Labour ministers warn of the dangers of petrol tourism, but that is frankly ridiculous. It is akin to suggesting that people will drive around looking for free parking spaces. Prices are likely to remain higher in rural areas, albeit that they will be less dramatically or painfully high than at present, even after the introduction of such a scheme. I encourage Peter Peacock, David Stewart and other Highland colleagues to use their influence to ensure that when the UK Cabinet next goes on tour, it makes it north of Inverness, so that ministers can see for themselves why the notion of the Highlands and Islands ever becoming a Mecca for petrol tourists is the stuff of "Alice in Wonderland".

Tory MPs, too, have consistently voted down any attempt to have such a derogation considered at Westminster. Last May, Gavin Brown at least agreed that the initiative was "worthy of examination".

David Stewart (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I thank the member for raising the issue of the Cabinet tour. I can let Mr McArthur know that I have already written to the Prime Minister, inviting him to come to the Highlands to hold a full meeting of the Cabinet there.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

That is excellent and welcome news. I am sure that the Cabinet will consider the derogation then.

Despite Gavin Brown's comment, there was a catch, as is invariably the case with Mr Browns. Sure enough, the Tories have provided the long grass into which the Scottish ministers will happily kick the issue later today. I am a little surprised that Alex Johnstone is performing the role of gardener. If SNP ministers are so thirled to the idea that the Tories have put forward in their amendment, it is hard to fathom why Mike Russell did not implement it immediately after last May's members' business debate on fuel costs. Alasdair Allan did not call for an impact assessment on a derogation last May when we debated the motion in his name, and nor did his SNP colleagues who spoke in the debate. The SNP called for action and for a clear statement from Parliament. The SNP called for a commitment to press the UK Government for a derogation. Given that there was no vote on Alasdair Allan's motion, perhaps they felt able to speak up for their constituents.

Of course, the SNP's preference is not for a derogation but for a fuel duty regulator. The basis on which that would operate has changed almost as often as oil prices have changed over recent years. Stewart Hosie, to his credit, has been remarkably honest in his assessment of the ever-changing approach to a regulator, and has said that the approach is not perfect—there is no false modesty there. When he was asked whether a fuel duty regulator would do anything to address the premium that is paid in rural areas such as the Western Isles and Orkney or whether the premium would be enshrined by the regulator, he confessed that,

"Sadly, it is the latter".

In its most recent incarnation, SNP policy is that

"indexed fuel duty increases shall be frozen until the international oil prices"

drop. Mr Hosie has said that freezes on fuel duty would be

"automatically triggered by world oil prices."

and that

"It is not our intention to deny the Government any money ... when the price goes down."—[Official Report, House of Commons, 6 July 2005; c 362-3.]

Therefore, under the SNP's proposal, when oil prices dropped in January, the SNP's regulator would have automatically ended and duty rises would have been unfrozen. Under the SNP proposal, Scottish motorists, including motorists in my constituency and Alasdair Allan's constituency, would have experienced duty rises in January rather than in April, when they voted against rises, or in September. The SNP MPs were quite happy to wave the September rises through Parliament without demanding a vote.

It is sad that there was no opportunity to vote on Alasdair Allan's motion last May, but Liberal Democrats are offering Parliament another opportunity today. I will be interested to see whether SNP members vote with their consciences and for their constituents or with their whip.

I am pleased to move, That the Parliament notes the UK Budget and the plans to increase fuel duty; recognises the high premium over the national average paid for fuel at filling stations in remote rural and particularly island areas and the financial and social impact that this has on individuals and businesses; believes that increased fuel duty will have a damaging effect on the economy and competitiveness in these areas, not least due to the limited public transport alternatives; notes that current EU law allows fuel duty to be cut by up to 2.4p per litre and that this power is already used in France, Portugal and Greece, and calls on the Scottish Government to work with the UK Government and the European Commission before the final passage of the Finance Bill to construct a derogation under the EU energy products directive, or otherwise, to permit variable rates of duty for specified remote rural areas to bring down the price of fuel at the pump to that available in other parts of the United Kingdom.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

It is my pleasure to speak to the amendment on behalf of the Conservative group. I welcome the opportunity that the Liberal Democrats have given us to consider the price of fuel, which is a fundamental problem for Scotland's rural economy. I assure members that we are not opposed in principle to the proposal in the motion and will not oppose it. Towards the end of my speech I will explain why we think Parliament should support the amendment that we have lodged.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Will the member take a quick intervention on that point?

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

No.

It is important that we address rural fuel prices, because as fuel prices have risen they have had a compound effect on the cost of running businesses and vehicles in rural Scotland. When fuel costs are high, it is natural that they should be even higher in remote areas, because the cost of transport is higher in such areas. We need to tackle that compound effect.

The Government has considered options for relieving the burden on business and travellers in Scotland's far-flung areas—particularly the islands. The jury is still out on the current experiment with the road equivalent tariff on routes to our islands, but it will be interesting to learn how the approach affects investment and tourism in island communities.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I note that the Conservatives have never argued for an impact assessment that considers whether emissions increase or decrease as a result of the RET. Will they call for such an assessment now, for consistency?

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

We might consider the need for such an assessment, which we have not called for in relation to the RET. We have taken no position on whether we support the RET because we want to examine the results of the current trial before we decide whether it is appropriate. The figures to which Liam McArthur referred might well be made available in the future.

The Scottish Government has proposed a fuel price regulator. Many members are aware that the Conservatives in London are considering the possibility of a fuel price stabiliser, which has significant similarities to the SNP's proposed regulator. We hope to consider our proposal when we are in Government and in a position to bring it forward.

We must be careful not to tie ourselves into a particular course of action. That is good advice for the Liberal Democrats, whose record on fuel tax demonstrates that they have had a number of policies over the years. I understand that they fought the 1997 election campaign on a commitment that the fuel price escalator be increased to 8 per cent. Since then, they have proposed that fuel taxes be slashed and the equivalent money raised through higher vehicle excise duty. Today, Liberal Democrats are proposing a different option.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Will the member take an intervention, given that he has talked about the Liberal Democrats' position?

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Okay—go on then.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I thank Alex Johnstone. The member is never out of The Press and Journal, calling for action to reduce petrol prices for rural areas in north-east Scotland. We are giving him the chance to do just that, but the amendment in his name would remove that chance by calling instead for a study.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

We are considering the impact on the islands and the most distant areas. However, Mike Rumbles has raised the issue, so I make the point that all Scotland's distant rural areas and areas that have more urban populations, such as the north-east, suffer from high fuel costs. The Liberal Democrat proposal would not address problems in Scotland's fishing and farming communities, nor would it address the impact on the road haulage industry and all the other industries in more distant rural areas that depend on road haulage for their profitability. That includes industries that are based in Aberdeen, which are affected by the cost of road haulage, given their distance from the main markets. We need to think more broadly about the impact of fuel tax on the Scottish economy, particularly in the peripheral areas. The motion does not do that and addresses only the cost of fuel at filling stations.

I would like to think that the Liberal Democrats will take a responsible position on funding their proposal. Will they clarify whether they want the proposal to be addressed through Westminster or should the power to do that be devolved to the Scottish Government, as they said in their submission to the Calman commission on Scottish devolution? If the latter is their preferred route, they must identify the funding savings that will be necessary.

I lodged the amendment to ensure that at decision time we do not simply ask the Westminster Government to note a position. We want direct action by the Scottish Government.

I therefore move amendment S3M-4006.1, to leave out from "notes that current" to end and insert:

"and calls on the Scottish Government to report back to the Parliament on the extent to which a fuel duty derogation for rural areas would be permissible under EU law and what impact such a derogation would have on carbon emissions and the Scottish budget."

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I congratulate the Liberals for lodging the motion and giving us the opportunity to debate an important subject. The Scottish Government is concerned about increases in fuel duty, which affect our rural communities and businesses throughout Scotland. That is why our parliamentarians at Westminster voted against rises on Tuesday night. I congratulate Mr Rumbles's colleague Robert Smith for voting against the fuel duty rise, and I hope that the debate will provide the Liberals, who voted every which way on Tuesday night, with an opportunity to clarify their overall position.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I am interested in the minister's point about voting patterns, as the SNP MPs did not vote against the September rise. The fuel duty regulator would have done nothing to the premium that is paid for petrol in the Highlands and Islands. The fuel duty rise was also irrelevant to it.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I make it clear that we will support the motion in Liam McArthur's name. We are open to any effective way of addressing the problem.

There is a substantial volume of letters flowing between us and other parties on the subject. My colleague, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth, wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 14 November highlighting what had been done in France using derogation, and commented that

"By applying for this derogation the UK Government could reduce the tax on fuel borne by consumers in rural Scotland, including the islands."

However, the chancellor seems to think that administrative barriers would get in the way. He said in his reply of 27 November that

"The process of drawing the boundaries of any fuel duty rebate area would be extremely complicated."

It is quite simple. We have already done it. There are 149 filling stations in Scotland that we suggest should be considered for such a derogation. They are defined as being very remote, which means that they are at least 60 minutes' travel away from a community of 10,000 or more. That is 45 per cent of our filling stations. They are all low-turnover rural stations that are vital to the communities in which they operate.

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

Will the minister give way?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I am sorry—I do not have time, in my short speech.

The bottom line is that there are aspects on which we have broad sympathy with the motion, which gives us the option to consider a range of ways forward. We should be sensible and pragmatic and exclude nothing. I hope that the debate will draw together across the Parliament consensus that there is, although there is a range of options available, the necessity for action. If derogations can be applied elsewhere, it should be possible to do so in the UK. By the way, a proper scheme would also benefit filling stations in other parts of the United Kingdom, such as Cumbria, the south-west of England and Wales.

We provide various supports to transport for our remote and rural communities, particularly ferry services. We are bearing the fuel price risk for many ferry services, which at least insulates communities from that risk. We are also conducting a substantial trial on the road equivalent tariff. We have seen some local reports, which I have not yet personally verified, that the fuel price difference between the Isle of Harris and the mainland has shrunk substantially mainly because the RET means that new tankers are carrying fuel to Harris in competition with some of the incumbents.

There are things happening and we are doing things. We have carried out initial work on how a derogation might apply in Scotland and we continue to explore options for going some way towards offsetting the current differentials. However, I am afraid that the UK Government is remarkably intransigent and inflexible in respect of considering options. Therefore, I hope that that the Parliament will unite—and that the Labour Party will join the other parties which are, so far, indicating a broad consensus on the subject—to find a way forward that will benefit rural dwellers throughout the UK and—fundamentally—those whom we represent in Scotland.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

We debated a motion on the cost of fuel in the Western Isles and the northern isles on 28 May 2008, which also happened to be the day on which Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling held a summit meeting in Aberdeen with the leaders of the UK oil and gas industry. Those of us who attended the cross-party group on oil and gas yesterday evening heard a good deal about the consequences of that meeting and the ways in which it was reflected in the announcements that were made in last week's budget. The discussions in May last year also set the context for today's debate.

As members know, the price of Brent crude peaked last summer at $147 a barrel. The average price in 2008 was $97; in the year to date, it has been only $45. Those crude oil prices are the greatest influence on the cost of fuel at the pump, and the lower oil price is the main reason why unleaded petrol retails at £1 or less a litre in most of mainland Scotland and, indeed, in the Isle of Harris today.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Will Lewis Macdonald tell us what proportion of the pump price is taxation and how that compares with the proportion elsewhere in Europe?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

The minister knows the answer to that question and knows that it is high for reasons to do with tackling climate change, an issue that I would have thought is close to his policy priorities.

The differential in retail prices in rural Scotland still exists, albeit that it is less than it was. It is entirely reasonable to ask the Scottish ministers what they will do about that, but it is also important to acknowledge that the price of a litre of diesel in Kirkwall or Lerwick today is some 10p less than it was in Aberdeen or Edinburgh at the time of our previous debate on the matter.

Today's motion offers little challenge to the Scottish ministers to address the relative disadvantage of island consumers. That is disappointing, because Tavish Scott said last May:

"We certainly need action, but we need it here in Edinburgh as well as in London."—[Official Report, 28 May 2008; c 9069.]

That emphasis seems to have been lost a little today. Instead, the focus of the motion is entirely on UK excise duty on fuel.

The chancellor wisely postponed a 2p rise in fuel duty when oil prices were at their peak. He has now brought in that increase while, at the same time, introducing new field allowances offshore and abolishing some elements of the taxation that used to apply when North Sea assets changed hands. That seems to me a sensible balance of maximising production, limiting carbon impacts and protecting public revenues.

That sensible balance of production and consumption has its origins in the Aberdeen summit that took place at the time of our previous debate. Following that summit, Treasury ministers considered a rural fuel duty rebate but rejected the idea for a wide range of reasons. The most fundamental was the simple fact that differentials in price are not a result of differentials in duty, because differentials in duty do not exist. Differentials in price arise despite the Government charging consumers everywhere a single, standard rate. If the tax take on a litre of fuel in the islands is greater than that on a litre of fuel in the cities, it is not because of a difference that the Government has imposed but because of a difference that those selling the fuel have imposed.

That is why it is disappointing that parties in the Scottish Parliament continue to focus on matters for which the Parliament is not responsible. It is disappointing that John Swinney continues merely to write to Treasury ministers about the tax issue as if he believed that he was unable to address it directly. Surely the right approach for the Scottish ministers and members of this Parliament is to focus on the causes of the differential prices that fuel suppliers set and to consider what they can do to address them. That is the real issue within the scope of devolved powers.

The Scottish ministers are piloting road equivalent tariffs on ferry travel to the Western Isles, but they need to explain why they have failed to extend that price intervention to the retail or wholesale price of fuel. They have responsibility for harbour dues, which directly or indirectly have a bearing on the cost of delivering fuel. They also have powers to provide additional support for rural transport. All those measures are within their competence, and John Swinney and Stewart Stevenson should take a leaf out of Alistair Darling's and Gordon Brown's book—

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The world's biggest debt?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Presiding Officer, I want to complete this point without sedentary interventions from the minister. I am encouraging him to follow the good example of the chancellor and Prime Minister of Great Britain, and to sit down with the producers and refiners of oil, the suppliers of fuel and the retailers of petrol and diesel and agree what they can do to address differential pricing. John Swinney and Stewart Stevenson should accept that varying the tax rates is not a simple answer that they can hide behind when it comes to addressing variable prices. They should stop using fuel duty as an alibi for doing nothing and use the powers that they have, as any mature and responsible Government should.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

If anything sums up the limitations of devolution, it is a debate about fuel duties that are set in London. We should first consider the issue of fuel prices in the round. The current situation in Scotland, according to this month's AA survey, is that the average price of diesel is 102.3p. Of course, it is much dearer than that in the north and the Western Isles. In Ireland, the comparable price is 84.2p—so a country that is derided for its economic difficulties has not set further difficulties for its remote communities.

Interestingly, much of the fuel that is used in Donegal comes from tanks in Belfast. The lorries pass through the international boundary and their contents are then served up to customers in Ireland. Setting fuel prices in that international context shows that it is possible to have different policies in different countries. Unfortunately, however, we are tied to the inflexible UK policy, and UK policy making means that the north of Scotland, the northern isles and the Western Isles suffer hugely year in, year out. It is a bad policy for the whole of Britain, but the Lib Dems seem to support the idea of continuing that policy in Britain. Have they not submitted to the Calman commission the idea of dealing with fuel duties in the Scottish Parliament? If not, why not?

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

When Alasdair Allan moved his motion last May, he was at pains to point out that he was not arguing for lower duties in the round and that his was an environmental argument. He said that he was trying to attack the premium that was paid in the Highlands and Islands. What alternative system does Rob Gibson advocate? Is it to have flat-rate duties à la Spain, or what?

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

We are in a moving situation. We advocate a different proposal from that of the Lib Dems, but I will come to that in a minute. First, I want to deal with the proposers of the motion and how they behave.

If we had the relevant taxation powers in the Scottish Parliament, we could decide what levels were suitable and, indeed, whether people in cities should pay more than those in the countryside, rather than the other way round. We could decide whether the duty should be a flat rate. We could decide many such matters in Scotland, as other countries do for themselves.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

Will the member take an intervention?

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Not at the moment, thank you. I want to make some progress, and I would not do so if the member intervened.

The Liberal Democrats say one thing in one part of Scotland and another elsewhere in Scotland. The minister referred to the fact that the Liberal Democrats' recent voting record in the House of Commons has been all over the place. Thirty-seven Liberal Democrats, including some from the central belt of Scotland, voted for increases in duty. Mr Rennie, Menzies Campbell and Jo Swinson were among those who voted against the interests of the people of the north. We found that only two Highland and Islands Liberals, one of whom is from Argyll, had the guts to get up and vote against the increase. The others—Mr Kennedy, Lord John Thurso, Alistair Carmichael and Danny Alexander—managed to absent themselves from the vote. However, they were present for the vote on the next amendment or the previous one—whichever it was—on alcohol duties.

I have to ask members: where are their guts? They do not stand up for the people in the Highlands, despite the fact that every time an election comes along there is another Lib Dem fuel petition. "Yes, indeed," they say, "we are fighting hard to stop what amounts to an unfair fuel tax on the north." I wonder what happens to all the signatures that they claim they get for their petitions. Do the petitions get ripped up in Liberal headquarters before they are presented to anyone because they oppose—

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

Will the member give way?

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I am not finished.

Do they get ripped up because they oppose UK Lib Dem policy? We need an answer to that question.

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

Charles Kennedy and I delivered the petition on fuel prices to the Treasury. The member may care to ask the chancellor what he did with it.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Please face the microphone when speaking, Mr Stone.

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

Members can hear me anyway.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Every time an election is imminent, those Lib Dem petitions arise. We have a proposal today from the Liberal Democrats that seeks to ask the British Government to apply here European Union powers whose use in other countries it supported. I suggest that, in the UK context, we could use the SNP's fuel duty proposal. A forecasting mechanism for VAT revenues would be created so that, when VAT went past a specific point, the high revenues would be used to offset the price of fuel. There would be specific reductions in sparsely populated areas. As the minister pointed out, the 149 fuel pumps that represent 45 per cent of filling stations in Scotland would be targeted.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

You are over your time, Mr Gibson.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

We ask members to support the idea of having such a method, but we must ensure that we have the basic right to decide fuel prices here in future.

David Stewart (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I welcome the opportunity to make a brief contribution to the debate. I thank Liam McArthur and his team for giving us an opportunity to have the debate today.

I am a Highlander whose first job was in Dumfries. I must confess that I was once a fresh-faced councillor in my 20s. I am well aware of the effect that—

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

You still are fresh faced.

David Stewart (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I thank Jamie Stone for that sedentary remark—I appreciate it.

I am well aware of the disproportionate effect that high fuel prices have on rural communities—on the haulier from Lerwick and the pensioner from Lossiemouth. I start with a slight health warning. Rural areas cannot be easily packaged as a single, uniform area across Scotland. To be fair, the Scottish Government recognises that in its classification system, which goes from urban to accessible rural to remote rural. There is a world of difference between Inverness and Ardnamurchan and between Dumfries and Eskdalemuir.

I want to touch briefly on the work that was carried out by the previous Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee for its 2001 report on fuel prices, and consider briefly the Office of Fair Trading and EKOS reports from the same era. I make a passing reference to the important EU context for the debate, namely article 19 of the energy products directive.

Some members have already asked what determines the price of fuel in our rural filling stations. The Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee considered that in detail in 2001. As we all know, the price is determined by the elements of duty and VAT, along with upstream elements—for example, the cost of extraction and refining—and downstream retail elements. As Lewis Macdonald and other members have pointed out, there is also the element of the price of crude oil on the spot market in Amsterdam and the technical issue of the exchange rate between the pound and the dollar—international fuel prices are quoted in dollars.

In addition, individual petrol stations operate individual agreements with suppliers, leading to discounts, rebates and price support. As a general rule, prices in larger towns in rural areas, such as Dumfries and Elgin, are the same, within a few pence, as prices in cities such as Glasgow and Edinburgh. Why? Because suppliers provide price support there. However, lower-volume rural sites with standalone petrol stations that have no immediate competition have no price support and a higher retailer mark-up because volumes are lower, which leads to the higher price. For the technocrats among members, there is a good worked example of that process in appendix A of the OFT report of July 2000. Obviously, the prices were different then, but the underlying logic remains the same. As members have pointed out, that pricing effect is amplified in our super-rural and island communities.

The motion focuses on reserved issues and EU derogations on fuel duty. However, as Lewis Macdonald said, surely the emphasis should be on what the Scottish Parliament can do to promote social inclusion, economic development and community cohesion in Scotland, particularly in our remote rural and island communities. When the proposed fuel duty derogation was debated in Westminster, a series of issues was raised. Perhaps Mr Stone can address some of them in his winding-up speech. For example, what are the qualifying criteria for retail outlets? What guarantees will there be that the fuel duty reduction will be passed on to the customer? Danny Alexander MP quoted a cost of £35 million for the measure.

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Western Isles)

Will the member give way?

David Stewart (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I will just finish this point.

Is that to be a new Liberal Democrat spending commitment?

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Western Isles)

The member has outlined some of the pressures on fuel prices in rural areas. Does he believe that Greece, France and Portugal are wrong to think that the effect of fuel duty on pricing is relevant? Are they wrong to think that fuel tax needs to be adjusted in rural areas?

David Stewart (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I am glad that the member has raised that point, because I hope to touch on what happens elsewhere in the EU in a few seconds. That will answer the member's point.

What will happen with leakages across the borders between urban and rural areas? Who will qualify—will they be domestic users, businesses or tourists?

Finally—I see that my time is running out—there are other proposals that would benefit rural motorists. I flag up, for example, the rural transport fund that the previous Administration introduced, the rate relief that was introduced for rural petrol stations and the derogation from EU legislation that the UK Government secured for petrol vapour recovery.

In conclusion, I am in no doubt that fuel prices are a major burden, particularly on remote rural and island communities. However, there is no magic bullet. We must develop new public transport solutions—which will also be good for climate change—and support existing petrol stations. We should also consider the Scandinavian model of having unmanned petrol stations and look at co-operative buying, which Highland Council has done in the case of fishing. Of course we must pass on the savings to motorists. We must also pursue the idea of hosting a summit of rural petrol retailers. All those proposals would contribute to sustaining our rural communities.

Dave Thompson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

In Scotland, we have one of the world's most beautiful and diverse regions. For thousands of years, people have made their homes in places such as Skara Brae, Glencoe and Calanais. Captivated by the deep allure and stunning tranquillity of such areas, generations of appreciative Scots have nurtured the landscape and made a living out of it. Today, those communities face a harsh reality: economic inequalities and high transport costs make it harder to pay the bills and maintain a home. As a result, many people have left and our peripheral communities are in severe decline. Nowhere is that worse than in the more remote and isolated parts of the Highlands and Islands. That is why we will support the motion today.

As Liam McArthur's motion states, a derogation would allow us to reduce fuel duty by up to 2.4p per litre and is perfectly permissible under EU law. Unfortunately, we must rely on the Westminster Government to do that for us.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Does the member believe that there are any steps that the Scottish Government could take to address the differential pricing that affects rural areas?

Dave Thompson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I will come to that later in my speech, when I will answer Mr Macdonald's point.

I am afraid that we will have an awful long wait for Westminster to do anything, given Mr Macdonald's comments and those of David Stewart. Labour claims that introducing such a derogation would be too complicated but, as others have already pointed out, France, Portugal and Greece have secured derogations. I wonder how those countries managed to deal with the issues. Are we unable to come up with the same sort of arrangements that they have devised?

David Stewart (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Has the member analysed what happens in France? There may be a reduction in fuel prices in one part of France but there must be a higher price in urban areas, so the net effect on the French Government is zero. Is the member arguing that higher costs should be imposed on motorists in our urban areas?

Dave Thompson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I am arguing that we have the brains and wherewithal to devise a system that would benefit our remote and peripheral communities in Scotland.

In my work as a trading standards officer in the Highlands and Islands, I had responsibility for petrol licensing and storage and for enforcing pricing legislation. In that capacity, I was instrumental in getting the Office of Fair Trading to undertake quite a number of investigations into the supply and price of petrol. Mr Stewart suggested that ideas such as unmanned filling stations and so on would solve the problem. I tell him that although the OFT and Highland Council have been looking at the issue for 30 years, nothing has happened, so none of David Stewart's proposed solutions would affect the price of petrol in the Highlands and Islands.

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

Dave Thompson was nevertheless a good director at Highland Council.

Dave Thompson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I thank Jamie Stone for that. He was a good councillor, too.

As a result of high prices over the past 30 years, many of our small filling stations are struggling to survive. Many have closed down and those that remain rely on subsidies and on the sterling efforts of local communities. The fact that the OFT has been unable to do anything about the price of fuel means that the only way that the Highlands and Islands can ever achieve a level playing field is through political action. Unfortunately, almost all the cards are in the hands of Westminster and of those who do not want to do anything about the problem.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Will the member give way?

Dave Thompson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

No, I need to make progress.

Of course, some in Westminster say that they want to tackle the problem of high fuel prices but never seem to get round to doing anything when the crunch comes. Enter the happy band of Scottish Liberal Democrat MPs, who supported a 2p per litre increase in fuel duty in a vote on the budget proposals in Westminster two nights ago. As has already been mentioned, Ming Campbell, Willie Rennie and Jo Swinson voted in favour of that increase, whereas the rest of the Scottish Lib Dem contingent was posted missing. In answer to an earlier intervention, Liam McArthur said that the proposal will make no impact on the premium that is paid by our constituents. That is correct, but it will raise four times the amount that is raised by the new 50p tax rate and it will hit Scotland's poorest disproportionately hard.

I have no idea why Charles Kennedy, Danny Alexander, Lord Thurso and Alistair Carmichael—to name but four—did not turn up to protect the interests of their constituents, but the people of the Highlands and Islands deserve an answer. As leader of the Scottish Lib Dems, does Tavish Scott have anything to say about that? He has plenty to say about high fuel prices in his local press, but he remains strangely silent about his MPs' failure to protect his constituents. Perhaps Liam McArthur can give us the answer. Did they not think that the vote was important? Do they support increasing taxes as part of their green taxation policy? Do they just not care?

Whatever the answer, the Lib Dems did not take the opportunity to support the Highlands and Islands two days ago, and no amount of motions and waffle in this Parliament will hide that fact. They talk a good game, but their actions rarely match their words—"mealie-moothed" and "twa-faced" are the words that spring to mind. Nevertheless, I will support the Liberal Democrats' motion and hope against hope that they might just mean it this time.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

I actually have some sympathy for the Liberal Democrat motion. Many of my constituents, and people across Dumfries and Galloway, are almost totally dependent on private cars for access to employment and services. As Liam McArthur said, in many rural communities a car is a necessity rather than a luxury. Coupled with that, wages in rural areas tend to be below average and housing is often difficult to obtain: there are long waiting lists for social housing and house purchase is impossible as prices are above what is affordable to local people. Fuel prices are higher at rural petrol stations for the very reasons that David Stewart explained. Deprivation in rural areas might not be as large scale or as visible as in urban areas, but such deprivation exists and is endemic. Therefore, I sympathise with the motivation behind the Liberal Democrat motion.

However, there are questions about how the system that the Liberal Democrats propose would operate in practice throughout the UK. For example, in France—which was referred to by both Mr McArthur and the minister—variable excise duty is part of a decentralisation agenda, under which excise duty collection and some powers to reduce excise duty have been devolved to the regions. In the context of the UK, the proposed derogation would presumably be applied by the four nations rather than by local councils. Is it the Liberal Democrats' intention that there should be further devolution to local authority level? Would that be possible under EU law? Moreover, as David Stewart said in his intervention, the system in France requires the total excise duty take to be constant so, in effect, any reduction of excise duty in some areas must be cross-subsidised by other areas.

In addition, I am not quite sure whether any part of Dumfries and Galloway would be on the minister's list of areas that are a 60-minute drive from a major town, but I suspect that those constituents who did not qualify might be a little miffed if they ended up paying more in excise duty to subsidise people in other rural areas who would benefit from lower duty. Given the difficulties of defining remote and rural areas, some places with real problems might well be missed out.

Is the motivation behind the proposal to stimulate the local economy, or is it to benefit private individuals? In France, only petrol for domestic users is subject to the derogation. Under a similar regime in Scotland, local freight businesses in rural areas would not benefit.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The member asked whether her constituency would meet the 60-minutes measure. The answer is that it would not, but a substantial number of filling stations in her part of the country would meet the 30-minutes rural measure. However, if she wants to encourage the Parliament to use the rural areas definition, rather than the very rural areas definition, of course we will be interested in considering that.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

I thank the minister for clarifying his definitions.

However, it is more fundamental that we address the other part of the equation. According to a written answer by Paul Clark, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, to a question on transport costs that Norman Baker MP asked in March this year, the real cost of transport by private car declined by 13 per cent between 1997 and 2008, whereas there were real-terms increases in bus and coach fares of 17 per cent and in rail fares of 7 per cent over the same period. Over the past 30 years, the cost of motoring has declined by 17 per cent in real terms, whereas bus and coach fares and the cost of rail travel have increased by 55 per cent and 49 per cent, respectively, in real terms.

In rural areas in particular, public transport is expensive and infrequent. As of last December, for example, the frequency of buses in Dumfries, which is a town of significant size, was reduced—it is now an hourly service—and routes were curtailed. Residents who live west of the River Nith can no longer access the hospital using one bus. If that is how bad the situation has become in the town of Dumfries, I am sure that members can imagine how poor bus services are in the more rural parts of the region. Fuel excise duty is only a green tax when there is a genuine alternative to the use of private transport. In the absence of such an alternative, it is solely an income generator.

Why is public transport in much of the UK so poor in comparison with other parts of Europe? That is the case, I would argue, for the same reason that bus fares rose by 42 per cent in real terms and rail fares by 41 per cent in real terms between 1979 and 1997—it is down to privatisation and deregulation during the 18 years of Conservative rule. That is why my colleague Charlie Gordon's proposed member's bill on the reregulation of bus services is so welcome.

The chancellor will be able to exercise his discretion later this year. If fuel prices, and therefore the VAT take, remain high, he will be able to decide whether to implement the proposed increase. In the meantime, as my colleagues have said, the Scottish ministers need to consider what action they can take to help the situation. They should consider the proposal to hold an oil and gas summit, which could examine issues such as what the devolved Administration could do. However, in my view, the real challenge is first to reverse the decline in, and thereafter to improve, public transport in rural areas so that people in those areas will be able to make the green choice of leaving their car at home.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

We move to the winding-up speeches.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothians)

Like my colleague Alex Johnstone, I welcome the opportunity to debate fuel duty. To be fair, good comments have been made by members of all parties and the standard of debate has been reasonably high.

The problem is clear. Our fuel is close to being the most expensive in the world. Almost 70 per cent of the cost is made up of tax—both fuel duty and VAT. The present weakness of sterling means that the drop in oil prices from $147 a barrel to approximately $50 a barrel has not resulted in a dramatic drop in prices at the pump. The drop in prices that we have seen has not been as dramatic as we might have hoped for because of the weakness of sterling, against the dollar in particular.

As a number of members have said, costs in Scotland's islands and remote communities are particularly high. Some members have suggested that they are 10 to 12 per cent higher than in urban areas. Coupled with those higher costs is the greater reliance on the car of people who live in rural areas, which do not have the same public transport infrastructure as urban areas.

Last week's proposal by the chancellor to increase fuel duty by 2p a litre from September this year will put quite a big burden on our economy as we try to stem the tide of recession. It is worth noting that a few months later, in December of this year, VAT, which of course applies to fuel, will go back up to 17.5 per cent from 15 per cent. The AA described the proposal as "highway robbery" and the RAC said:

"It's time for the Government to stop treating motorists' pockets as a bottomless pit of money and recognise their right to drive at a fair, affordable price."

In addition, the road haulage industry believes that the lifeblood has been sucked out of the industry. Insolvencies among road haulage companies have doubled in a year and the number of drivers who are looking for work has quadrupled.

What should we do? What solutions should we adopt? Derogation has been the main subject of debate. As others have said, it is a measure that works in a number of other EU countries, such as France, the Azores and on the Greek islands, but in some of those cases, exceptions have been made. David Stewart told us about the position in France, and Greece was allowed to implement a derogation as part of its accession to the EU.

The proposal is worthy of consideration, but Alex Johnstone's amendment is slightly different from the motion because we think that there are genuine questions to be answered about the legality of derogation in parts of Scotland. That is why we have asked the Scottish Government to explain to Parliament why it thinks that such a measure is legal. Another critical question is what impact such a programme might have on the public finances, were it to be implemented. It is clear that it is more difficult to obtain a derogation on fuel duty than some SNP and Lib Dem members have suggested. If it were as easy as putting together a business plan and sending it off to the EU, I suggest that more than three countries in the EU would have been granted such a derogation. We support the proposal to investigate the issue, but we think that there are questions that need to be answered before we rush headlong into anything.

The Conservatives have pushed long and hard for a fair fuel stabiliser. We are consulting on plans under which a fair fuel stabiliser would replace entirely the current fuel tax regime. The basic gist of the proposal is that the level of tax would fall when the price of fuel rose, and vice versa. Such a system would help families to cope with rapid changes in the cost of living and would protect the public finances from fluctuations in the international oil price.

The exact wording that the chancellor used in last week's budget speech is worth noting. He said:

"I expect that fuel duty will increase by 2p per litre in September".—[Official Report, House of Commons, 22 April 2009; Vol 491, c 244.]

Does the fact that he used the word "expect" mean that if there is sufficient campaigning and a good case is made, the increase will not be implemented? Has the door been left ever so slightly ajar?

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

It has been an interesting debate. It is clear that there are considerable tensions between the three other parties on how a subsidy should be secured and how it should be applied. The main thrust of SNP members was that the Lib Dems are two-faced. Well, that might be true. Jo Swinson would have some difficulty in explaining to people in Bearsden why they should pay more in order to subsidise fuel prices in the Highlands; perhaps that is why she has not done so. On a previous occasion, Liam McArthur argued for increased prices for air travel, except for air travel from the north of Scotland, so inconsistency seems to be the hallmark of Lib Dem policy.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

During the campaign for the most recent election, I was coruscated by my Labour opponent for suggesting that the Labour Party was recommending that lifeline services should not be exempt from such a duty. Is the member really suggesting that the Labour Party should make no distinction between lifeline air services and air services that people can choose to use when other modes of transport are available?

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

We helped to introduce lifeline air services, but the point is that Liam McArthur argued that other people should pay more but that services for his constituents should be exempt from the process.

Hypocrisy is not entirely the purview of the Liberal Democrats. If I have heard Rob Gibson talk about peak oil once, I have heard him talk about it 100 times, but what he is arguing for would involve more emissions and faster depletion of oil.

I do not hear Scottish National Party members from urban areas arguing vociferously for their constituents to pay more in taxation on fuel in order to subsidise people elsewhere. Bluntly, if the minister has identified 149 filling stations in Scotland where he thinks that subsidies should be put in place, why does he not do it? There is a rural petrol stations grant scheme. He could make money available if he wished to do so. It is perfectly straightforward, and he would not come across any EU difficulties in so doing. It is a matter of political choice—a political choice that he has not made.

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Western Isles)

rose—

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

The Liberal Democrats accused the Conservatives of sitting on the fence. All I can say is that it must be a stout fence for Alex Johnstone to sit on it.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

There is a point here, which the other parties are missing.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I explain directly to the member that there is no chance of me sitting on that fence because there is no space left, given that the Liberal Democrats are crouched on it.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

It does seem to be a crowded place.

There is something that we could do. There is a particular case in relation to fuel costs on Scottish islands. I am looking at the average fuel prices as of 28 April 2009, and I inform Mr Johnstone that Aberdeen has the lowest average fuel price in Scotland—so much for the problems in Aberdeen.

For a litre of diesel, the following places are a sizeable amount above the Scottish average: Brodick, at 115.4p; Kirkwall, at 110.9p; Lerwick, at 114.4p; Stornoway, at 113.7p; and Tobermory, at 111.9p. Those prices are significantly different from the average. The island communities are particularly disadvantaged with regard to fuel prices, and we could do something about that. There is an argument that we could successfully make and carry forward on behalf of the island communities. The Scottish Government has introduced an RET scheme that discriminates between some islands and others, but we could have an RET fuel scheme that applied to all islands. The Scottish Government could say, "Because of the particular problems in the island communities, we think that there is a case for introducing a fuel subsidy to protect those islands from an undue cost of fuel." It is a real problem and there is a real way forward but the Government is not taking it. Why not? Why does the Government not stand up for island communities? The Government is politically fettered from doing so because it knows that everyone else will want it. If we say that island communities will get it, people in remote rural communities will want it. If people in remote rural communities want it, people in rural communities will want it. People in urban communities would then say that they were not prepared to subsidise it.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

rose—

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

There is a genuine case for derogation for island communities, and I think that the case is winnable. Why do we not consider it? Why are we not having a sensible discussion? It is because the other parties are not prepared to do that.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

It has been an interesting debate, although the final remarks from the Labour benches have created a shared sense of mystification among the other political parties because, suddenly, we seem to be hearing the Labour Party arguing for a derogation scheme. There is more joy in a sinner who repenteth, and so on—if repentance is what we heard. We will perhaps have to examine the Official Report very carefully indeed.

I will try to deal with a number of the points that members have made in the debate. Fuel duty derogation is a matter that engages the European Union, and is therefore is a matter on which the UK Government needs to represent Scotland's interests. However, it would also be representing the interests of rural areas throughout the UK—we would be equally pleased if other places were also to receive that benefit.

Elaine Murray said that the tax on fuel is income generating. Indeed it is. It is probably one of the things that are keeping the fragile UK economy afloat. With fuel duty currently at 54.19p a litre, we can see the scale of the revenue. Of course, there is VAT on top of that. That raises an interesting little question. If the prices are higher, the VAT take is higher. I have done a back-of-an-envelope sum. I am happy to have someone tell me that my sums are wrong, but if there is a 20p difference in price, the increase in VAT take, curiously enough, is almost exactly the 2.4p that we require to put into the system under the derogation that the Liberals talk about in the motion.

Therefore, the people who are collecting the extra tax on rural communities through the existence of a higher price are precisely the people who have that extra money to feed back and reduce the prices. That is precisely why we cannot allow Westminster off the hook. Westminster is getting the financial and fiscal benefit of higher prices through the tax system. I would be happy if Westminster were to remit that extra money to the Scottish Parliament, for us to deal with. That might be a proposal—we will see in due course.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Does the minister accept that the higher tax on petrol and diesel in island communities is a result of the higher price and not the other way around?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

That is self-evident. However, the point remains that if there is a higher tax, there is a higher tax take for the Westminster Government. It has the money that could fund derogation.

Of course, that is not the only thing that Lewis Macdonald and other Labour members said. In a rather incoherent contribution on fuel prices, Lewis Macdonald said that because fuel prices in Kirkwall today are lower than they were at their peak in Aberdeen, everything is okay. I do not see many nodding heads round the chamber, but that is what he actually said.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

I hope that the minister will check the Official Report very carefully, because he will find that that is far from what I said. I pointed out to him that the critical issue on fuel prices was, first, the price of crude oil, and, secondly, how that price was passed on to consumers. The price for consumers throughout Scotland is a good deal less now than it was a year ago. Surely that is the critical point, and therefore the issue of differential price is one that the minister and his devolved Government ought now to address.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The differential price is the issue that we are debating. However, I am absolutely clear that Lewis Macdonald made that comparison. It is a comparison for which he will have to account to others.

Lewis Macdonald encouraged us to follow the good example of the Prime Minister and the chancellor—two individuals who have led the United Kingdom into a position of debt greater than at any time in a generation, and greater as a proportion of gross domestic product than anywhere in Europe. If we look for examples of how to conduct ourselves in public finances, I suspect that few would wish to follow the example of the chancellor and the Prime Minister, and that many would wish to look elsewhere.

Lewis Macdonald said that reducing prices runs counter to climate change reduction. Of course, what he is actually saying is that those who have the highest prices should pay the biggest price for climate change, yet they are the very people who have the fewest alternative transport options. I do not think that that commends his argument to members.

I very much support the motion.

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

It is a pleasure to wind up for my party in this most interesting debate.

My colleague Liam McArthur and other members pointed out that certain parts of Scotland have some of the most expensive motor fuel prices in Europe. Liam McArthur said that a car is rarely a luxury in constituencies such as his and mine.

A clear statement of intent from the Parliament, speaking with one voice if we can, would be of enormous assistance to the minister in his endeavours to persuade Her Majesty's Government, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister of the absolute validity of our case.

I was most encouraged by Des McNulty's speech. I welcome Labour's acceptance of the notion of derogation for the islands—and, of course, I would never suggest that the acceptance had anything to do with wanting to gain seats in the islands. However, if Mr McNulty were to look across the Pentland Firth at some mainland areas, he would see that his notion of derogation could be extended. Mr McNulty has made a good move, and Labour did not lodge an amendment to our motion.

In Alex Johnstone's speech, there was some confusion about where all the money was coming from. We are talking about an amendment to the Finance Bill, and the Liberal Democrats at Westminster have been tabling such amendments steadily for the past few years. We have been consistent.

We reckon that the figure required to finance our proposal—this builds on what the minister has just been saying—is round about £50 million. That figure should be compared with the £25 billion of revenue that goes to the Treasury in fuel duty.

We should all study the Official Report of this morning's debate, but I got the impression—if I am wrong I apologise—that Lewis Macdonald was jumping about the calendar a bit. We must compare like with like.

Mention has been made of the figures for diesel prices, and I remind members that we are paying 104.9p a litre in Bettyhill in my constituency, compared with 94.3p in Edinburgh and 93.9p in Dundee and Aberdeen. That is the problem that is hitting my constituents.

Rob Gibson referred to his party's policy of the regulator. That policy is to be welcomed as being on the right lines. However, there is a problem: as Liam MacArthur said, the regulator would have come off earlier this year. However, such things can be worked on and tweaked.

David Stewart challenged me to flesh out some things. First, if he has not done so, I would be grateful if he were to read John Thurso's paper, which addresses the problems and presents a very workable scenario. Secondly, the fact that Greece, France and Portugal have—as others have said—introduced this form of derogation is surely very important indeed. Despite what David Stewart contends about the French view, it would behove the chancellor and the Prime Minister to instruct Treasury officials to go to those countries and see how they do it. Those countries have acknowledged the type of problem that is shared, alas, by rural parts of Scotland.

Dave Thompson's contribution should not be underestimated, although—how shall I put this?—it introduced an entirely new dimension to the standard idea of support. His experience as an official in Highland Council is important, and he was part of protracted discussions and a series of moves that we tried to make when we were in Highland Council. I am afraid that Mr Thompson is quite right: all the approaches that we made to the Office of Fair Trading, and all our discussions, were as naught. We considered every way of getting down the costs, including bulk buying, green measures, automated filling stations and others; we used the maximum power that we could, as a large council in Scotland; and we used to send Alison Magee down here frequently to raise the issue. However, we still could not get to the heart of problem, which I am certain is a derogation. Dave Thompson's contribution was hugely important.

As I say, our figures are that derogation would cost some £50 million out of £25 billion. I recommend that members read John Thurso's paper.

We have a clear choice. No amount of obfuscation or prevarication will alter the fact that, if we accept the Conservative amendment, we will kick the issue into the long grass. Other nation states use the mechanism and use it effectively. Our constituents will be watching: will we vote for the long grass, or will we vote for the Parliament to speak with one voice, thus giving the minister maximum support to go to Westminster and bring to bear maximum pressure on the Government? This problem is a dagger pointed at the heart of our most rural and remote communities in Scotland.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — General Questions

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

To ask the Scottish Government, in light of research from Chile, Canada, America and Norway showing that emamectin benzoate (SLICE) treatments to control sea lice on salmon are decreasingly effective, what actions it will take and what guidance is being considered. (S3O-6708)

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

I am aware of concerns here and in other salmon farming countries about the effectiveness of SLICE. We propose therefore to establish a group of experts, drawn from our salmon farming, pharmaceutical and scientific communities, to examine the range of factors that could contribute to the effectiveness of current treatment strategies and make recommendations on how effectiveness can be optimised.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

I thank the minister for that assurance, but I would like two further assurances. Will she assure us that the Scottish Government will not pursue the line that the Norwegians are rumoured to be taking—sacrificing their wild salmon stocks on the altar of the commercialisation of fish farming?

The minister said that an expert group will be set up. Will she assure us that the group will consider the idea of having fully enclosed tanks with pumped sea water from the benthic levels, below which sea lice larvae are unlikely to survive?

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

A number of people in the industry have raised the issue of sea lice with us, which is why we are setting up the group. The group will work from the summer onwards and a ministerial working group on aquaculture will oversee it.

I expect the expert group to consider a wide range of options, including ones that may or may not have been mentioned by Robin Harper, and come to a reasoned response. Aquaculture is an extraordinarily important industry to Scotland; its value is greater than the value of sea fisheries. We have to keep that in mind.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

To ask the Scottish Executive what the timescale is for implementation of the Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Act 2007. (S3O-6729)

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Act 2007 is expected to go live in 2010. The exact date will be confirmed by the Scottish Government after the successful conclusion of contractual negotiations with our information technology provider. The date will be announced well in advance, to allow stakeholders adequate time to prepare.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Will the minister describe what discussions he has had with voluntary organisations, Disclosure Scotland and the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations about the change in disclosure policy by Disclosure Scotland? Will he acknowledge that groups find themselves in a contractual trap because disclosure checks have to be part of contracts, but groups are no longer entitled to receive them from Disclosure Scotland? Does he acknowledge the urgency of the situation? Will he consider bringing the 2007 act into force as soon as possible? Groups are deeply concerned about the effect on the services that they seek to deliver.

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Officials had a constructive meeting with representatives of the voluntary and charitable sector on 22 April, at which they listened to concerns about entitlement to seek disclosure checks. With input from those officials, we intend to expedite a legislative amendment to address the concerns. We will work closely with Disclosure Scotland, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and others to improve guidance on eligibility. It was not a policy change but a misinterpretation of current legislation that resulted in some checks being undertaken at enhanced level rather than at basic level.

To ensure that vulnerable groups are not affected, we intend to expedite a legislative amendment. We are working closely with our partners.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

Clydesdale Befrienders had to threaten to withdraw services before they were given an entitlement to enhanced disclosure checks. Will such groups be covered?

The minister's officials responded to my inquiries by saying that only 5 per cent of enhanced disclosures provide any additional information. That response completely missed the point. Groups such as Clydesdale Befrienders place befrienders in one-to-one situations with very vulnerable adults. It is precisely that 5 per cent that groups such as Clydesdale Befrienders want to find out about and should be able to find out about. Will the minister instruct Disclosure Scotland to ensure that befriending and advocacy services can continue to receive enhanced disclosures?

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I am afraid that I do not know the details of the case regarding Clydesdale Befrienders that the member raises but, as I said, we intend to address expeditiously the situation in which such groups have found themselves through no fault of their own.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what support it provides to local authorities to maintain and develop community halls in rural areas. (S3O-6679)

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Our concordat with local authorities leaves them free to make their own decisions on spending priorities in the context of their single outcome agreements with the Scottish Government. In addition, the Scottish rural development programme can support community halls through rural development contracts and through the LEADER programme.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The cabinet secretary may be aware that South Lanarkshire Council has decided to close the Jubilee hall in Lesmahagow, in the South of Scotland region. A survey that I am conducting shows that that has caused extreme disappointment among the local community. Does the cabinet secretary agree that such halls represent more than simply local facilities and can play a role at the heart of their communities? Does he also agree that any decision to close or change the use of such halls should be taken with full transparency, consultation and accountability?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I agree with the member's comments. Our rural community facilities, especially halls, play a role as the hub of many of our communities and should be supported where that is possible. In this case, the decision is for South Lanarkshire Council, which I hope is taking into account the factors that the member raises. As I said in my original answer, support is available to communities who want to refurbish or improve their community facilities. I do not know whether community ownership is an option in this case; the community may wish to discuss that with South Lanarkshire Council.

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

Can the cabinet secretary tell the Parliament how many halls have received funding from the Scottish rural development programme and how many single outcome agreements with local authorities include support from the Scottish Government, through the historic concordat, to provide security for public halls in rural areas?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I can tell the member that £4 million this year and a further £2 million next year has been allocated to community facilities. Examples of community facilities that have benefited include Newlands primary school in Romanno Bridge, near Peebles, and the Garelochhead youth and community centre in Argyll. Those are just a couple of examples—many other worthwhile projects are receiving funding and we would welcome many more from the member's constituency or any other constituency in Scotland.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

I thank the minister for the answers that he has given and welcome the funding that has been made available from the SRDP to the Coalburn Miners Welfare Institute in my constituency. Does he accept that well-resourced new community schools can provide enhanced access for communities in rural areas throughout Scotland? Will he encourage local authorities to ensure that, when they build new primary schools, they ensure that there is proper and adequate community access to them throughout the day and particularly in the evenings?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

The member makes several important points. In recent years, we have seen the development of new community schools providing access to local communities for a variety of purposes. That is welcomed and is enhancing the quality of life in many communities, both urban and rural, in Scotland.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

To ask the Scottish Executive when the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change last met Transport Scotland. (S3O-6748)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Transport Scotland is part of the Scottish Government and meetings with ministers occur regularly in the normal course of business.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

Is the minister aware that recently published research by the University of Glasgow and the University of Southampton shows that the electrification of the Glasgow to Edinburgh main line will reach capacity by 2022? The line provides huge added value to the Scottish economy through reduced travelling times between the two cities. What proposals is the minister considering to introduce high-speed ground transport between Glasgow and Edinburgh before capacity is overtaken?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The issue of capacity is complex. Part of our proposals involves the creation of four-line capacity from Winchburgh junction to the centre of Edinburgh, which will provide extra capacity. The opening of the Airdrie-Bathgate line will increase capacity between Glasgow and Edinburgh, taking the number of trains per hour to 13. We recognise the economic value of time, which the member mentions. We reckon that every minute off the Glasgow-Edinburgh journey time is worth £60 million. That is why we want to get journey times down from the current 52 minutes to around 35 minutes.

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The minister will be aware of the concerns among residents of South Queensferry regarding some of the details of the new Forth crossing. Will he ensure that Transport Scotland's officials meet the residents—especially those who will be directly affected by the scheme—as early as possible? Will he also ensure that they are given full access to information on the design of the approach roads and issues such as the park-and-ride facility and the Echline plaza? Will he ensure that those residents have as much access as possible to the people who will make the decisions before the final decisions are made?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The member asks a range of questions. The key point is that Transport Scotland is engaging directly with many of the parties involved in South Queensferry, and that will continue. We want to ensure that, as we finalise the design of the approach roads prior to introducing the necessary consents that will take the project forward, we have addressed all the concerns. It is not our intention to proceed with the proposed park-and-ride facility on the south side as part of the overall programme.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

To ask the Scottish Executive what assessment it has made of the economic implications for Glasgow and Scotland of any Scottish football clubs playing in the English Premier League. (S3O-6736)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The Scottish Government has not made any assessment of the economic implications of such a move. The issue is primarily one for the relevant football authorities, both domestic and international. The Scottish Government will continue to monitor the situation.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

I am somewhat surprised by the cabinet secretary's response. If an engineering company, an electronics company or a financial services company that wished to expand into an English market met with the same inactivity from the Government, we would question the motives behind the Government's inaction. Given the fact that both Celtic Football Club and Rangers Football Club have made it clear on several occasions that they believe that they have outgrown Scottish football and that, to expand further, they require to find a new marketplace, will the Government give a commitment to assist both those football institutions to expand into the English Premier League if that becomes a viable proposition?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Mr McMahon trivialises the support that the Government habitually gives to companies that are focusing on their development plans. He should know better than anyone the scale of the activity that is undertaken to support companies in their business development plans. To trivialise that support in the pathetic way in which he raises his question exposes Mr McMahon's real interests in the matter.

The operations director of the Scottish Premier League, Mr Iain Blair, has said:

"No plan has been brought forward to us so it's too early to comment."

Why on earth should the Scottish Government spend taxpayers' money exploring a proposition that is not even on the table? On a day of public spending frugility—frugality—Mr McMahon should be careful about what he wants to spend public money on.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

To ask the Scottish Executive what discussions have taken place between ministers and local authorities regarding the condition of the road network. (S3O-6668)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The condition of Scotland's local roads network has been raised in general discussion between ministers and local authorities during the past year.

I recognise the difficulties that Scotland's local authorities face in addressing local road problems, particularly in the current economic climate. Although it may not be possible in all cases for me to engage on an individual basis with each of Scotland's local authorities on their difficulties, I have asked my officials to respond positively to any request that is made by a local authority for a meeting to discuss the issue.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

The minister will be aware that a report from Audit Scotland in 2004 estimated that, at that time, £1.5 billion needed to be spent by Scottish councils to eliminate their road maintenance backlogs—around half of A, B and unclassified roads were in need of repair. Given the scale of the problem, which has built up over many years, and the severe pressures on local authority budgets, it is clear that, in order for real progress to be made on repairing Scotland's roads network, additional resources are required. Will the minister therefore tell Parliament what action he has taken—or will take—to help councils address the poor state of our non-trunk roads?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The member will be aware of the substantial financial support that is being given to councils and in his area and in other parts of Scotland. In the current year, East Ayrshire is receiving £253 million, North Ayrshire is receiving £305 million and South Ayrshire is receiving £230 million. It is for councils to make decisions in relation to their spending priorities. I reiterate the point that we have a fruitful and helpful relationship with local councils, which is why my officials and I stand ready to talk to councils and develop solutions.

Dave Thompson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

When will the first meeting of the Government and Highland Council transport working group take place?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

A date is not yet set, although I have had face-to-face discussions with the leader of Highland Council, Michael Foxley. We are of one mind that it is important that the council, the Government and other interested bodies work together. I welcome that collaborative approach, which will depoliticise the situation and ensure that a proper course of action is determined by an objective assessment of needs and opportunities.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what information it has on the progress of the injury surveillance pilot at Glasgow royal infirmary that is being undertaken by the national violence reduction unit. (S3O-6694)

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

Stewart Maxwell has been a strong advocate of the benefits of using anonymised injury data collected in hospitals to inform local police action. That approach, based on groundbreaking work in Cardiff, is one that we fully support, and the Scottish Government has been working in partnership with the national violence reduction unit to introduce it more widely throughout Scotland.

Initial pilots in hospitals such as the Glasgow royal infirmary have shown that the approach can be labour intensive, diverting clinicians from their primary tasks. That is why we are supporting a fully electronic system in the NHS Lanarkshire area, which will overcome those issues.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

When does the minister envisage the current pilot being completed and the results being made available? Can he provide me with his view on whether the scheme will be rolled out to other areas, particularly Glasgow and the West of Scotland, and what the timescale for such a rollout might be?

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

Yes, I can and yes, we will.

The results will be available shortly. Given that the model was based on a project in Cardiff that resulted in a 40 per cent reduction in the level of violence as a result of the co-operation between medical personnel and police, we expect that that excellent work will be rolled out across Scotland in due course.