Scottish Parliament, 21 May 2009

351 contributions from 73 members. The official report.

Official Report 21 May 2009

Student Hardship

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Good morning. The first item of business is a Labour Party debate on motion S3M-4188, in the name of Claire Baker, on student hardship. We have little flexibility on time—I stress the word "little".

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

We know that the Scottish National Party promised much for students in its manifesto but has delivered far short of that. Promises easily made during an election campaign have been dumped in government. Little has been done to boost student support or to tackle hardship among the poorest students in Scotland. Students have criticised the Government's limited actions for the same reason. Gurjit Singh, the president of the National Union of Students Scotland, said recently that abolishing the graduate endowment had had

"little impact on the day to day life of students and does nothing to tackle the issue of financial hardship students face while studying."

Billions of pounds-worth of promises have been boiled down to £30 million for student support next year. That sum, which was announced in the comprehensive spending review, must be the most debated pot of money in the history of the Scottish Parliament. There has been a protracted bidding process that has set poor student against poor student. Worse still, we have £12.5 million of efficiency savings in the student support budget—a means test change that has cut the support of tens of thousands of students halfway through their degree—and recent changes to the education maintenance allowance that will impact heavily on college students. It seems increasingly that, with the £30 million, the SNP is just giving students their own money back.

There is a missed opportunity in the Government's proposals for how the money should be used. Even the most generous option would increase student support by only a few hundred pounds. The proposal by the Association of Scotland's Colleges, too, does not go far enough. I welcome the focus on college students, who are often forgotten in discussions about higher education, but I have two main concerns about the ASC's proposals. First, its research does not distinguish between Government loans and commercial loans. Secondly, the proposal does not address student hardship, which is as much a concern in colleges as it is in universities. In March, the Parliament rejected the proposals outlined in the Government's consultation because they failed to address the issue adequately.

Students say that although graduate debt is a concern for them, not having enough money to live on is a bigger problem, which the SNP is failing to address. The SNP needs to swallow its pride. Students are being forced to choose between fuel and food, books and bus fares. The poorest are increasingly saddled with credit cards, bank loans, overdrafts or even loan sharks, as part-time work and parental contributions dry up. Student hardship is the real issue.

The SNP is not doing much to address Scotland's high drop-out rate. Boasts of the return of free education ring hollow for students who are struggling to get by and have been pushed into commercial debt by a student support system that is no longer fit for purpose. It is no wonder that the patience of students at colleges and universities across Scotland has run out.

Since the previous debate on student support, the NUS, student leaders from colleges and universities across Scotland and all three main Opposition parties have signed an open letter to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning demanding a new direction from the Government and delivering a wake-up call to the SNP. The letter agreed joint principles: a minimum income of £7,000, or as close to that as possible, for the poorest students; focusing available resources on tackling student hardship, not graduate debt; increasing the availability of student loans; addressing students' continuing reliance on commercial credit; and increasing the funds that are available for hardship and child care funding, while looking at the potential for reform.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

Claire Baker implies that the Labour Party would make extra resources available. Given the cuts of £500 million that are coming next year, would she raise extra resources by reintroducing the graduate endowment tax?

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The proposals that the main Opposition parties have put forward, which are supported by the NUS, are covered by the £30 million in the 2010-11 budget—they require no additional resources from the Government. Scottish Labour, with the other main Opposition parties, has taken forward the principles that I have outlined and presented alternatives to the Government's proposals.

This is an opportunity for the SNP to work with a ready-made cross-party majority in the Parliament, and a consensus among students, to deliver for the poorest students in Scotland—investing in the short term, through this economic downturn, to invest in the long-term future of Scotland.

I acknowledge and welcome the difference in tone in the SNP's amendment. Although initially alternative suggestions to the Government's position provoked calls of "Grow up" to the students—and, possibly, the Opposition—there seems to have been a period for reflection. The amendment suggests a more sensible, perhaps even pragmatic, approach, which is to be welcomed. However, while the Labour motion makes clear that there are key principles that the Government needs to take on board, the Government's amendment does not recognise that.

I would like today's debate to be constructive. To that end, I would like to hear from the SNP three things that are not contained in its amendment. I hope that Fiona Hyslop will address each of them in her speech. First, I would welcome a cross-party dialogue on tackling student hardship, with an urgent meeting on the subject, if the cabinet secretary is willing. Secondly, I would like the SNP to agree to the joint principles that were outlined in the open letter to Fiona Hyslop, which was signed by students and the main Opposition parties. Thirdly, I would like to work with the SNP on Scottish Labour's and the other main Opposition parties' proposals for tackling student hardship.

The position of Scottish Labour and the other main Opposition parties is that existing resources should be used to provide a £7,000 income—as called for by students throughout Scotland—for 20,000 of the poorest students, including more than 6,000 college students, to take them over the poverty line; an increase in grant of £500 for the poorest students; an increase in support of £200 for all students, through non-means-tested loans; and investment of nearly £2 million in hardship and child care funds, which have been stretched to breaking point across Scotland this year.

By giving the poorest students the choice of a mix of loan and grant that suits their circumstances, the proposals would allow those students who do not want to take up the full £7,000 entitlement to choose to take a lesser amount in grant, close to halving their graduate debt. We would be treating students like adults—the choice would be theirs. The proposals are affordable, achievable and fair, would reduce hardship and would help many through the economic downturn.

Scottish Labour will not support the Liberal Democrat amendment, despite our agreement on many aspects of student support. Although I have sympathy for the idea of a minimum income, it is not realistic or achievable in this session.

Furthermore, we cannot sign up to a policy that has not yet been costed.

We will not support the Scottish Government amendment. I recognise that it represents an olive branch, but I was hoping for a white flag to be waved not at any party represented in the chamber but at Scottish students, recognising that their views will be listened to and acted on, not fought against.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

Will the member give way?

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am sorry, but that was my last sentence.

I move,

That the Parliament calls for a cross-party approach on tackling hardship among the poorest students in Scotland; believes that students have been severely let down by the SNP's broken promises, actions and inaction in power; further believes that the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning's efforts have been misplaced in focussing solely on reducing graduate debt rather than student hardship while student demand for hardship and childcare funds increases, commercial borrowing among students continues and student support levels in Scotland fall far behind the rest of the United Kingdom; notes the open letter to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning signed by NUS, the main opposition parties and student leaders across Scotland calling for the Scottish Government to increase levels of student support through increased loans and for a new direction from the Scottish Government; further notes that on the 12 March 2009, through motion S3M-3675 as amended, the Parliament rejected all of the proposals contained in the Supporting a Smarter Scotland consultation, which closed in April 2009, for not adequately addressing student hardship, and calls on the Scottish Government to work with the main opposition parties on their joint approach to tackling student hardship by using the available resources to provide £7,000 in support for the poorest students, a £500 increase in grant for the poorest students, an increase in support of £200 for all students through the non-means-tested loan and almost £2 million to discretionary funds for childcare and hardship funding.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The Government has introduced a number of policies to address student hardship. We have abolished the graduate endowment fee, benefiting more than 50,000 graduates and students by saving them around £2,300 each. We have introduced a £38 million package of grants for part-time learners, benefiting up to 20,000 students a year. We are providing £16 million a year to institutions to alleviate student hardship. Because of the combination of those actions, for the first time since devolution the average student loan debt fell in 2007. In 2008, it stood at £5,354, compared with £9,580 south of the border.

In the four years from 2003 to 2007, the previous Administration made improvements to higher education student support totalling £22 million. I repeat: £22 million. In the two years that we have been in government, we have already provided double that amount—more than £44 million—to make specific improvements to higher education student support. Based on their track record, seeing the Labour Party and the Lib Dems competing with each other to be the students' friends, with duplicate motions in the space of weeks, is a bit like watching two bald men squabbling over a comb.

In addition to the £44 million that I have mentioned—double the £22 million that the previous Administration set aside—we have set aside £30 million to implement the results of the consultation.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Does the cabinet secretary accept that the vast majority of the £44 million to which she referred is spent on tackling graduate debt, not student hardship, which is the subject of this morning's debate?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I make clear that the previous Administration spent £22 million on student support, whereas we have spent £44 million on student support. I will explain to Claire Baker some of the steps that we are taking to tackle student hardship, in particular.

On top of all the provision that I have just talked about, we now propose to set the interest rates for student loans at 0 per cent or lower.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Lower?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

That will ensure that student loan borrowers will not see an increase in the value of their debt. Indeed, some of them will see a decrease. Many MSPs have written to us on that point.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am sorry, but can the cabinet secretary explain how there can be an interest rate lower than 0 per cent? Are we going to start paying money back to students?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I am more than happy to write to the member about the issue. We think that it is correct that when the inflation figures are as low as they are, if a level of 0 per cent is required, we will pay it, to ensure that students and graduates pay less or see their debt value decrease. If graduates have to pay less or if their loan debt is reduced, it should we welcomed across the chamber.

We have increased student discretionary funds from the £14 million that we inherited from the previous Administration to just over £16 million this year, of which £4.7 million is specifically for higher education child care funds. That is a rise of 14.6 per cent. Higher education discretionary funds are intended to assist students who are in financial difficulty and at risk of not completing their course.

They are not—and never were, under the previous Administration—intended to be anything other than a contribution from Government to help institutions to meet genuine cases of hardship.

In addition to the higher education discretionary funds, the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council is providing an additional £6.7 million—a 9.3 per cent increase—to help colleges respond to the increased demand for further education student support in the current climate. I think that a 9.3 per cent increase is to be welcomed.

Scotland is in a recession, and we are facing unprecedented cuts in our budgets. Westminster is taking £500 million out of the Scottish budget in 2010-11. We expect continued pressures over the next few years, which will shape the context of all future spending decisions across every portfolio. Extremely difficult decisions will have to be made.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I have already taken an intervention from the member.

I acknowledge that recessions also have an impact on students. However, I assure the Parliament that student support and tackling student hardship will remain a high priority for the Government. "Supporting a Smarter Scotland: A consultation on supporting learners in higher education" closed only three weeks ago. I had hoped that the Opposition parties would give us due time to analyse properly all the responses that we have received before demanding that we make a decision. Those parties might consider the terms of our amendment, which reflect the exact wording that the three other parties used barely three weeks ago. That gives some indication of our acknowledgement of their position.

The options that were set out in our consultation represented our thoughts on the best way to proceed. The consultation asked:

"Are there any other initiatives or ideas that you believe we should explore further?"

That is a clear statement that we are open to and happy to consider different ideas and that we will work with others to investigate the potential implications. That includes co-operation with the other parties in the Parliament. I hope that that addresses Claire Baker's questions.

The motion reflects the views and opinions of Labour, Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives in the Parliament, as expressed in a similar motion on 12 March. In our amendment, the Government clearly acknowledges and recognises those views of Parliament. I hear the message loud and clear and acknowledge it: the Opposition parties oppose and will oppose replacing loans with grants, and they want the Government to boost income levels for students by increasing debt levels.

I call on Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats to work together to deliver specific and fully costed proposals to tackle student hardship. Within the context of the recession, which affects students as well as the economy, and reflecting the difficult financial situation that has been forced upon us, the Government agrees that we need to work together to come up with solutions to tackle hardship, and we will do so.

I move amendment S3M-4188.2, to leave out from first "calls" to end and insert:

"notes the proposals from Scottish Labour, the Scottish Conservatives and the Scottish Liberal Democrats contained in their responses to the Supporting a Smarter Scotland consultation; notes motion S3M-3675 as amended whereby the Parliament called on the Scottish Government to tackle student hardship, and calls on the Scottish Government to work with all political parties to deliver specific proposals to tackle student hardship, particularly during this time of recession."

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

All contributions should be around four minutes from now on, please.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

We have been shocked this morning by the minister's bald comments—but, sporting her fancy new haircut, it is no wonder that she is fixated on hair. What we wanted to be fixated on is student hardship—that is the focus of today's debate. The cabinet secretary is right to point out that we have had a couple of debates on the issue in a matter of a few weeks. That is a reflection of the fact that we all take it seriously.

There are a number of reasons to be concerned about the Government's recently completed consultation on student support. At certain points, there seemed to be totally unnecessary fight picking with the United Kingdom Government on student support, and there was a predictable attempt to blame other parties for the Government's failure to decrease student debt, which it had gone around Scotland promising Scottish students it would dump completely. There has also been a totally inadequate attempt at a minimum income guarantee.

What I found most concerning was the Government's apparent ignorance of the serious and worsening financial situation that Scottish students currently face. Living costs have risen significantly, but the average award payments from the Student Awards Agency for Scotland have not. Rents for students have increased, too, and in many key places they look set to continue to increase. Food prices have risen, and part-time and temporary jobs for students are increasingly hard to come by, with the careers service at the University of Edinburgh reporting a 20 per cent drop in the number of positions advertised. Those who can find work might find their hours or income reduced as businesses cut back on costs; those who rely on tips might find that they are reducing, as customers count the pennies when they go out for an evening meal. Meanwhile, students' parents and families are under more financial pressure, and they might be less able to help out than before.

All of that combined means that more and more students are living in hardship during their studies, yet the Government still wants to talk about its grand plans to make all students debt free—albeit at a rate of just £30 million a year, whereas the SNP's election pledge to drop student debt would have cost £2.5 billion. The ignoring of student hardship in the Government's proposals is particularly worrying. In the face of cross-party, student-supported alternatives that would actually reduce hardship, I find the cabinet secretary's response—to tell students to stop complaining and to grow up—quite inappropriate. However, I am heartened by her comments on the record today and by the tone of the Government's amendment.

With the support that is currently provided, students are forced to live below the UK poverty line. How can the SNP claim to support a smarter Scotland if the annual income of an individual moving from benefit to education would drop by nearly £2,000? Higher education, and education as a whole, are far too important for us to get this wrong.

We have a good track record, in government and opposition, of supporting students and of funding higher and further education. Our amendment to the Graduate Endowment Abolition (Scotland) Bill meant that the Government had to include consideration of something that had been a long-held policy intention of the Liberal Democrats: a minimum income guarantee for students.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

Will the member give way?

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

No. The minister is well aware of our support when it comes to scrapping the graduate endowment. We are committed to moving towards an annual income of £7,000 for Scotland's students, made up from a combination of grants, loans and parental contributions. It is unacceptable that the Scottish Government is prepared to leave students in poverty, but we accept that, with the limited funds that the Government is offering and the budgetary tight squeeze that we are all facing, we cannot deliver that income for all students with the money that is being allocated for 2010-11. However, while we accept that the income guarantee has to be an aspiration, it goes in the right direction of travel.

We also accept that our position is not shared by other parties in the Parliament, although it is held by key organisations such as the NUS and the British Medical Association. That has not prevented us responding to the consultation, through joint proposals with the Labour and Conservative parties. Over the past few months, I am pleased to say, I have worked with Claire Baker and Murdo Fraser to find a better way forward for Scotland's students. We remain happy and willing to pull up another chair for Fiona Hyslop any time she wants to join us.

The Opposition parties are clear: we can make the £30 million that is available go further than the Government's loans-to-grants option. We want to help the poorest young students—those who receive the young students bursary—to achieve the minimum income guarantee of £7,000. We all stand ready to work with the Government if it is willing to consider alternative solutions.

What are we calling for? We want there to be a £500 increase in the grants for the poorest students, meaning a £7,000 income for them, through increased grants and an increase in the student loan entitlement. Interestingly, our consultation response produced the idea of giving students a choice in what they do—whether to have extra grants or to take extra loans.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Could you close, please?

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

We are talking about young adults. We also want there to be an increase in support through loans for all students, because we recognise that all students are struggling at the moment. We want an extra £2 million to be put into discretionary funds.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

You must close, please.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

This is a very important issue. We stand ready to work with members from all parts of the chamber to tackle it, and to tackle it properly.

I move amendment S3M-4188.1, to insert at end:

"and agrees that the Scottish Government should make further progress towards the provision of an adequate minimum income guarantee for all students."

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am pleased to speak in support of Claire Baker's motion, which represents the joint position of Scottish Labour, the Scottish Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats.

I congratulate the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning on her stylish new look—she looks sultry sitting on the front benches. Unfortunately, the look might be new but the SNP Government has the same old policies. Its record on student hardship has been utterly woeful. Lest anyone needs reminded, let us recall that, during the most recent election campaign, the SNP was to be found on campuses throughout Scotland promising to dump the debt. Many students—and, for that matter, many parents of students—took it at its word and voted SNP as a result. As they now know, they were victims of a cruel delusion. The SNP pledged to replace loans with grants and wipe out student debt, which it has singularly failed to do. It has not even brought properly costed proposals for implementing that manifesto pledge to the Parliament for members to scrutinise.

Perhaps students have no one but themselves to blame for that sorry state of affairs. I well remember being on a hustings panel at the University of Stirling last year with Claire Baker, Margaret Smith and Christopher Harvie. It is sad that Professor Harvie is not in the chamber this morning because, when he was challenged at that meeting on the issue, he said on behalf of the SNP that students should not have been so naive as to believe that a political party should be expected to deliver in government something that it had said in its manifesto. So there we have it: the official SNP response is that we cannot believe a line in its manifesto.

Student debt is a serious issue but, right here, right now, student hardship is a greater one. That view is supported by the student representatives in the NUS and universities throughout Scotland. Many students who previously supplemented their incomes with part-time employment find that, due to the economic downturn, they are unable to get jobs or, as Margaret Smith pointed out, the income from their jobs has fallen.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

I point out that Murdo Fraser's last statement goes against his manifesto commitment that students would be able to borrow as much as they liked because they would have increased earning potential in future years.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

No, it does not contradict it at all. Over their lifetime, students will earn more money, so we should allow them the opportunity to borrow more money from the Student Loans Company—especially if they get interest rates of less than 0 per cent, which would be a very attractive prospect—rather than having to borrow money, if they can get it, at high interest rates from commercial lenders or, even worse, on credit cards. That is what they do at the moment, and it causes real hardship.

The SNP Government's response to the matter in its consultation paper "Supporting a Smarter Scotland" is, unfortunately, inadequate. The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning would rather use the available money to switch loans to grants for a small minority of students. In fact, what students need now is greater access to student loans—a secure and inexpensive way of borrowing—to protect themselves from hardship.

In our response to the consultation, the Scottish Conservatives adopted the approach that the £30 million that has been allocated should be used to reach a £7,000 minimum income for the poorest students; to increase by £200 the amount that is available to all students by means of the loan; and to invest an extra £2 million in discretionary funds to alleviate pressure on hardship and child care funds. That targeted approach would provide help to all students but focus on the poorest. It has the support of the three Opposition parties in the Parliament and of student representatives, so I hope that the Government will pay serious attention to it.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I do not know whether Murdo Fraser is aware that, in 2009-10, the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council will provide an additional £6.7 million to help colleges respond to the demand for child care from further education students. Murdo Fraser is right to identify that issue, but there has already been some movement on it.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I welcome that clarity from the cabinet secretary because, as she knows, I have received a great deal of correspondence on the issue.

The Government amendment strikes a more conciliatory tone than we have heard previously, which I hope demonstrates good progress. The SNP has broken its promises to Scottish students, but it now has the chance to adopt a new approach, one that is shared by the Opposition parties and student leaders throughout Scotland. I hope that it will see sense in the debate and realise that it has an opportunity to start redeeming its reputation in the eyes of Scotland's students. I urge it to accept the motion in the name of Claire Baker.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

In the past few months, there has been a serious focus on what students need in order to study. That is due in part to the Opposition parties' constructive approach, about which we have heard and which has focused on the financial support that students need while they are at college or university.

The SNP manifesto promise to wipe out student debt has been well and truly exposed as an election ploy. I have not read or seen reports that the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning has, in any sense, lobbied in the Cabinet for the £2 billion that would be needed to fulfil that promise.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I make it clear that servicing student debt does not cost £2 billion.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

As the cabinet secretary knows, that manifesto commitment was costed at £2 billion. She knows the point that I am making: that manifesto commitment has been well and truly exposed as an election ploy.

The Government has found £30 million, and that is what the Parliament has been asked to address. The Labour Party believes that that money should be used to relieve hardship for all students but should be focused on the poorest students in particular. The student support system is failing students and the SNP has allowed Scotland to drag behind the rest of the UK: the maximum income that is available to students here is less than the income that is available in England, and the threshold for entitlement has not been uplifted, so more students have lost out.

In a recent constituency case, I was astonished to learn that the Government changed the student support rules in a rush to ensure that the income of single parents' cohabiting partners will be counted towards the calculation for support. That is affecting students in the middle of their degrees. In two cases that have been brought to my attention, students have found that they no longer qualify for bursaries because the rules have been changed. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Government would rush to change the rules in the middle of an academic session. There is a certain injustice in that.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

rose—

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

I would be happy to take an intervention from the cabinet secretary, because I have written to her on that point.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

That change to means testing was fully supported by the NUS. Only 45 students contacted the universities on that point because of hardship and, with the allocation of increased hardship funds, the difficulties for the small minority that has been affected have been addressed. Indeed, that has been reported to the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

I would be pleased if the cabinet secretary gave that response to my two constituents who, in the middle of their degrees, have found their incomes reduced. That is an injustice, and I do not understand why the cabinet secretary does not share that view.

I have written to the cabinet secretary on another issue: age discrimination within the system. In fairness, it has come about because of changes through the European convention on human rights, but I understand that England has already reviewed the matter, and I ask the cabinet secretary to do the same. Age should not be a barrier to lifelong learning. I have a constituency case in which someone was turned away from the system because they were deemed to be too old to qualify for student support.

Many members have received representations from many constituents who have child care responsibilities and are pleading for changes to the student support system. The current system is becoming a barrier to parents who are trying to find their way in difficult circumstances. The system is piecemeal and uncertain, and there is a strong case for reforming it. We should consider the English system, in which parents' entitlements are more centralised. I support the idea that parents who go to university should be able to see what they can claim so that they can work out what they have to live on.

As Margaret Smith said, students will realise that the Opposition parties are making a serious attempt to improve their lives while they are at university. There is a clear call to consider student hardship now. Labour wants to focus on the poorest students. Even though the amount of money allocated is pitiful, we are making a serious attempt to play a constructive part in the consultation.

The relief of student hardship is a key issue in these hard economic times. Students will welcome the Parliament's focus on it.

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I am shocked by Claire Baker's motion—[ Interruption. ] Wait for it; it will be worth it. Despite the massive turmoil in the world economy, which has been caused by the unsustainable debt that her party leader and the Labour Government in London encouraged, she wants to pile more debt on to students before they have a chance to get started in life.

Labour is talking about loans of £7,000. What a tuition fee that would be for a poor student who was caught in the pitiless grip of Labour's failed economic policies. Not content with plunging the country into an economic vortex, in which Government debt is on target to be about 80 per cent of gross domestic product in four years' time, Labour politicians want to capture each individual and make them suffer for the misfortune of living under a Labour Government.

Throughout the UK there are record levels of personal debt, which has been encouraged by Labour's philosophy of borrow, buy and consume.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

Does Christina McKelvie realise that many students are turning to commercial loans? Such loans certainly do not attract an interest rate of "0 per cent or lower"; the average rate appears to be about 15 per cent. Student loans start to be paid back when a graduate is earning £15,000; we want to deal with student hardship now.

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Margaret Smith need look no further for a response than a report from the Association of Scotland's Colleges, which concluded:

"A large majority of higher education students in colleges find their debt levels to be a significant problem and would far rather have greater financial hardship than be in debt."

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member give way on her point about the ASC?

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I want to make progress.

Since 1997, Labour has encouraged people across our islands to borrow more than they can afford to borrow. Labour relaxed banking regulations to make irrational lending the norm. For Labour, location, location, location became far more important than education, education, education. Money, not wealth, has been the touchstone of Labour's years in power. There has been a fascination with piles of filthy lucre, with no idea how they would be paid for. Bankruptcies are increasing throughout the UK under Labour and more and more people are finding it impossible to survive under Gordon Brown's economic miracle. In Scotland, bankruptcies among students and graduates soared while Labour and the Lib Dems were in power. There was a 380 per cent increase in such bankruptcies between 1999 and 2007.

Thank goodness for the election of an SNP Government. The number of young people facing bankruptcy was cut by 11 per cent in our first year in office. How was that achieved? Not through the naive, simplistic and populist posturing in which Labour engages but through good, solid policy work. We abolished the graduate endowment fee. We put £84 million more into student support than Labour put in. We put £38 million into grants for up to 20,000 part-time students, as Fiona Hyslop said. I never thought that I would hear a Labour member complain about part-time students getting support from the Government.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Does the member acknowledge that the part-time student grant of £500 goes towards the student's tuition fees and does not give them a penny to tackle their hardship issues?

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The grant reduces the overall burden by £500. I know students in colleges throughout Lanarkshire who welcomed it.

The SNP has put £16 million into student hardship funds—that is 14 per cent more than Labour put in.

It is unbelievable that Labour wants to move away from supporting students and prefers to drive students' economic prospects further underground. We all face decades of paying back the money that Labour is borrowing to try to bail itself out of the catastrophic failure of its economic and regulatory policies, so this is not the time to tell the people on whom we rely to create tomorrow's wealth that they must shoulder the burden of a massive personal debt that has been forced on them by the state. That would not be a good idea at any time, but it is barking mad when we are facing the economic tsunami that Labour created.

There is one comfort for us all: Labour is no longer in power in Scotland. We continue to suffer the effects of the mess that a Labour Government in London has made of our economy, but we are at least spared the double whammy of Labour making things worse in Scotland.

Instead of offering policies that might be good for the country and engaging in the debate to find the most appropriate way forward, Claire Baker, like the rest of her party, is more interested in trying to score party political points. While Labour continues to whinge and complain, the SNP will continue to make Scotland a better place to be. Why? Because we have got what it takes.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

Given the promises that the SNP made during the election campaign in 2007, we might have thought that student hardship would be a thing of the past by now and that there would be no need for this debate. It might have been reasonable to assume that having done away with student debt, the Government would have moved on to improving the lives of students while they study.

We all know that the promise to wipe out student debate was no more than electoral smoke and mirrors. It would have cost an estimated £2 billion, so there was as much chance of the Government wiping out student debt as there was of it—let us see—introducing a local income tax, building a school or increasing the number of teachers in our schools and nurseries. I could go on. There have been so many broken promises, and I have not even mentioned the Scottish no-futures trust.

The cabinet secretary claimed that the cost of servicing student debt would not be £2 billion. The figure is irrelevant to Scotland's students; the point is that the SNP Government promised them that their debt would be written off. Our students deserve better: they deserve to be supported during their time at college or university and they deserve to be properly funded at a time when jobs are becoming scarcer.

By focusing only on the graduate endowment, the SNP left Scottish students far worse off than their counterparts in England.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Is the Labour Party committed to reintroducing the graduate endowment fee?

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

No, it is not. However, I make the point that although the cabinet secretary said, when she came to the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee to argue for abolition of the graduate endowment, that she was motivated by the story of a young woman who had to give up her university studies because she could not afford to continue, the abolition of the graduate endowment has done nothing to help a single student to continue to study in any of Scotland's colleges or universities.

We want to discuss student hardship in this debate. Scotland's students are worse off than their counterparts in England and Wales. The maximum that most students in Scotland can receive is £4,510, whereas students in England and Wales can receive up to £6,200. We argue that students in Scotland should be able to receive up to £7,000.

The Labour Party believes—indeed, all parties in Parliament, apart from the SNP, believe—that more funding must be targeted at supporting students while they study. That is why the three main Opposition parties have joined NUS Scotland in calling on the Government to use the additional £30 million that has been announced to ensure that our poorest students are guaranteed a minimum income of £7,000. That would be an effective way of attracting young people from our poorest communities back into further and higher education. Far too few of the young people in my constituency go on to further and higher education. That needs to be tackled.

We need more funding for child care, as Murdo Fraser said. Like many members, I have been inundated with e-mails from students who attend the University of the West of Scotland about the closure of the nursery at the Hamilton campus. Many students said that the removal of the service would make it impossible for them to continue their courses.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

Will the member give way?

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

I need to wind up.

We call on the Government to increase by £500 the grant for the poorest students who are in receipt of the full young students bursary.

The Government often says that it wants to listen to and to work in partnership with other parties. All the Opposition parties stand ready to work in partnership with the Government, if it is willing to listen. Student representatives throughout Scotland want the Scottish Government to accept our proposals, which are affordable and respond to the explicit requests of Scottish students. What could be simpler? I support the motion in Claire Baker's name.

Ian McKee (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

It is with slight trepidation that I return to debate an education-related subject, having taken some stick—if I may put it that way—for my remarks on corporal punishment two weeks ago. However, I am so struck by the opportunism and cynicism that are exhibited in the Labour motion that I cannot remain silent.

A stranger to the Parliament might gather from the exchanges in the debate so far that all was rosy in the student garden until the SNP came along two years ago and ruined things, but the truth is very different. Student finances deteriorated under the watch of what are now the major Opposition parties here for more than 20 years. We moved from the days when a student grant could keep a student in some comfort for the year to the point in 2007 when just about every student faced not only hardship but mountainous debt. However, the Opposition parties have the cheek to criticise the SNP for not putting all this right in a mere two years.

George (Labour, Lothians)

Will the member give way?

Ian McKee (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

If Lord Foulkes wishes to apologise for his cynicism and opportunism, I suggest that he do so in his speech later on.

It is no wonder that the Opposition parties are huddling together for warmth today.

Members will recall that "Supporting a Smarter Scotland: A consultation on supporting learners in higher education" set out a three-point plan for student funding in Scotland. The goals were to abolish the unfair graduate endowment fee, to replace student loans with a means-tested system of grants, and to service the debt of Scotland-domiciled and resident loan borrowers. We have already seen the achievement of the first of those goals, with the burden of debt on graduating students being reduced by £2,300. The £30 million extra boost to the student support budget for 2010-11 will begin to address the second goal. The cabinet secretary has pointed out that, in addition, and among other dynamic measures that the Government has introduced, an improvement to the discretionary fund is available for education institutions to distribute, based on their assessments of individual student need. The fund now stands at £16.1 million, which represents an above-inflation increase of 14.6 per cent in two years.

Much progress is being made. The SNP Government has already taken more steps to help students than any previous Administration. The Opposition's squawks of protest about broken promises do not take into account the fact that, because of UK Government mismanagement of finances, the incoming Scottish Government in 2007 faced the tightest financial settlement from Westminster in the history of the Parliament.

Student hardship and graduate debt can be serious problems, and the prospect of either may inhibit some people from entering tertiary education altogether. Several reports have found that debt, or even the prospect of debt, is a major factor when students consider dropping out from their courses.

Why do I accuse the movers of the motion of cynicism and opportunism? I do so because they put in place the present system, which they now discredit, and then—with their Lib-Dem colleagues—maintained throughout their joint terms of office a loan-based system of student support that led to 370,000 students and graduates owing more than £2 billion to the state at the end of the 2007-08 financial year. That means that students graduating from a four-year course now face debts of around £10,000, with the highest level of debt generally being incurred by students from families that have the lowest incomes. Furthermore, because mature students are not eligible for grants, they can graduate with up to £18,000 of debt.

I welcome the idea of the cross-party approach that the motion calls for, but support for our students should not be a political football. The motion's cross-party gesture is immediately shown to be hypocritical because the next phrase in the motion seeks to rubbish the Government party—the biggest party in the Parliament. If Labour is looking for genuine cross-party support, it is going a very funny way about it. The suggestion by the member who moved the motion that she is looking for a white flag, rather than an olive branch, hardly suggests that she is taking into account the need for cross-party co-operation.

We need to work together and we must wait for the result of the recent consultation to be analysed and discussed. I put it to you, Presiding Officer, that Fiona Hyslop's amendment is one that will allow us to go forward and work together for the future of Scottish students.

George (Labour, Lothians)

Presiding Officer, you and others may be aware that I stood earlier this year, probably unwisely and certainly unsuccessfully, for the post of rector of the University of Edinburgh. However, I was able to hear the views of many hundreds of students, which I will try to reflect in my speech.

The University of Edinburgh is a world-renowned education institution that has a hugely impressive record of research, particularly in the growth industries of bioscience, informatics and regenerative medicine, which will power Scotland's economy in the future. The university has 26,000 students from 120 countries around the world. However, several thousand of those are Scottish students who rely on the SNP Government to fund not just the university, but themselves.

We heard from Murdo Fraser and Pauline McNeill about the SNP's broken promises to dump student debt. We have also heard again the tired rebuttal from Fiona Hyslop that—allegedly—student debt is falling. SNP members might have convinced themselves of that, and might even have convinced a number of wet-behind-the-ears journalists, but all the students to whom I spoke during my rectoral campaign are not convinced at all. They feel totally abandoned by the SNP.

The current president of the students representative council at the University of Edinburgh set up a Facebook petition, with a statement to which 700 students signed up:

"Fiona Hyslop fails to understand that many students are struggling as much as anyone else. Our families are suffering from the credit crunch. The job market is drying up. If the SNP allow poorer students to be priced out of education, they will be allowing a short term recession to condemn a generation."

The cabinet secretary said rightly that the amount that students owe the Government is falling—Murdo Fraser pointed out that, thanks to the Westminster Labour Government, it is interest-free debt—but students have increasing debt with, for example, Topshop, Barclaycard and Visa, with high interest rates. That is a complete travesty, particularly when the SNP Government has the power to do something about it but lacks the will to do so. For example, as has been said, the Government could extend the loan thresholds to match those in England and Wales, but it will not. It could agree a guaranteed minimum income for students of £7,000, as Karen Whitefield argued eloquently just a few moments ago, but it will not. It could also provide more money for campus student hardship funds, but it will not.

There are nearly 100,000 part-time and full-time students in Edinburgh, who are crucial to the economic future of our country. They need support from the Government, but have been told by the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning that they should grow up and stop complaining—that was a patronising and insulting remark. The student community feels totally let down by the SNP and by the cabinet secretary personally. Whatever we might think about top-up fees—whether they were right or wrong—at least the student community know what it was up against. It knew the rules of engagement and the nature of the debate. The SNP's higher education policy and the complete lack of principle that forms its shaky foundations are an enigma and anathema to the student community.

Students want a guaranteed minimum income so that they can keep commercial debts low and part-time hours of work down. However, what they get from the Government is a raft of arrogance, ignorance and broken promises.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

We come to closing speeches. I ask members to keep reasonably close to the times that they have been given.

Hugh O'Donnell (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

Education debates are becoming a regular Thursday morning gig, which is not necessarily a bad thing, given the importance to Scotland of student hardship, funding for students and education generally. Rather than rehash the arguments that have been adequately expressed in the Labour motion and in the speeches of Margaret Smith and Murdo Fraser, I will reflect on a couple of points.

Much of the Government's defence—such as it is—on funding is founded on what it has done, not what it said it would do. Ultimately, that is why students are so angry at the situation that they are in, because it is not what was promised. I received a letter from the Minister for Schools and Skills, Mr Brown, in which he states that the Government did not know how much student funding was going to cost. Frankly, it is not acceptable to put that to the public.

I am pleased that we have cross-party Opposition support for the direction of travel on the issue, and I am pleased to have a somewhat conciliatory amendment to the motion from the cabinet secretary. It is encouraging that we might eventually develop a more mature debate around the issue.

However, I have some questions for the minister. What action will the Government take to deal with the anticipated 40,000 applications that our colleges expect to receive over the course of the next few months? What is the cabinet secretary's view on the Scottish Higher and Further Education Funding Council's apparent guidance to colleges that such places should be funded by reducing courses that involve less than 10 hours? Furthermore, what is her view on the funding council's apparent direction to colleges that they should focus on school leavers? Given that we currently face a dramatic and serious recession, we must surely strike a balance between school leavers and adults returning, mostly to further education colleges, to upskill and retrain. In my region, 300 people in Larbert might face that prospect, so I would be interested to know whether the Government has a cohesive approach on that. People who are retraining will also be students who are in hardship.

In order to comply with the Presiding Officer's request on timings, I will simply leave those questions in the air and hope that I hear from the SNP Government how it will address them. I am pleased to see that we have consensus among the Opposition parties in supporting the minimum income guarantee as the best way forward to reduce student hardship.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Although I am always grateful when members give the chair a little bit more time, I should say that we are not that desperate, so members should feel free to take up the time that they have been offered.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

As my colleague Murdo Fraser made clear, we are pleased to support Labour's motion this morning. In my summing up speech, I want to dwell on three main issues.

First, there has been a distinct failure on the part of the Scottish Government to prioritise appropriately the financial problems that are faced by students today. In the current economic recession, increased numbers of people want places at college and university as they seek to retrain for a very difficult job market. The statistics that were released last week show just how difficult that job market is, as do the tertiary education sector's statistics on the number of applications that they receive that are not from school leavers. If we add in the fourfold increase in student bankruptcy in the past 10 years and the increased number of applications for university hardship funds—the University of Abertay Dundee has already run out of such funds twice this year—we can see why the student body is so desperately concerned.

Secondly, in our opinion, the Scottish Government has made a fundamental error of judgment in seeking to increase the level of grants, rather than loans, that are available to students. That is not good value for money and does not widen access to university education, which the SNP election manifesto claimed was such an important commitment.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Elizabeth Smith makes a serious point about the need for value for money in public finance. A genuine problem with student loans is that servicing the loan involves a cost to the public purse of a third of the value of the loan. Does she recognise that an over-reliance on the loans system involves inherent problems for the public finances?

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There are complexities, but I believe firmly that loans are a much better option than the grants system. We must recognise that the problem is now acute. Before the economic downturn, many students could supplement their student loans with income from part-time jobs, but such jobs are now more difficult to find, so students are left with no choice but to borrow from credit card companies. That is a major issue for students.

As Murdo Fraser and Claire Baker both said, a much better use of the £30 million of available funds would be to target the poorest students. The money could be used to help about 19,000 students who currently receive the full young students bursary and a further 15,000 students who receive part of that bursary. On top of that, we propose providing a £200 increase for all students by increasing the amount that is allocated through the non-means-tested loan, which in turn would help about 78,000 students. We would also provide close to £2 million in discretionary funds. Those measures would go a long way towards relieving the current pressure on child care and hardship funds, although it is good to hear the commitment that the cabinet secretary gave on that issue.

We believe that our proposals are the first step to addressing the urgent need to support our poorest students. Our proposals would tackle student hardship and help students to move away from a situation in which they become permanently trapped in debt. By supporting the Labour motion, we have shown that we are ready to engage with other parties in order to progress the proposals. They are affordable, achievable and fair and could be delivered within the £30 million that is already available.

Finally, let me say a word on the on-going debate about tertiary education. Our universities and colleges are to be warmly congratulated for their success. As George Foulkes said, their qualities are vital to ensure Scotland's continuing success in the future. They should not be compromised by political dogma or hollow rhetoric in an election manifesto. Unfortunately, that is a very real fear if the Scottish Government continues to fail to understand properly the dilemmas—both academic and financial—that provide major headaches for our tertiary education institutions as they struggle to maintain their competitive advantage and the international reputation that they have spent hundreds of years establishing. Students, by definition, are caught up in those dilemmas. It is wrong that students are unable to rely on Parliament to address those fundamental problems, many of which have been eloquently expressed by student groups both privately and publicly.

No one doubts that the questions that surround the future of tertiary education, its staff and its students are complex, but they will not be answered if we do not recognise the true extent of the problem that we face. That is why we need a new approach, and that is why we are pleased to support Labour's motion.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

Today's debate has, like the previous recent education debate, been wide ranging. As Hugh O'Donnell almost said:

"It's like déjà vu all over again."

However, as several members have mentioned, higher education is important, so it is important that we send the clear message to students and graduates that the Government values highly the contribution that they make to society. We will do, and are doing, all that we can to support students at what is perhaps the most important stage of their lives.

Although this might not be obvious from some comments in the debate, the Government has already done a great deal, as the cabinet secretary said, to address both hardship and debt. Before I reiterate some of our policy decisions that have demonstrated our support for students, let me just contrast those with the position of other parties. First, we have the £500 million of cuts coming next year and each year afterwards from Labour—

George (Labour, Lothians)

No, no.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

Lord Foulkes might want to wish that away, but that is the hard reality that faces this Government and the people of Scotland.

On manifesto commitments, the Lib Dems have recently ditched their idea—not even a manifesto commitment—of making £800 million of cuts. It would be interesting to know how they would fund the things they want while taking £800 million out of the public purse. For the Conservatives, of course, the £500 million in cuts cannot come soon enough and would be brought forward. That is the background against which the decisions that we have taken—

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

Will the minister give way?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

No.

The abolition of the graduate endowment tax has saved 50,000 students £2,300 each year. It is worth mentioning that in the context of the different attitude to debt that now exists in society. People are more frightened of debt than they were, as Ian McKee mentioned. The prospect of taking on debt is always a disincentive, but it is much accentuated when we have, as a country, a massively increased debt that will overhang our students in future years.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the minister commit to giving serious consideration to the proposal from the Opposition parties that students should be allowed to choose whether to borrow the amount that is currently available to them as a loan or to take a reduced amount as grant? That could halve the average amount of graduate debt.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

The cabinet secretary's amendment already commits us to considering the proposals. It is worth mentioning that a loan of £1,000 costs the Scottish Government £310 in addition to the £1,000, whereas a grant of £1,000 costs us £1,000. Obviously, that must be a factor in our considerations.

As the cabinet secretary and Christina McKelvie mentioned, we have provided £16 million a year to institutions to alleviate student hardship. That is an increase of 14.6 per cent, which is a huge rise. For the first time, we have also uprated the higher education discretionary funds in line with other student support.

I will pick up one or two others points that have been made in the debate. Pauline McNeill might be interested to know that we have had no further requests from the University of Glasgow for the additional hardship funds that we have provided. The same is true—I mention this for Karen Whitefield's benefit—for the University of the West of Scotland and for the University of Edinburgh. In recognition of the increased demand on such funds, we have provided additional funding that is being used to meet that additional demand.

Other members pointed to the obvious need for the recession to feature in our decisions. We cannot take decisions without acknowledging both the recession and the increased demands that are being made on the education system. On the issues that Hugh O'Donnell raised, if he writes to me, I will respond to the serious points that he made about the increased demand on colleges and so on. Those issues are not part of this debate, but perhaps reflect the debate that he wanted to have.

The budget cuts of about £500 million that we face mean that we will have to make hard decisions. Despite that, we are adding £30 million to student support, which has given rise to this and previous debates.

The consultation process has been open to everybody and we want to take account of everyone's views. I therefore question why Labour's motion gives us only three weeks to analyse the responses and to make decisions. That is not a proper way in which to deal with the responses that have been received from a wide range of people.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

Will the minister give way?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

No. Margaret Smith would not take an intervention from me.

The Labour motion does not give us sufficient time to consider those responses, but the Liberal Democrats went even further in wanting us to make decisions before we had even finished the consultation. There is, at present, a competition to find a new quote from the people of Scotland to put on the Parliament building. The last thing that we want is for it to be, "What's the point of consulting us?"

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

rose—

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

I have already taken an intervention. I would like to make progress.

The Scotsman interviewed four universities, and only one—the University of Abertay Dundee—said that it had requested additional discretionary hardship funding in the current year. I think that I am right in saying that that request was met by the Government. In the current year, institutions have requested a total of £882,000 in additional discretionary funds to tackle student hardship, which is about £226,000 less than was requested in the previous two years. By and large—although it is not true of all universities and institutions—universities are meeting their increased demands from the resources that are provided by the Government.

The Government has made it clear in the debate that we take student hardship seriously. That is underscored by our commitment of additional resources to tackle the problem. We have invested a great deal of additional money in student support—far more than the previous Administration. The cabinet secretary mentioned the £22 million under the previous Labour-Lib Dem Administration and the £44 million under the present Administration. In addition, we have run a consultation on how best to spend the £30 million in additional funds that have been allocated.

The Labour Party is pressing us to commit to a specific approach before we have given due consideration to all the responses. We do not want to do that, at this stage. We are trying, as has been mentioned, to be conciliatory in our amendment and to take all views into account. We will consider Labour's proposal, but we must consider the wide range of other proposals, as is only fair to those who have taken the time to respond. We are happy to work with Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, but we call on them to make specific proposals and to say where they would take money from to fund their proposals. One or two members have said that they would provide more than the £30 million: it is incumbent on them to say from where that money would come.

It is essential that we work together for the benefit of students in Scotland. As our amendment is, the motion is relatively conciliatory at the start, and talks about a cross-party approach. However, as Ian McKee said, it quickly degenerates into an attack on one party, which is perhaps not the best basis for a cross-party approach. The amendment that has been moved by the cabinet secretary states that we want to work together on the issue. I ask the other parties to respect that and to vote for our amendment.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Claire Baker said that the SNP has failed to tackle the growing hardship problems that are faced by the poorest students in Scotland. She is quite right, and her words have been echoed by many members. Student support levels in Scotland are far below those in the rest of the UK and many students are forced to rely on commercial credit which, when it is available, is an expensive way to fund one's education. I therefore make no apology for repeating what other members have said about the SNP's policy to dump the debt.

As with the first-time buyers grant, the local income tax and the policy on maintaining teacher numbers, the SNP's slogan, "It's Time to Dump the Debt", was just that—a slogan. It was a policy that the SNP never had any intention of delivering, and it was never brought to Parliament. However, rather than admit that the SNP has broken its promise on student debt, Fiona Hyslop now denies making the promise in the first place. That makes one wonder how anybody can trust anything the cabinet secretary says. Students feel let down by the SNP, and with good reason. Their mistake was to believe what Alex Salmond and Fiona Hyslop told them in the SNP manifesto.

Nevertheless, it is not too late for the SNP to do the right thing by students. As we have heard from many members today, Scottish student support levels are considerably lower than those in the rest of the UK. Combined with the economic downturn, that means that hardship funds and child care funds are being stretched to breaking point at colleges and universities throughout Scotland, as those institutions are forced to top up completely inadequate funding. The SNP's wholly inadequate response to that challenge has been to set aside an additional £30 million for student support next year, with an insistence that the money should not be used to increase the availability of student loans. As we have heard, that will have the effect of driving students to commercial lenders who, even with the base rate at an historic low of 0.5 per cent, can charge an annual percentage rate of upwards of 20 per cent.

In July 2007, Fiona Hyslop wrote in The Times Higher Education Supplement:

"We believe it is wrong that graduates begin their working life encumbered by financial pressures".

Opposition members cannot see how the SNP can reconcile that statement with the policy of leaving it to commercial lenders to fill its student funding hole. It was no surprise that Parliament overwhelmingly rejected the options that were put forward in the Government's consultation document in March.

The joint principles that have been talked about this morning rightly focus on the provision of additional support for the poorest students. We must reduce barriers to higher education, and tackling hardship must be a key part of that. I am concerned that, although higher education participation rates have generally risen over the past decade, there are still pockets around the country—including in my constituency—where, in common with a number of former industrial areas, the number of university entrants is lower now than it has been in the past. There will be a variety of reasons for that. However, for students from poorer households, concerns about funding should never be a factor.

Fiona Hyslop and Keith Brown made valiant attempts to be upbeat in the debate, claiming that the Government has spent millions of pounds on student support. However, current full-time students know that there is not one penny more in their pockets. Christina McKelvie put the case that Scotland's colleges have made; however, we have significant concerns about the robustness of their research. We do not believe that they distinguish between commercial debt and Government debt, and they do not tackle student hardship.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Rhona Brankin mentioned Government debt. There is a 30 per cent charge to the Government for every £1,000 that is loaned. From where does she think the cost of servicing the Government loan should come?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

The cabinet secretary talks about the cost to the Government of loans: I presume that she does not know that the Scottish Government pays 31p in the pound while the UK Government pays the rest. Under that policy, Scotland gets £458 million from Westminster for Scottish students. I am sure that she would be supportive of that. We simply must tackle the problem of student hardship.

Keith Brown asked for the detail of the policy that we propose. A lot of work has been undertaken by students and the three Opposition parties on the issue and we have much detail, which we would like to discuss with the Government. It is rich of Keith Brown to ask for detail when, for months, my colleague Claire Baker has been using the freedom of information procedure to try to get details of the Government's proposals. We want to work consensually with the Government. It is a minority Government and it is time for it to listen to the majority in Parliament.

I pay tribute to the students and their leaders who have come together to make their voices heard on student hardship. We are now in the highly unusual situation of the main Opposition parties and student leaders joining forces to ensure that the minority Government listens and that it tackles student hardship instead of just focusing on graduate debt. We and the students believe that the ministers have already let down students unforgivably with their empty promise to dump the debt. Their amendment today is far too woolly and simply indicates that they are listening to no one but themselves. Now is the time for ministers to show some humility, to show that they are listening to students and to do the right thing. I urge members to support the motion in the name of Claire Baker.

Supporting Employment

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-4187, in the name of John Park, on supporting employment in Scotland.

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I welcome the opportunity to open this debate on behalf of the Labour Party.

Day after day, we hear of more Scots facing unemployment. Behind every statistic is a person who has lost their job and who will face a level of uncertainty in their life that will affect not only them but their families. I am sure that, like me, many MSPs regularly meet constituents who have lost their jobs or who need help in dealing with the consequences of losing their jobs. We shoulder that individual responsibility on a day-to-day basis, but we also shoulder a collective responsibility—here in Scotland and at a United Kingdom level—to ensure that as much as possible is being done to support businesses and to support both people who are in work and those who are out of work.

The Scottish Government has at its disposal some very important levers for economic development, workplace training and supporting people who face redundancy. Through the devolution settlement, we can have Scottish solutions to Scottish problems while benefiting from being part of a wider UK economy.

I am sure that the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism and the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning will hear concerns in the debate about the gap between Government rhetoric and the reality for our communities and people who are concerned about their employment. In times such as these, people look to Governments for help. That is why our motion focuses on a number of key suggestions that we believe will help to ensure that the Scottish Government can more effectively deliver help and assistance to people throughout Scotland.

In this year's budget negotiations, the Labour Party focused on apprenticeships and support for people facing redundancy because we believed that that would mean that Government support would be more effective. We were happy that the Government agreed to a 73 per cent increase in apprenticeship numbers and said that it would guarantee that all apprentices facing redundancy would be able to complete their training. We were happy not for ourselves but for the thousands of Scots—including many young men and women—that those measures would support.

However, since that agreement in February, more than 1,000 apprentices have been made redundant. Only 321 have found alternative employment. Some 547 still need to find a way to complete their training and, most worryingly, 154 have just disappeared into thin air. That figure of 154 might not sound like a lot, but if we were even to make a conservative estimate that most of them had completed about 18 months of training, that amounts to 200 years' worth of training potentially down the drain.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I know that the member has taken a keen interest in this area. I can tell him that we will be making announcements shortly about further aspects of the apprenticeship scheme proposals. Does he recognise that the statistics for those not completing their training are similar to those for previous years? Does he accept that our big challenge is to ensure that those who can be placed in other employment are supported? Will he support us when we bring forward proposals in that regard in the next few weeks?

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am coming to what the Scottish Government can do to support the apprentices, but I will first deal with the comparison that has been made with Northern Ireland. There, 300 apprentices have been made redundant in the period that we are talking about and only 11 have disappeared. Clearly, Northern Ireland is getting something right and we are, perhaps, not dealing with the issue in the way that we should.

We recognise that supporting redundant apprentices and expanding the system is a challenge, and that there are no easy options right now. That is why we were pleased that the Scottish Government also agreed to hold an apprenticeship summit. I was fortunate enough to be able to attend that event in April, along with key people from training and industry. At the summit, I heard many ideas and suggestions about ways in which redundant apprentices could be supported, but those ideas have to be delivered.

Timescales are tight, which is why our motion calls on the Scottish Government to outline how it intends to deliver the extra 7,800 apprenticeships places agreed for 2009. We need it to do that before the summer recess. Failure to deliver will have a negative impact on our skills base not only next year and the year after that but three, four and five years down the line.

On 1 April, at the Scottish National Party's spring conference, the First Minister announced 75,000 training places. We need clarity on those figures. When the skills strategy was launched in September 2007, we were promised 50,000 training places over the course of this parliamentary session. Could the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning clarify whether that figure of 75,000 is the new total number of training places that will be delivered or is additional to the previously announced 50,000 training places, which is clearly what the First Minister hinted at when he spoke about those "new opportunities". Our motion calls for more information about those opportunities because, in the current economic climate, the public expect Government to be about action, not just headlines.

The support that is provided by partnership action for continuing employment—PACE—for individuals facing redundancy is vital. However, from previous recessions, we have learned that it is also vital that we support viable businesses to keep people in work so that the most can be made of the upturn.

Previously, I have highlighted steps that have been taken in Northern Ireland to support redundant apprentices, and our motion also highlights the ProAct initiative that has been developed in Wales by our other Celtic neighbours. For those who do not know the programme, its aim is

"to help businesses cope with the downturn, and use quiet time to develop staff skills ready for the upturn."

ProAct is available to businesses that have introduced short-time working and face the threat of redundancies. It covers training costs of up to £2,000 per individual and a wage subsidy of up to £2,000 per individual during that training.

As I said earlier, there will always be Scottish solutions to Scottish problems, but that should not prevent us from considering good ideas from other countries. In many ways, we are similar to Wales, particularly in terms of the size and spread of our small businesses, so we should give the ProAct initiative our full consideration.

In conclusion, I would like to say a little about the Scottish Government's economic recovery programme. One of the things that have surprised many in this recession has been the pace of change. Many things that would have been unthinkable this time last year have been utterly necessary for the economic recovery.

The pace of change is the main reason for our final suggestion this morning, which is that the Scottish Government bring back to the Parliament a renewed economic recovery programme before the summer recess. That programme needs to cover the issues that I have spoken about and tell us how the 7,800 apprentices will be delivered and what plans will be in place to support the redundant apprentices who have not found a way to complete their training. The Government also needs to tell us whether it will consider the ProAct initiative that has been forced through in Wales.

I am sure that the Scottish Government is in regular dialogue with industry stakeholders, particularly now, because of the problems that we have, and that many of those stakeholders will be making constructive suggestions about the type of support that they need in order to help to support economic activity. However, as is the case with the apprenticeship summit, dialogue is good but subsequent action from Government is far better.

I move,

That the Parliament is concerned that 34,000 extra Scots were out of a job in the last year and that many live under the threat of redundancy; recognises that government support for business and individuals is vital in the current climate; calls on the Scottish Government to examine the ProAct scheme developed by the Welsh Assembly Government, which supports businesses on short-time working, with a view to developing a similar initiative in Scotland; further recognises the seriousness of the economic situation in Scotland; believes that the Scottish Government should bring forward a new and revised economic recovery programme prior to summer recess, and calls for such a plan to outline how the Scottish Government intends to deliver the extra 7,800 apprenticeship places agreed for 2009 and the 75,000 training places announced by the First Minister on 18 April 2009.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I welcome the debate. Quite rightly, during such difficult times, there have been calls for radical action to be taken to protect employment. The Scottish Government is extremely alert to the need to support employment for people throughout Scotland. We are keen to see skills and key workers retained in sectors of the Scottish economy as we work towards the economic recovery. We are keen to do whatever we can to empower Scottish businesses to take the fullest advantage of the opportunities that lie ahead. That is why we are carefully considering calls for wage subsidies and other interventions to protect and sustain employment.

As we move through the current economic crisis, there has been much discussion about the merits or otherwise of wage subsidies, and various models have emerged in various countries, including the Welsh ProAct model that John Park mentioned. That model has clear advantages for the Welsh economy and was chosen by the National Assembly for Wales because of the scale and shape of the Welsh economy. However, the Scottish economy is different in structural composition from that of Wales and is at a different stage of economic development, and we have to consider what will work well in the Scottish context. The Government is actively considering options for wage subsidy, including models to support individual sectors, models to support those facing redundancy and models to support those moving into the workforce for the first time during an economic downturn.

Those responses are all possible, but we have to ask questions about their cost. We have to consider the long-term consequences of all our decisions, including the possible unintended adverse consequences. Additionally, we have a duty to compare the long-term value that alternative strategies can provide. It is important to consider the evidence and analyse the potential negative impacts of any wage subsidy intervention, including substitution and replacement effects, which involve existing workers being replaced with subsidised workers either in the same firm or in other firms and either in the same area or in other areas. We must also consider whether the employment that might seem to have been generated by a subsidy would have happened regardless of the interventions. All those risks have to be weighed up when considering the value of any subsidy model.

Research into the effectiveness of previous wage subsidy schemes suggests that they are most successful when they are targeted and time limited.

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

I know that any scheme would have to be appropriate for Scotland. We have been told repeatedly by the Government to consider examples from other countries—usually small, independent European nations. The National Assembly for Wales announced its measures on 2 January. In the past five months, has the Government concluded any review of the matters that the minister is talking about?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The member must take on board the fact that, as I said a moment ago, there are differences between what is happening in Wales and what is happening here. We need to examine the evidence. There must be a sound rationale to underpin any programme of support. The costs must be weighed against the benefits of alternatives; and the financial implications of even tightly focused and time-limited wage subsidy interventions must be taken into account, as they are likely to be considerable.

That is especially true given the significant fiscal constraints that Scotland faces. Scotland does not gain any benefit from an additional or maintained flow of pay-as-you-earn income, schedule D corporation tax or national insurance, so we must analyse all the options to ensure that we support employers in the current situation. We must adapt the options to the specific challenges that we face here, and we must discuss them openly and inclusively.

It is tempting to try to circumvent some of those processes, but that will lead only to short-term reactive decision making, which will in turn lead to unintended consequences such as those that I have discussed. Ultimately, it will slow our progress towards a rational solution. We must evolve approaches that will genuinely and sustainably support our businesses and employees over the longer term.

We know from previous recessions that even after growth resumes, the impact of a recession can run for a number of years, and unemployment is a lagging indicator. We are conscious that precipitate action could fail to deliver the cost benefits that we desire, which is why we are—quite rightly—analysing the options and planning a Scottish response. We are prepared to discuss that response widely, objectively and rationally.

Members are familiar with the decisive and rapid action that we have taken to date as part of the economic recovery programme to help Scottish families and households. Since last summer, we have consistently taken action to support jobs in our communities. We have doubled the resources of PACE, and there have been notable successes with Barclaycard and Goldfish, Vestas, the Rosyth to Zeebrugge ferry and others with whom we are working to try to get a phoenix to rise from the ashes.

As John Park saw in the manufacturing session that we ran, the Scottish manufacturing advisory service is directly beneficial and has a huge fan following. It is doubling its number of consultants, and I expect it to cross-pollinate other sectors of the economy. It advocates the things that work, such as focusing on the customer and on quality. We are committed to continuing that process, and to strengthening the skills and the key capabilities in the Scottish economy.

We are taking forward the economic strategy to increase sustainable economic growth in Scotland. We were right to make that our central purpose back in May 2007, and it is still right now. Despite the downturn, key elements in the Scottish economy are still discovering and exploiting opportunities for growth.

There is still much activity in the oil and gas sector, even with the depressed prices. That is important—people in that sector are telling us that they made mistakes in the 1980s in releasing people whom they later needed when the accelerator was ready to be pushed again, and that they are not making the same mistake this time around. There is an equally huge amount of activity in the renewables sector, as was highlighted in yesterday's announcement. Much was happening at the all-energy conference in Aberdeen; and we are continuing the support for apprenticeships to which John Park referred earlier, and on which my colleague will expand in a moment.

The key point of our amendment is that we want to go forward openly with colleagues in the Parliament to reach the right conclusions. Those conclusions, will, I hope, pass the test of time and meet Scotland's requirements in the long term.

I move amendment S3M-4187.2, to leave out from "with" to first "Scotland" and insert:

"to establish whether or not a scheme would benefit Scotland's economic recovery".

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

Liberal Democrats welcome the opportunity to take stock and look at the future, and we are pleased that John Park has brought the debate to the chamber.

The Scottish Government has said on a number of occasions in the past few months that the environment with regard to unemployment is stronger in Scotland and that Scotland is faring better than other parts of the UK. From some readings of the statistics, I can appreciate why the Government says that, but if we take a closer look at what is happening in our communities and examine the situation sector by sector, we see a picture of regrettable diffidence from the Government.

That is not a personal comment against the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism, whom I hold in high regard, but we need action rather than assertion. We welcomed some measures that the Government has announced, such as the accelerated capital expenditure, which we are told weekly is supporting 5,000 jobs. However, if we examine the information that Parliament has at its disposal, it seems that only half of the £323 million that it is asserted is being accelerated has been identified. We do not even know whether the Government is on course to deliver all the accelerated capital within the current financial year.

We supported the accelerated capital, but we did not know that it would be at the heart of party politics over the presentation of budget information by the Scottish National Party Government and the Treasury in London. All the accelerated capital is baselined into the current financial year, which skews the debate in relation to the coming years. That is not the correct context in which to consider a proper way forward.

In the Borders, which I represent, 1,041 people have lost their jobs in the past year, according to official Scottish Government statistics. If we use that as a per capita indicator, it is broadly equivalent to the loss of 20,000 jobs in urban Glasgow. That is the scale of the crisis that is affecting the economy now. It is not a case of waiting to assess something in due course during the year—action is required.

I appeal to the minister to look at examples of schemes in other parts of the UK, one of which has now been in place for five months. If there are genuine reasons why that method is not applicable to Scotland, there has been sufficient time for the Government to have examined, assessed and reviewed it; to have reached the conclusion that it is not appropriate; and to have brought that conclusion to the Parliament.

The textile sector in particular and the manufacturing sector overall have seen what the Welsh Assembly Government has done. The ProAct scheme is not a minor scheme—it is part-funded by the European social fund, which is at the Scottish Government's disposal too, and it is targeted to support 12,000 people. It is a targeted, innovative measure, and it is supporting a number of jobs that is way above what the Scottish Government claims to be supporting by accelerating capital, of which only half appears to have been identified. My constituents are therefore having to make the awful choice to take redundancy rather than moving to short-time pay levels that they cannot live on. They are looking at their counterparts in Wales, where there is some form of alternative. I appeal to the Government to consider that scheme.

We are debating this issue in the context of the Government's decision before the recession to directly cut the budget of Scottish Enterprise—not the head count or the operational budget but the direct business support budgets. The college and university budgets are flatlining—according to the Government's own figures, from 2009-10, there is a real-terms cut in that budget of 0.5 per cent, even using the revised gross domestic product deflators.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Will the member give way on that point?

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

I am anxious about my time, but I will give way to the cabinet secretary.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Is the member aware that the higher education spend has increased in real terms by 2.9 per cent over the current spending review period? Is he aware that, for Skills Development Scotland, the training budgets are up and the administration and back-room costs are down?

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

I will address each of those points directly. The figures that the Government published in November 2007—which appeared in the now infamous table—indicated that the Government was able to use the real-terms growth figures only because it evenly spread out one year's capital expenditure over a three-year period. A note to that table, which was published by the Government, states:

"The effects of additional capital funding allocated in 2007/8 have been spread evenly across the SR07 period for illustrative purposes."

We do not need information from the Government "for illustrative purposes"—we need places in colleges and support for students.

With regard to Skills Development Scotland, I suspect that the cabinet secretary did not see—and I therefore refer her to—the evidence that the Finance Committee received two weeks ago from Skills Development Scotland, which showed a direct cut in the programmes that were available to it.

It is in that context that we must consider the direct cuts in the budgets of Scottish Enterprise and the colleges. We have received evidence that, in my area, there has been a 72 per cent increase in applications to Jewel and Esk Valley College in Midlothian and a 20 per cent increase in applications to Borders College. Colleges will be turning away many more students, as they simply do not have the capacity. They are operating from a lower base because the Government flatlined the budget.

Investing our way out of this recession will be crucial for future jobs and skills, but the Government's baseline is making that job harder. The Parliament has to tackle that job and it has to do so urgently.

I move amendment S3M-4187.1, to insert at end:

"; regrets the flat-lining of budgets for colleges and universities in the spending review period announced in 2007 and the dramatic real-terms cuts in operational funding for Scottish Enterprise and the new agency, Skills Development Scotland; expresses concern at the impact that this will have on the sector's ability to accommodate increased training demand in the workforce, and fears that this could lead to a slower recovery for Scotland from the recession."

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

In his opening speech, John Park struck the right tone when he talked about the human cost of unemployment, which not only affects those who have lost their jobs but hangs over the heads of those who fear that they might. That is a significant concern, and I was interested to read in its unanimous cross-party report on the budget the House of Commons Treasury Committee's consideration of the prospects of UK unemployment. The report says:

"There is a strong possibility that unemployment will rise above three million, with some economists warning that it is possible that unemployment could rise as high as four million. Approximately 40% of the unemployed are likely to be young people aged under 25."

With regard to the measures that the UK Government has taken, it says:

"it is too soon to judge whether the Government proposal"

is

"a sufficiently timely and substantial response to the scale of the unemployment challenge."

Of course, unemployment might not reach 4 million—or indeed 3 million—and, even if it were to do so, the level might not necessarily rise faster in Scotland than in the rest of the UK. However, the report highlights the potential scale of the challenge that we face with job losses.

As the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism has pointed out, even when growth resumes—which it will at some point—there will still be a significant delay in job creation. As a result, even as our concerns centre on what can be done in the short term, we must take a long-term approach to dealing with unemployment.

The Fraser of Allander institute has suggested that 80 per cent of the jobs that are lost in Scotland this year and next will be in the service sector. That profile of job losses is different from that in previous recessions, and that will have different implications for our response to the situation. Although I am interested in the proposals from the Labour Party that are based on the Welsh experience of ProAct, I must be entirely candid and say that I am profoundly sceptical as to whether it is a cost-effective method of supporting employment. That said, in comparison with regional selective assistance grants and set against the First Minister's comment that 9,000 jobs will be lost as a result of the £500 million squeeze—in other words, £55,000 a job—the ProAct initiative seems relatively cheap.

However, there is a question about the effectiveness of job subsidies and a real concern about how we design out moral hazard and ensure that we do not simply spend public money on something that would happen anyway. I am also concerned about how firms would behave after a job subsidy was withdrawn—and, of course, how such a subsidy would be paid for. Perhaps that is what Mr Purvis is about to tell us.

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

As the member knows, £30 million of the Welsh scheme comes from the convergence European social fund, which is also at our disposal in Scotland. As I recall, David Cameron has proposed an alternative job subsidy scheme for the unemployed, so it does not appear that the Conservatives have a principled opposition to the scheme. Does the member agree that, if the proposal receives cross-party support, we have a good chance of delivering it in Scotland?

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

With regard to unemployed people, the Conservatives are proposing at a UK level to shift some of the spending that would otherwise go on unemployment benefit into short-term reductions in national insurance, which would have a beneficial effect on public finances. I should point out that, if my calculations are correct, the forecast increase in national insurance from 2011 will cost the Scottish economy something like £130 million. Avoiding that would give Scotland a very significant boost.

The Government's suggestion that we should evaluate the Welsh experience is perfectly sensible. If the scheme proves to be cost effective, we should consider it—assuming, of course, that we can find the money for it. However, if it proves not to be cost effective, I believe that we should not throw public money at it ineffectively. We need to consider all the available options.

As a result, although the Labour Party's proposal is interesting and worthy of substantial consideration, I feel that the Government amendment strikes the right tone. We will not support the Liberal Democrat amendment, which seems to be nothing more than another in its long list of spending demands.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

More than 40 years ago, I walked through the gates of the Cartsdyke shipyard and met the head foreman, Mr Alan Swindells. He was a wee character, but he had enormous power. Little did we know what changes lay ahead. A job for life? I think not.

As the representative of a community that for many years now has been subject to significant and on-going change, from ships on the Clyde to banks on the Clyde and from building ships to microchips, I understand the need for change. I know only too well that nothing stands still and know how important it is to educate individuals and equip them with skills and to support businesses through such change.

As a worker, as a trade union official and as a member of this Parliament, I also know how important politicians and politics can be in that process. In my various roles over the past 30 years, I have dealt with secretaries of state and ministers of all parties, including Mrs Thatcher in her den in Downing Street. As a result, I am not starry-eyed about the influence that politicians can have, either positive or negative. [Interruption.]

I think that that was a negative influence.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

We will add on injury time for that, Mr McNeil.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Thank you, Presiding Officer. The person who constructed my lectern obviously did not serve his time in the Cartsdyke shipyard.

I have seen shipbuilding move to the far east and the electronics industry move to eastern Europe, and I know that we cannot compete with sweated labour from abroad. However, I understand that change needs to be managed and that we need to retool and reskill people through education and training to build the workforce of the future. In order to do that, we need to be prepared to get involved and to act early. In our small country, we should be aware of the changes that are happening and manage them not for the here and now but for the next five, 10 or 20 years.

In that respect—and to bring a note of disappointment into the debate—I wonder how we can be confident that this Government and its ministers are prepared to act. For example, in February, Telecom Service Centres Ltd, one of Scotland's biggest contact centres, announced hundreds of redundancies in Greenock as a result of T-Mobile offshoring work to the Philippines. When I wrote to the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism to warn him of the threat not just to those jobs but to the whole industry, I did so not as an act of political posturing—after all, I knew that the agencies were already in place to support some of the workers—but because I recognised the early signs of an industry that was facing real challenges. The answer that I received was, at best, complacent in its attempt to assure me that everything in the garden was rosy, and it was not until a couple of months later when the same company announced the loss of hundreds of jobs in Falkirk that Mr Mather's officials made the call.

In his letter to me, the minister defended his position by name-checking his work with the Customer Contact Association. However, even a cursory glance at the association's website reveals various references to challenges such as the squeeze on costs and offshoring trends. Fully three months later almost to the day, after more redundancies and the closure of the Greenock contact centre, the First Minister will today respond by meeting T-Mobile. Let us all hope that he can seal the deal and secure guarantees that will minimise the job losses among the TSC workers.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Will the member be gracious enough to acknowledge the fact that we have engaged fulsomely with TSC and are working with the company to ensure that there is a backfilling of jobs in Scotland?

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

The minister, the workers at TSC and I know that there was no call to TSC until the eve of the additional job losses in Falkirk, despite representations from TSC and from me. For many of those workers, it is too late—they will lose their jobs. However, my concern is that the situation is not simply a local difficulty, but the beginning of a trend that will impact significantly in my constituency, where contact centres at T-Mobile, the Royal Bank of Scotland and IBM contribute to the economy and provide thousands of jobs. Those are high-skilled jobs that need multilingual, information technology and financial advice skills.

The issue is no small matter for the Scottish economy, in which more than 60,000 people are employed in 300 contact centres that offer 26 different languages. If Inverclyde and Scotland are to continue to benefit from those jobs, the Government needs to engage proactively at times of crisis, but also, more important, before crises are confirmed. The Government needs to bring the industry together, understand the challenges that it faces, and work with it to ensure that Scotland and Inverclyde remain good places to do business.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I welcome the opportunity to participate in this important debate. As everyone knows, we are in the midst of a recession that is having a devastating effect on many families in Scotland, the UK, Europe and the wider world. Only this week, we heard that the Japanese economy shrunk by 4 per cent in the first quarter of 2009. That highlights the global situation that we are facing. We are discussing the situation in Scotland, but it is important to highlight the Japanese example.

The Scottish economy is in a downturn, but we are faring well compared with the rest of the UK. During the first quarter of this year, unemployment in Scotland was 5.9 per cent, compared with 7.1 per cent in the UK—I would be the first to admit that that those figures are 5.9 per cent and 7.1 per cent higher than they should be. Labour has told us that 20,000 jobs have been lost in the construction sector alone this year. According to the Office for National Statistics, construction activity fell by 3.8 per cent in Scotland, 11.6 per cent in Wales and 6.4 per cent in England. The latest figures from the ONS—they are from 7 May—show that there was a 0.4 per cent increase in construction orders in Scotland from the last quarter of 2008 to the first quarter of 2009, compared with a 9.3 per cent decrease in England over the same two quarters.

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Does the member acknowledge that a lot of people in the construction sector are self-employed rather than directly employed? Quite a lot of the redundancies are therefore beneath the radar and are not reflected in the ONS figures.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I accept that point, which leads into what I am about to say.

I have family members who live in England and work in the construction industry there. When I have spoken to them in recent months, they have told me about the devastating downturn that is affecting them. Some of my relatives stay in the midlands. In the past, they have had no problems whatsoever in obtaining work. Now, the situation that they face is similar to, but worse than, that in Scotland.

I do not wish to see anyone lose their job through no fault of their own. However, in light of the statistics that I have just mentioned, it is clear that Scotland is suffering a wee bit but that it is certainly doing better than the rest of the UK, as I have said. I wonder what devastation would have befallen the Scottish economy if the Scottish Government had not brought forward capital funding in the budget.

Recently, the Scottish director of ConstructionSkills, Graeme Ogilvy, stated:

"there is still short-term growth in the industry, assisted by public sector spending".

Councillor Steven Purcell stated recently:

"there's so much work going on in Glasgow just now".

Some of those projects will be at least part funded by the Scottish Government.

Numerous announcements have been made about new building projects throughout the country. One of those projects is in the Inverclyde community that I live in. New schools have been commissioned by the Inverclyde Council Labour-Conservative-independent coalition and signed off by the Scottish Government. There is some £80 million for four new schools. Announcements have been made throughout Scotland to try to maintain jobs in these trying times.

Members keep hearing about the 20,000 job losses in the construction industry, and Labour continually attempts to blame the Scottish Government. I must have missed the furore when Chancellor Darling announced £500 million-worth of cuts for Scotland next year. That is expected to cost 9,000 jobs in Scotland.

I congratulate John Park on lodging a constructive motion, and welcome his acknowledgment of the ProAct scheme. I think that that scheme will bring benefits to Wales, and I hope that the Scottish Government will consider it. I am sure that John Park acknowledges that the scheme was introduced in Wales when Plaid Cymru became a partner in the Welsh Assembly Government.

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate, which is taking place at an important time for Scotland. Unemployment has risen to 157,000, and 34,000 Scots have lost their jobs in the past year. Earlier in the week, 300 proposed job losses in Lloyds TSB were announced. In South Lanarkshire, 13 people are chasing every vacancy.

In such times, the role of Governments is to use the levers at their disposal to protect their economies and to ensure that measures are in place to try to inject cash into them to create jobs. In that regard, I welcome initiatives that have been taken at the UK and Scottish levels, including the bringing forward of the capital acceleration programme, which has brought much-needed investment into the Scottish economy, measures in the budget earlier in the year to create 7,800 apprenticeships, and support for the PACE scheme to help people whose jobs are under threat find employment in other areas. Those are important aspects.

I know a lot about the threat of unemployment in my area. In January 2009, the Vion plant in Cambuslang announced 142 proposed job losses. Fortunately, as a result of the good work of the trade union and the company, 56 of those jobs have been saved in the short term, until the end of the year. That is a positive development, which is to be welcomed. However, building on that is important. Shortly, I will host a meeting in the Parliament that will involve Unite, Vion, the Scottish Government and agency representation, to consider how we can protect the Cambuslang plant and build a sustainable future for it.

In that context, the ProAct initiative, which has been welcomed, is worth considering. The minister and Derek Brownlee questioned the scheme's viability and asked whether such a scheme would contribute towards economic growth in Scotland. Such a scheme would introduce short-time working in Cambuslang, keep people in employment there and contribute to protecting the local economy, which would contribute to the wider Scottish economy.

The SNP must do more for the economy. Last October, it announced a six-point plan, which in essence tinkered at the edges. We need a plan that gives more details about some of the announcements that were made in the budget and which reflects the new economic circumstances. It is essential that we know how the 7,800 apprenticeships will be rolled out across Scotland. Last week, I was contacted by a constituent whose 16-year-old son is keen to get a job as an apprentice joiner. He had contacted Careers Scotland, but was unable to get any concrete information about how and when the apprenticeships would become available. Will the minister address that point when he sums up?

The SNP ministerial team must be a lot more visible when communities are under threat of job losses. The minister, correctly, went to Dundee pretty sharply when NCR was under threat but, in Cambuslang, it took me a month to arrange a commitment for a meeting with local trade union officials, and that was only on the day when I sponsored a members' business debate on the issue in Parliament.

It is important that we get action, because actions speak louder than words. It is time for the minister and his team to act now.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I am sure that all members welcome the opportunity to discuss employment in Scotland at a time of great uncertainty for all our people. All too many Scots live long term with an uncertainty of income, or at least the certainty that it will be low. Sadly, the present recession brings them closer to their neighbours, although only by degrees and then for all the wrong reasons. The benefits system is a mess. At present, the Parliament cannot address that directly, but the issue must be considered. Many more families, through no fault of their own, are finding themselves in the worrying situation of unemployment, debt and living on benefits that do not meet their outgoings.

That is why I am glad that John Park's motion is, in essence, positive in its presentation and that it gives the Scottish Government the opportunity to look for a like-minded approach from Opposition members. The Government, by bringing forward capital investment in the housing sector, will help with the training of the 1,000 modern apprentices in Glasgow over the next three years, which is backed by £6 million of Government money. As my colleague on the back benches Stuart McMillan mentioned, that has been welcomed by Graeme Ogilvy, director of ConstructionSkills in Scotland, who has stated:

"there is still short-term growth in the industry, assisted by public sector spending".

As Stuart McMillan also mentioned—note to self: never go last in a debate—Steven Purcell has gone on record to praise the booming parts of the economy in Glasgow because of regeneration projects that are funded, at least in part, by the Scottish Government. That is surely the kind of cross-party consensus about which we are all happy, especially as Steven Purcell was not at that point referring to the jobs that are to come from the construction of the new Glasgow hospital and the Glasgow airport rail link.

Everything is not hunky-dory, however. A growing number of our citizens are suffering from unemployment or are worried for themselves and their children in the job market in the short and long term. I have been there more than once, so I know the humiliation, and the fear that the longer someone is without a job, the less likely an employer is to take them on. We must therefore keep our eye on the ball in the Parliament and consider ideas from elsewhere, such as the ProAct initiative in Wales. However, we must ensure that such an initiative would work here, or we risk wasting the limited resources that are at our command. We will also have to work alongside Westminster, as long as it will let us, and only while it still holds the purse strings.

We should remember the need for Scottish solutions to Scottish problems. One size does not fit all, so with any joint economic programmes to boost employment, or in launching any initiative, we must ensure that it fits with the requirements in the Scottish jobs market and with the funding that is available to us under the present economic constraints. Investment in renewables is an ideal medium for a longer-term solution for Scotland. It will help us to ride out future recessions, while helping to save our planet's environment and all our futures. After only six years in business, the renewables company SgurrEnergy in Glasgow is growing internationally—it recently opened an office in Beijing. Welcon in Machrihanish, which Jim Mather knows well, is creating long-term construction jobs in the hundreds. Those are examples of Scottish solutions to Scottish economic and employment problems.

I hope and believe that all members will work with the serious attitude that is required to see Scotland's people through the recession.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

Derek Brownlee echoed John Park's comments about the human costs of redundancy. It is right that the effect on ordinary people should be the main focus of attention in the debate. The comments of Duncan McNeil and James Kelly concerned me. If workers are made redundant anywhere in Scotland, they deserve the full attention of politicians, and specifically ministers, irrespective of where the companies are and who the workers' local representatives are. I hope that ministers are not being partial in their response to redundancies, as some of the evidence that I have seen suggests. It would be fundamentally wrong if workers who are made redundant had to pay a price for political infighting in the Parliament. I understand that, inevitably, ministers will support members from their party on local initiatives—that is the nature of politics and I do not criticise them for it. However, no worker in the country should have a delayed response from ministers simply because they live in one area rather than another. I hope that ministers will reflect on those comments. Let us not have a stushie; let us just reflect on the issue and possibly change attitudes and future behaviour.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Does the member acknowledge that, as part and parcel of fulfilling our responsibilities, since way back last May, we have been going round the country, running 96 sessions and talking to 5,000 people at community and industry levels? We are trying proactively to make Scotland's economy better and more effective. Will the member reflect on that?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

I will reflect on that but, equally, Jim Mather needs to reflect on the criticisms from Greenock, Cambuslang, East Kilbride and other areas where there have been delays in responses from ministers. That is unacceptable and the minister must address it.

We must plan and prepare for our future and we need to invest in our young people. I am concerned that, in Renfrewshire in the past year, 30 apprentices have been made redundant, of whom 21 are still looking for alternatives. The main source of apprenticeships in the construction industry has dried up. Large companies are now often contract managers and brokers, so they subcontract rather than employ. Therefore, we need to support small companies that can provide apprenticeships for young people. I am thinking of companies such as MPS Training in Johnstone in my constituency, which is run by Willie Cosh. Such companies often offer young people varied and stimulating training and learning experiences that are better all round. If we invest in those companies now, we will be paid a handsome dividend in the future.

Several members have mentioned ConstructionSkills in Scotland. I do not want to be particularly critical of it, but we need to have an open mind, be objective and ask hard questions about its performance. Is it helping small companies? Do they feel that it is of value? Let us be open minded and objective in coming up with answers on what we can do and, more significantly, what we can do better.

I pay compliments to colleges throughout Scotland for their role in tackling the problem. For example, Reid Kerr College in Paisley has an outstanding record of helping young people into training and employment. I give particular credit to the college's built environment department. Colleges can make a difference, so we must invest in them.

Packages of employment and training need to be made available and we need partnerships that can work together closely. We need partnerships between the private and public sectors and between schools and colleges. ConstructionSkills in Scotland should be the facilitator for such an approach, but at this juncture, I worry whether it can do that job. I worry that rather than preparing young people for the construction industry as it exists today, it is continuing to prepare young people for the construction industry in a world that no longer exists and in social circumstances that have moved on. That should be a wake-up call and a challenge to us all.

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

The context for the debate this morning is the Government's skills strategy, which received scant support from this Parliament, and the Government's economic recovery programme. Concerns have been raised about its innovation and the depth of the work that it does.

By and large, the recovery plan policy is a toolbox with only one tool in it: accelerated capital. It is impossible for the Parliament to find out how much of that accelerated capital is in work that is being done at the moment, because the Government has not provided a breakdown. Bill Kidd commented on the work that is being done in Glasgow and quoted the council leader. It would be helpful if the Government were to publish such a breakdown of contracted works that are being delivered now and a timeframe for them. The danger is that we will enter the next financial year and find that part of the money that was due to be accelerated was not accelerated after all.

Stuart McMillan said that we are "suffering a wee bit". I hope that that is not a statement of the Scottish Government's policy. Even the comparative unemployment figures from the rest of the UK mask the information about sectoral and construction unemployment, although there has been some discussion about that. Stuart McMillan quoted Labour figures of 20,000 job losses. I agree with him that we should not necessarily trust Labour figures, but it was Michael Levack and not the Labour Party who told the Finance Committee two weeks ago that 20,000 jobs had been lost to the construction sector before the recession. It is the hiatus created by the Scottish Futures Trust and the Government's decisions not to introduce programmes and to cause delays in other programmes that have caused considerable difficulty. Critically, we are now seeing colleges having to adjust some of their work over the coming year because of what the Government has done to the Scottish economy.

Not all employment issues are within the remit of a devolved Government, and we agree with the Government on a number of issues that arise in the UK Parliament. The focus of debates such as this is the powers at the Scottish Government's disposal and what difference they can make to unemployment in Scotland.

We were pleased to work with the Government on finance sector jobs. When we argued in the autumn that the structures that the Government has in place were insufficient and called for a finance sector jobs task force, we were pleased that it accepted that argument, albeit after a little too long. We need to take that body to the next level because it is becoming apparent in the finance sector that there will be a drip-drip effect over coming months.

Although I am mindful of the good news that the minister rightly highlighted about the finance sector in Scotland, we still see a different type of employment in our local areas. It is interesting that the two areas of greatest unemployment growth over the past year are the Borders and East Lothian. There has been a 116 per cent increase in unemployment in the Scottish Borders and a 134 per cent increase in East Lothian. Those are both travel-to-work areas for the city, and both have experienced growth in capital and housing investment. They are both being harmed.

From the finance sector, I move on to skills and whether the skills strategy is configured appropriately. We are concerned that the strategy is the basis for our colleges and universities, as their budgets have flatlined. At the Finance Committee on Tuesday, it was encouraging to hear John Swinney say that he will look again at college funding in the coming year. A cynic might call that an admission of failure, but I will be far more constructive and say that it might be the beginning of a recognition that in the coming year we have to look differently at the in-year budget.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Will the member give way?

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

I am afraid that I am in my last minute; I would have given way otherwise.

We need to look aggressively at all public spend in the coming financial year to free up resource, to stimulate the economy and to look at supporting private sector employment. At the same time, public sector employment is growing. Government figures published in March indicate that, although there are fewer public sector bodies in Scotland, more people are working in the public sector. The growth profile of public sector employment corresponds exactly to the decline profile of private sector employment. For the long-term sustainability of our businesses, we need to look at both what the Welsh Assembly is doing and what our Government is doing within this year's budget.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothians)

John Park and the Labour Party have come to the chamber this morning with an important debate and with what I would describe as a plausible and positive suggestion. The Scottish Conservatives are happy to examine any plausible and constructive suggestion. Although, as Mr Brownlee said, we have initial concerns with Labour's proposal, the fact that such a plausible suggestion has been made is a good step forward.

We heard from various speakers about the deeply worrying situation in Scotland and the UK as a whole. The motion talks about 34,000 job losses in Scotland in the past year, but unemployment is measured in different ways. The claimant count—another perfectly legitimate way of looking at unemployment—has increased by 54,000 in the past 12 months, which is even worse than the figure in the motion.

Derek Brownlee spoke about the UK position. A couple of months back, somebody suggested that 3 million people might become unemployed in the UK. That estimate was on the fringes of mainstream opinion, but it has moved into the mainstream over the past few months, and most commentators think that we will be staring in the face a figure of 3 million unemployed people over the next 12 months or so. A statistic of huge concern that I confess I had not heard before is that about 40 per cent of those 3 million people could be under the age of 25. That creates enormous problems for this country into the future.

The central plank of Mr Park's proposal is the ProAct scheme initiated by the Welsh Assembly. It came out of a meeting with various business groups in November last year; it was implemented in January this year and has been running for five months. There are clear benefits from the scheme, which is having an effect in parts of Wales, but my biggest concern is the number of companies that gain from it. The most recent figures that I could get hold of suggested that 53 Welsh companies have been helped so far and a further 106 are currently being assessed. Applications number around 30 a month. As I understand it, only one company a day is applying to the ProAct scheme. Fifty-three companies have been helped, which contrasts with about 4,000 companies that need help, as I read in the official reports of the Welsh Assembly debates. That is why it could be argued that the scheme is only scratching the surface of the problem in Wales.

BDO Stoy Hayward predicts that 5,000 companies in Scotland are in serious danger of failing this year, with the potential for another 5,500 companies failing next year. Potentially, greater numbers of companies will fail, but if we are looking at helping only 53 of them—or perhaps more in Scotland—we must question seriously how big a difference such a scheme can make. The minister made a fair point in asking that question. One could contrast that scheme with the small business bonus, for which we pushed and which I understand has helped something in the region of 146,000 companies throughout Scotland.

We will certainly examine the ProAct scheme, but there are concerns at the outset. There are concerns about the bureaucracy, which can probably be taken care of with the benefit of hindsight. There is also the obvious question of where the money might come from. It is a £48 million scheme in Wales. I have seen various estimates of the funding: some say that £30 million has come from European structural funds while others say that that figure is £38 million, with the rest made up by the Welsh Assembly Government.

From the tone of the minister's speech, it sounded to me as if the Government had made up its mind that the scheme was not a good idea, although I might have picked that up wrong. I am happy to be corrected on that, but that is the impression that I got. Any examination of the scheme has to be swift. If it is a good idea and it is going to work, the examination and the implementation have to be swift.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Will the member take an intervention?

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothians)

I think that I have only 10 seconds left, but I will take an intervention.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Please be very quick, Mr Mather.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I draw to the member's attention the fact that I was calling for an objective and rational assessment. We intend to honour that.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothians)

I am happy to take that at face value. The examination has to be swift and a decision has to be taken quickly. In Wales, the scheme was up and running within two months. Two months is a perfectly reasonable time for us to make a decision—yes or no.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I thank John Park for bringing the debate to the Parliament. Since last summer, the Government's number 1 priority has been to focus its resources to support individuals and businesses suffering the consequences of the recession. That remains our priority.

Nearly 8,000 more people will start apprenticeships this year thanks to the additional £16 million that was announced in February, which was supported throughout the Parliament. Up to 75,000 Scots will benefit from support through 79 projects that receive European social fund support from the £25 million that we announced in April.

Last year, a record 35,000 people—up 37 per cent on the previous year—used individual learning accounts to support work-related training. The changes that we made to ILAs last month mean that more people than ever can now access those funds.

On Gavin Brown's points about young people, through the new policy for 16-plus learning choices, by December 2010 we will offer a place in learning post-16 to every young person in Scotland who wants it, which will help 60,000 young people each year. Within that, we will focus on improving the way that we support our most vulnerable young people, and we will invest £16 million over the next two years to develop activity agreements with them.

Our economic recovery effort is all about supporting people, communities and businesses. What matters most to us is how the numbers that I have just mentioned translate into real, practical help for individuals. Duncan McNeil and others reflected on that in their speeches.

I will give a couple of real-life examples. Alex from the south side of Glasgow was made redundant last December after working for 25 years at Woolworths. He used ILA funding to train for and pass his passenger service vehicle licence theory test, and he is now working as a bus driver with FirstGroup.

After being made redundant in his 50s, David from Alexandria got tailored advice, training and support from PACE, which led to him securing work in the social care sector.

Students at colleges such as John Wheatley College, Elmwood College and Perth College are benefiting from £20 million of extra infrastructure improvements from the acceleration of capital spending.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Does the cabinet secretary not accept that my criticism of the failure of the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism to act has been acknowledged by the Government, given that the responsibility for certain matters has been transferred to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth and that the First Minister is meeting T-Mobile today? Does she not acknowledge, however grudgingly, that that is progress?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

When I mentioned Duncan McNeil, I was referring to his reflections on how the recession impacts on individuals and the importance of dealing with individuals. His points are on issues around the response to individual companies.

We have to approach the recession by working together. Attacking individuals, whether ministers or other MSPs, will not be welcomed by our constituents and it will not get the results that we want.

We know that more than 1,000 butchers, bakers and ancillary staff in the food manufacturing industry will benefit from training as a result of two ESF projects and that 5,000 people will now have access to basic training through the Scottish Trades Union Congress-led ESF project, which builds on the £4 million investment that we are making in union learning.

I hope that Parliament agrees that the actions that we are taking will make a real difference, but we know that we have to do more. We will continue to use the resources within our powers to bolster that effort.

On the Liberal Democrats' amendment, we have heeded the calls of the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats to cut back spending on public jobs and quango costs. The Skills Development Scotland operating budget will reduce as a result of a voluntary severance scheme, although training budgets are not being cut and front-line services are being enhanced.

Chris Travis, in reflecting on the 2009-10 college allocations, said:

"The increase in funding for colleges is encouraging and takes into account the need to provide increased financial support for colleges and students, particularly in these challenging economic times."

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

I hear what the cabinet secretary says, but the information that the Government itself has published shows that the college recurrent funding was £539 million for 2009-10 but will be £535 million for 2010-11.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

We can trade figures, but a 2.4 per cent real increase over the spending review shows our commitment.

I move on to examining the pros and cons of wage subsidies. We are examining a number of proposals and the experience of ProAct in Wales. It would be wrong to prejudge whether measures such as wage subsidies are suited to the specific experience of the Scottish economy now or in the future. We are also looking at the Northern Ireland redundancy apprenticeship model, although there are slight concerns about low uptake. We want to look at the successes and the problems that those and other schemes in Europe face.

There are big challenges. Jeremy Purvis identified the need to support college places. In our assessment of wage subsidies for individuals and sectors or to deal with mass redundancies, as in Wales, we have to identify whether resources are best placed there or in colleges. Those are exactly the points that we have to consider.

We have also adapted the eligibility of training programmes to support better those in need. That means that training for work—a vocational training programme to enable people to develop job-specific skills—is now available to unemployed people after three months, compared with the previous threshold of six months. It is also available immediately to people on notice of redundancy. That means that people in work can receive training while they are working their redundancy notice, in order that they can move from work to work. That is one of the best solutions that we can provide.

I have already announced 1,000 apprenticeships for the Glasgow Commonwealth ambitions, 50 for the creative industries and 100 for home energy and efficiency. John Park mentioned the apprenticeships summit, at which 150 employers joined us. Only yesterday, key industry sector organisations met the Minister for Schools and Skills to develop that thinking further. When the report from the summit is published, which will happen shortly, I will outline further details on how we are building a strong skills base to enable Scotland to survive the recession and to thrive when the recovery comes.

The Government will also produce an updated economic recovery programme within the next few weeks.

I thank John Park for lodging the motion. If Parliament agrees to the Government amendment, we can proceed in a united way in acknowledging John Park's proposals.

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I welcome the contributions from members. The debate has enabled us to discuss issues of importance and relevance to the people whom we represent, and it has allowed members to raise a number of local employment concerns. I do not doubt that MSPs of all parties take the issues seriously and are working hard to ensure that their constituents are supported individually and collectively through these difficult times. If the motion is passed at 5 o'clock, as I hope it will be, that will be another important step towards ensuring that the Government is accountable for the decisions that it takes and that it delivers on the commitments that we make in Parliament.

I agree with many of the points in the amendment in the name of Jeremy Purvis on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. Much of what the Scottish Government intends to spend on skills is being channelled through ESF funding—the additional spending that we are considering today.

That is the right thing to do, and we have to be supportive in reprofiling the money to ensure that there are proactive measures to support people who are in work but under the threat of redundancy.

I am concerned that that assistance should not be at the expense of supporting projects for the people who are furthest away from the labour market. We definitely need to support both groups, in particular because the people who are furthest away from the labour market are in the communities that have never fully recovered from recessions in the past.

I do not want to get bogged down in semantics, but I think that the wording in the SNP's amendment is similar to that in our motion. We will take our chances at 5 o'clock.

It is without doubt self-evident that whatever proposal we in the Parliament come up with must be rigorously assessed on what it would do and deliver. It goes without saying that policy making must be evidence based—I am comfortable with that.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

In our examination of wage subsidy schemes, including the Welsh example, we are discussing the idea with business partners and the STUC. It is important that we reflect on what they say.

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am relaxed about the fact that such a proposal needs to be brought back to Parliament. That is absolutely the right approach.

We have spoken about the small business bonus scheme, whose universal approach I have expressed concern about. I acknowledge that the scheme reduces fixed costs for individuals, but we must measure whether that results in reinvestment in the workforce. Evidence from the Federation of Small Businesses shows that the scheme has led to only a 5 per cent increase—

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

rose—

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I knew that Mr Brownlee would stand up when I said that, but I will finish my point. Only 5 per cent of companies say that the scheme has led them to reinvest in their workforce to support employment.

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I, too, will refer to FSB evidence on the business rate cuts. Emerging evidence from the FSB suggests that about one eighth of eligible businesses that receive the business rate reductions would have difficulty in remaining in business were it not for the reductions. Is that not a significant impact not just on employment but on self-employment?

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

That is a good point, but were those businesses viable before? The same argument is made about whether Scotland should have a wage subsidy scheme like ProAct. We must apply to the figures from the FSB on one form of Government spend the same logic as we would apply to a wage subsidy.

Some members, particularly from the Labour Party, have expressed concern about the consistency of the Government's approach. I know that Mr Mather has gone around the country to speak proactively to industries and companies, but when MSPs are approached by constituents who are concerned about their employment it is vital that the Government responds consistently.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Will the member take an intervention?

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I must make progress and get on with my speech—the issues have been covered and there is no point in going over them again.

The FSB at the UK level, the UK Trades Union Congress and CBI Wales support ProAct. As part of the Scottish Government's analysis—whether or not it is part of a wider economic recovery programme—it should engage with key stakeholders and ask the CBI, the STUC and FSB Scotland what support would be needed if such a scheme were introduced in Scotland. ProAct has the support that I described—although I take the points that Gavin Brown made—and when we in the Scottish Parliament have to make evidence-based policy decisions, anything that we do to consider such a scheme more seriously will be very welcome to Labour members.

James Kelly spoke about Vion Food Group, and I will say a little about the Vion campaign. I spoke in the members' business debate earlier this year on the job losses at Vion, and the situation highlights the important role that trade unions play. The trade unions sat down with Vion, campaigned locally and made a difference. They considered ways of mitigating the job losses and delivered for their members. At the same time, they ensured that the company knew that it had to do things in the right way. The people who do such work throughout the country—whether they are union members or ordinary workers—are the unsung heroes in the workplace. They try to maintain employment and keep people in work. We in the Parliament should recognise their valuable work.

I have highlighted the figures on redundant apprentices. Yesterday, I was approached by Daniel McGuiness, a third-year plumber, who advertised in the Daily Record and the Sunday Mail—and whose mother has even written to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning—to say that he has nearly finished his apprenticeship and that he needs someone to take him on. We must deliver for such people. The real and perceived barriers to helping apprentices complete their training were considered at the apprenticeship summit, which also covered the 7,800 places that we need to achieve.

I hope that the Scottish Government will bring the issues back to the Parliament before the summer recess and that we will deliver on employment and apprentices.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — General Questions

Cathy Peattie (Labour, Falkirk East)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will extend the national concessionary travel scheme to include demand-responsive community transport schemes such as Dial-a-Journey in Forth valley, which is used by older and disabled people who are eligible for the scheme but cannot use scheduled services. (S3O-7024)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The Scotland-wide free bus travel scheme for older and disabled people already includes demand-responsive community transport services that are registered local services. The scheme has been the subject of a review since last July. The review is now complete and the resulting report and recommendations will be published this month.

Cathy Peattie (Labour, Falkirk East)

Why are private bus operators trusted to operate concessionary transport schemes when community transport organisations are not? A number of disabled and older people throughout the country cannot access travel schemes. Will the minister please look again at the discrimination that those people face daily?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The member makes a perfectly fair point about the need to provide access to affordable public transport for people with a range of disabilities that prevent their having ready access to standard service buses. We provide substantial support for a wide range of demand-responsive transport, which comes in many shapes and sizes. Some forms fall within the present scheme, whereas others are outside it. We have commissioned additional work on the demands of the transport sector to which Cathy Peattie refers. That work will be available to us later.

Ian McKee (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

What are the differences between the concessionary travel schemes north and south of the border? Does any reciprocity between them exist?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The scheme in England is operated locally. Unlike the Scottish scheme, it does not provide national coverage. It has been examined recently and several revisions to it have been made—for example, it now excludes, for the first time, bus services on which the majority of seats are booked. We are not minded to follow such a restriction on the successful scheme in Scotland.

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government which areas of the public sector are not covered by its commitment to avoid compulsory redundancies. (S3O-6976)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The scope and coverage of the Government's commitment to no compulsory redundancies are set out in a general agreement with the council of Scottish Government unions. The commitment applies over the current spending review period, up to and including 2010-11. It applies to permanent staff in the core Scottish Government, its associated departments, agencies and non-departmental public bodies.

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Given the scale of the wage bill relative to Government spending as a whole and given the significant squeeze that will come to the Scottish Government like all other parts of Government, is a policy of no compulsory redundancies sustainable in the medium term?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The policy is sustainable. It conditions the decisions that the Government must take about our approach to balancing the budget that we must present to Parliament.

We have attached a significant premium to simplifying the public sector. That has the consequence that individual posts might be lost, which would mean redeploying individuals in other parts of the public sector. The Government will take decisions on the wider budgetary issues that it faces against the back-cloth of the commitment to no compulsory redundancies. That is the correct thing to do, to maintain the motivation and performance of public sector workers in Scotland.

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

I am interested in what the cabinet secretary said. He will know from Government figures that, although the number of public sector bodies has gone down from 199 to 162, the total number of people who are employed in core Government, its agencies and departments has risen from 186,670 in the third quarter of 2007 to 188,780. Will the Government reverse that growth trend?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

As Mr Purvis will be aware, some of the increase is the result of our bringing into core Scottish Government some agencies that were outwith it. Since this Government came to office in 2007, there has been an increase of 0.2 per cent in the number of people who are employed in the public sector. That contrasts with an increase of 8.7 per cent in the period before that from 1999. The Government is stewarding the resources of Scotland effectively. As part of the simplification exercise, we are bringing more employment into core Scottish Government, where we can undertake those requirements effectively.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Question 3 was to have been asked by Margaret Mitchell but she does not appear to be in the chamber. Members are aware of my feelings on the subject. They will be made known to her.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

To ask the Scottish Executive, in light of the Cabinet Secretary for Justice's decision not to proceed with plans for a pilot community court in the east end of Glasgow and the vote on motion S3M-4065 on 7 May 2009, what plans it has to implement fair, fast and flexible justice for the people of Glasgow. (S3O-6996)

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

Our plans for fair, fast and flexible justice will benefit all the people of Scotland.

"Protecting Scotland's Communities: Fair, Fast and Flexible Justice" explains the two key strands of our policy, which are a robust, visible and credible regime of community penalties and strong and proportionate management for offenders whose crimes merit prison. We propose to provide the necessary legislative support through the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill, which is currently before the Scottish Parliament.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

As Kenny MacAskill will surely be aware, the decision to abandon the community court in the east end of Glasgow undermines his credibility in delivering that effective criminal justice system in Scotland. Will he explain why SNP parliamentarians at Westminster are demanding that the Government in that place respond to the will of Parliament whereas SNP Scottish Government ministers are dismissing arrogantly the will of the Scottish Parliament? When will Kenny MacAskill have some consistency on the matter? When will he answer to the will of the Scottish Parliament on the community court in Glasgow?

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

We have made it clear that this is the decision of the project board, which is made up not only of representatives of the Scottish Government justice division but of the Crown Office, Glasgow City Council and the Court Service. It was on the project board's advice that the Government took the decision. Ms Curran should recognise the record amounts of funding that we are putting in. Spending on community justice social work has increased from £36.5 million in 1999-2000 to £103.95 million in 2008-09. That is an increase of 185 per cent over 10 years. There is also an additional £2 million and other moneys. The money continues to rise.

Anne McLaughlin (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Members may be aware of the figures that Strathclyde Police reported last week, which show a marked decline in crime on the south side of Glasgow. The figures include a 24 per cent reduction in violent crime in greater Pollock and a 52 per cent reduction in housebreaking in Pollokshields. Does the cabinet secretary agree that it is clear that increased community policing is having a beneficial effect across Scotland? In this as in all others, Government actions speak louder than the Opposition's empty rhetoric.

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

Absolutely. The Government is committed to a visible police presence. We now have record police numbers. In terms of the city of Glasgow, in addition to the Government's record on police numbers, I pay tribute to the respective chief constable and police board. Their actions have ensured not only the rollout of the additional officers who we funded through the 1,000 additional officers commitment but that officers are deployed properly.

At the end of the day, as we have always made clear, this is not only about recruitment but about the retention of valuable, experienced officers and the deployment of officers away from needless bureaucracy and back-office jobs that can be dealt with by civilian posts. We want to ensure that we have the visible police presence in our communities that reassures good citizens and deters bad citizens. As Ms McLaughlin pointed out, it ensures that crime is falling.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

The framework against which national health service boards consider pharmacy applications are provided for in the NHS (Pharmaceutical Services) (Scotland) Regulations 1995, which the Scottish Government intends to review. The process will begin prior to the summer through discussion and scoping work with stakeholders, with a view to a formal consultation being published in the autumn.

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

I thank the minister for the commitment on the consultation. As she may be aware, an appeal is pending on a pharmacy application in the Spittal area of my constituency. My constituents and I have concerns about conflicts of interest, given that the objectors include senior members of Community Pharmacy Scotland, which has representation on the appeal panel. Will the minister consider amending the rules to eradicate such conflicts of interest and introduce more fairness and transparency into the proceedings?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

As the member will be aware, we lodged an amendment this week, which is designed as an interim measure to ensure that the public continues to be involved in pharmacy applications. As I said in my initial answer, if any further changes require to be considered as part of the review, we will do that, once we have consulted all stakeholders.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Does the minister acknowledge the importance to people in remote and rural areas of dispensing general practitioner practices? Does she take account of the effect on service provision when a practice loses its right to dispense? Can the dispensing doctor arrangements be amended to include the new services that community pharmacies provide? That would ensure that patients across Scotland have equal access to pharmacy and GP services.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

Dispensing GP practices were designed to cover areas where patients would have serious difficulty obtaining their medicines. It is important to remember that the extra remuneration that dispensing GPs receive is intended to cover the delivery of that additional service, not to cross-subsidise general medical services provision; there should be no impact on the other GP services that are provided in the area. As I said in my answer to James Kelly, we will of course have an open review. I am sure that the member will wish to submit her comments as part of that process.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

With the best will in the world, there is cross-subsidisation. Dispensing GPs are able to employ other people to provide pharmacy services, which means that surgeries are open for longer.

Will the minister ensure that, as part of the review of the regulations, communities will continue to be involved in decision making and that the health professionals who work in an area will be consulted on an application?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

Well, yes. As I said earlier, in lodging the amendment we have ensured that the public continue to be involved in pharmacy applications. It was important to do that. Any further changes, including consultation with other stakeholders, are important. The fact is that we are taking forward the consultation. The views of key stakeholders form an important part of the process. I am sure that we will listen to their views and act accordingly. I am also sure that the member will wish to submit her comments as part of the process.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Yes. By using a model that is verified by some actual measurements, baseline levels at individual properties in the vicinity of the scheme will be predicted. The results of the noise and air assessments will be reported in an environmental statement later in 2009.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

The minister is aware of residents' concerns about the impact of the new crossing on noise levels and air quality at Linn Mill, Clufflats, Echline and Dundas Home Farm.

At a recent meeting with Transport Scotland, I was told that there would be no on-the-ground baseline figures and that all baseline figures—which are crucial to discussions about mitigation and compensation—would be produced as a result of purely desk-bound calculations. Does the minister share my concerns about that? Will he instruct Transport Scotland to undertake on-the-ground monitoring of current noise and air quality indicators at the affected locations?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order. Far too many conversations are taking place in the chamber.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I said in my original answer that the model will be verified by measurements on the ground. We shall use contour plots, with a base year of 2005, for nitrogen dioxide and fine particulate matter, which are key. In addition, we will provide contour plots for NO 2 and PM10 to show the difference in pollutant concentration for 2017 and 2032 with and without the proposed scheme. That substantial piece of research should give a high degree of confidence that we understand and are able to mitigate any effects on individual properties.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

To ask the Scottish Executive what steps are being taken to manage registered sex offenders. (S3O-7010)

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

Through the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill and the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Bill, we will introduce tougher court orders to impose new obligations on high-risk sex offenders; further strengthen the requirements for sex offenders who declare themselves, or claim to be, homeless; provide additional powers to the courts to impose extended sentences for offences where there is a significant sexual aspect to the offender's behaviour; and introduce new offences to protect children from sexual abuse and exploitation. We have also recently announced plans to pilot greater individual disclosure for parents who may have concern about an adult who has access to their child.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

On 24 March, I submitted a question to the minister requesting information on how many of the 33 recommendations of the Justice 2 Sub-Committee would be implemented. Despite receiving a holding response on 14 April, I have yet to receive a response to that inquiry. Eight weeks on, will the minister respond to the question that I submitted?

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

I am happy to confirm to Mr Martin that a letter will shortly be on its way to him. As far as the Government is aware, 29 of the 33 recommendations have been delivered. By the time the letter reaches Mr Martin, we may have been able to increase the figure further. I assure him that the Government is delivering the recommendations of the sub-committee of which both he and I were members, because we recognise the requirement to ensure that our children are protected from those who would seek to exploit or abuse them.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

We have already made clear that we are planning to announce the next part of our schools investment programme later this year. That will involve working with local authorities to take forward capital investment through the Scottish Futures Trust.

David Whitton (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

Anyone who has studied the matter knows that the Salmond-Swinney slump has already put 20,000 workers in the construction industry on to the dole queue. I know that SNP back benchers do not like to hear that, but the facts are the facts.

I am sure that Mr Swinney is aware that Michael Levack of the Scottish Building Federation appeared before the Finance Committee again last week. He said:

"Planning is very difficult at the moment, given the vacuum that is being created by the lack of major projects coming forward, following delays with the Scottish Futures Trust."—[Official Report, Finance Committee, 12 May 2009; c 1252.]

When will the minister get a move on and order Angus Grossart and Barry White to set down at least one construction project?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Mr Whitton seems to have missed the fact that the Government has presided over the commissioning of a range of construction projects around the country, including the M74 and the M80, which probably goes through his constituency—the member should open his eyes and look at what is in front of him. He should look at the statistics into the bargain. According to the most recent employment statistics for Scotland, construction employment has risen by 1 per cent. Perhaps that will put the member's gas at a peep.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Before we move to questions to the First Minister, I know that members will wish to join me in welcoming to the gallery the Speaker of the House of Assembly of the Parliament of South Australia, the hon Jack Snelling MP. Mr Speaker, you are most welcome. [ Applause. ]

First Minister's Question Time

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-1708)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

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

The whole Parliament will wish to join me in congratulating all those who work in the national health service, who have worked so hard to meet—for the first time ever—the two-month target to treat urgently referred cancer patients. Figures released this week confirm that 95.4 per cent of urgently referred patients began treatment within two months. The national target was first set in 2001, and it was due to be achieved in 2005. I am proud that it has now been delivered under this Administration.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

On Monday, convicted gunman Brian Martin got up and walked out of Castle Huntly open prison. He is yet to be recaptured. Why was a man with a long record of violence and of fleeing justice being held in an open prison in the first place?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Open prisons, by their very nature—and since their instigation in the 1950s—are designed for long-term offenders who are approaching the end of their sentence. That is what open prisons are for. Any absconding from an open prison is to be regretted. There have been three absconds from the open prison estate this year. Two people have been apprehended; the search is on for the one who has not been.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

When he walked out of the open prison on Monday, Brian Martin was just three years into a 10-year sentence for firing a gun during a fight in a house in Fife. His previous offences include a string of armed robberies and threatening police with a sawn-off shotgun. This is a man who was once dubbed the most dangerous man in Britain. Will the First Minister agree with me that Brian Martin should not have been in an open prison in the first place?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Neither Iain Gray nor I can rule on the criteria for open prisons, but we can look at the figures for open prisons and abscondings over the past generation. After the introduction of the tightened regulations following the case of Robert Foye, which were announced by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and approved, I think, by the whole Parliament, we can now see from the figures what is actually happening in the open estate. In the last year of Labour control, there were 339 prisoners in the open estate and 79 abscondees. That is an abscond rate, as a percentage of the daily population, of 23 per cent. In the past year, following the reforms that were instigated by the justice secretary, there were 342 prisoners in the open estate, of whom 16 absconded.

In other words, although it is greatly to be regretted for anybody to abscond from the open estate, I do not think that Iain Gray is on particularly firm ground when he complains about abscondees, as the rate under the present justice secretary is one fifth of what it was under the Labour Party.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

I am not entirely sure about the arithmetic there—

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

Although the figures on the reduction in the number of absconds are welcome, that misses the point. Back in March last year, the justice secretary said:

"every abscond is one too many."

Surely this abscond, Brian Martin, is the one too many.

Two years ago, Robert Foye absconded from Castle Huntly and viciously attacked a young schoolgirl. Following that, Mr MacAskill said that there was now

"a clear presumption against returning a prisoner to the open estate if they have previously absconded."—[Official Report, 26 March 2008; c 7308-9.]

This is not the first time that Brian Martin has gone on the run, is it? He has had previously to be pursued using roadblocks and sniffer dogs, yet he was still housed in an open prison. Is it not the truth that Mr Salmond and Mr MacAskill have not done enough to protect the public since the last such case?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I am glad that Iain Gray is not clear about the arithmetic: that applies to every subject that he raises in the chamber. The statistics on the number of abscondees from the open estate are important, and I remind him that they show a dramatic reduction. He says that that is to be welcomed; indeed it is, and I hope that that welcome applies across the Labour benches.

Iain Gray asked me to say that one abscondee is too many. Yes, it is. The three that we have had this year are too many as well, but let us recognise that, because of the firm action taken by the justice secretary, the number of abscondees from the open prison estate in Scotland is at an all-time low. Is not that to be welcomed?

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

I have already welcomed the improvement shown by the statistics, but the statistics also show that a particularly dangerous violent criminal is on the loose. It would be bad enough if Mr MacAskill let the public down in that way occasionally, but hardly a day goes by without another fiasco: he missed the knife summit to go to a pub in Canada, defied Parliament to cancel community courts and abandoned tough action on antisocial behaviour. We found out this week that hundreds of cases in the High Court are being delayed and that police officers are being trained in the dark at Tulliallan to save on electricity bills. He persists—[ Interruption. ]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

Kenny MacAskill also persists with the madness of ending all six-month sentences. He has failed to protect the public from Brian Martin; will Mr Salmond now protect the public from him and admit that his justice secretary is just not up to the job?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Iain Gray says that police officers are being trained in the dark at Tulliallan. If it had been up to him, they would not be trained at all, because there would be no extra police officers. Under the justice secretary, 16,675 police officers patrol the communities of Scotland and keep them safe.

Iain Gray still does not understand the statistics for abscondees from the open prisons, so I will read out the numbers for the last three or four years of Labour control in Scotland: 71, 63 and 79 abscondees. The figure of 16 for last year is a great deal lower than was the case under any Labour justice minister.

At some point, Iain Gray will have to admit that we had the biggest reduction in crime statistics for a generation and have a record clear-up rate because we have police officers going through Tulliallan day and daily under the current justice secretary.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I plan to meet the Secretary of State for Scotland on 23 June, when he will come along to give a pre-Cabinet presentation, in line with a range of social partners who are doing so, on fighting the recession. I suspect that that discussion may turn to the impact of Westminster budgets on Scotland.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

David Cameron has pledged that, if elected as Prime Minister, he will treat devolution with respect and responsibility. Indeed, if he is Prime Minister, he will offer to appear before MSPs in this Parliament to answer questions on any subject.

Can the First Minister demonstrate the same respect and responsibility? Is he big enough to put aside his gripe and grievance politics for the good of Scotland? He claims to be Scotland's voice at Westminster—although, with his attendance record, it is more of a whisper—so will he match David Cameron's pledge and offer himself for questioning before MPs at Westminster?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Scottish ministers have already appeared before Westminster committees and I have no difficulty in doing so.

I am interested to hear that the Conservative Party and David Cameron will treat Scotland "with respect". Behind that new phrase is there not an admission that in the past the Conservative Party did not treat Scotland with respect? Perhaps the secret of the long-term continuous decline in the party's fortunes in Scotland is that for years it was viewed as an anti-Scottish party, precisely because it did not treat Scotland with respect. New policies might come in floods these days, but I suspect that many people in Scotland will say, "The leopard doesn't change its spots and these are the same old anti-Scottish Tories."

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

It is unfortunate for the First Minister that what voters tell me and what the opinion polls reflect is very different from the image that he might like to portray.

There are two types of politician in the Parliament: those who, like the public, want devolution to work, who are in the majority; and those who, like the First Minister, want to wreck devolution, who are in the minority. Perhaps Alex Salmond cannot rise to the challenge of being a responsible First Minister. Perhaps he will always be a separatist party leader with a wrecking agenda. Does he agree that the best way to nurture a strong relationship between our two Governments and Parliaments, build mutual respect and responsibility and start to restore trust in our politics is to have a general election, to give people a say and to let them vote for change?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

At last there is something that I can agree with. Let us have a general election and vote for real change in Scotland's representation in Westminster.

I do not know which opinion poll Annabel Goldie has been reading, but she shouldnae get carried away by the one that showed her ratings above Iain Gray's ratings among the Scottish public. That was not because she is going up; it was because he is going down.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-1710)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

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

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Six hundred jobs went at Lloyds TSB Bank this week and 900 others went the week before, on top of yesterday's 300 jobs at the Royal Bank of Scotland. If that happened in one go there would be a riot, but job losses are being dripped out bit by bit. Lloyds has made it plain that headquarters functions will move from Scotland to London. It also admitted to the City of London yesterday that it will have to sell off parts of its business, perhaps even the Bank of Scotland.

Will the First Minister bring a new plan to the table to protect Scottish banking jobs?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

This week's announcements from RBS and Lloyds are serious—they were not entirely unexpected but they are no less serious for that. We have been in contact with both organisations, which say that they will do their utmost to avoid compulsory redundancies, but we are talking about a considerable number of finance sector jobs.

The finance sector jobs task force, which Tavish Scott urged us to set up, is up and running, meeting and doing good work. It is engaging in dialogue not only with the institutions that are shedding jobs but with institutions that are growing in the financial sector. For example, esure has announced 500 new jobs in Glasgow, Tesco Personal Finance is establishing its headquarters in Edinburgh, there are new jobs from BNP Paribas and we all celebrate Martin Currie's recent success in gaining the long-term administration of part of the Chinese pension fund—I am not sure how much of it, but I think that we can safely say that it will be a considerable amount.

I make those points not to diminish in any way the seriousness of the job loss figures but because we should not give the impression that the whole of the Scottish financial sector is shedding jobs. There are companies in our financial sector, particularly in pensions, life management and asset management, which are doing extremely well and robustly through the economic recession.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

If the First Minister builds a genuine campaign, which is not just cross party but across Scotland, I will back it. That should be a campaign to bring Bank of Scotland home.

Last year, the Labour Government used all the instruments of state to force the takeover of HBOS. We said that that would hit competition and hurt customers. The European competition commissioner, Nelly Kroes, whom I met on Monday, recognised that, too. Lloyds will now have to sell parts of its business. There must be a campaign for a smaller bank that serves Scotland's families and businesses, rather than taking high-wire gambles with other people's money. Can we have the Bank of Scotland back home? Will the First Minister lead that campaign?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I agree with the analysis of the dangers of lack of competition in the retail-banking sector in Scotland. We are not in charge of the decisions that will be made on whether bank assets are or are not put up for sale, as Tavish Scott well knows. However, right now, we are engaged in attempting to attract new players into the Scottish financial scene, because we have traditionally relied on two exceptionally strong banks for a substantial share of the market. Right now, we have to attract new players who are in a better financial position, and that is what we are focused on. The financial sector jobs task force is also focused on its work, looking at how skills that might be released from some institutions could transfer into other institutions.

If Tavish Scottish is asking me to campaign for and promote additional competition in the Scottish financial sector, certainly I am for that, because I think that competition benefits the Scottish people and Scottish business in the long term.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I will take a constituency question from Michael McMahon.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

Does the First Minister recognise that the families of the 14 elderly residents who perished in the fire at the Rosepark nursing home in Uddingston in my constituency have been waiting more than five years now for justice and answers in the wake of the tragedy? This week, the latest attempt by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to bring charges against the owners of the nursing home failed. It now seems unlikely that the families will ever receive justice, because of the Crown Office's mistake in serving the original charges on the company that owned the home at the time rather than on the directors, who subsequently dissolved that company and created a new one to run the home.

Will the First Minister assure me, other members and, most important, the bereaved families that a fatal accident inquiry, or another form of public inquiry, will be held to ensure that answers are found and that lessons are learned from the tragedy? Will he also assure the people of Scotland that the legal loophole that allowed the company to avoid being charged will be closed—using the legislative opportunity that is provided by the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill—so that no individual director or corporate entity can escape justice in the future by using that loophole?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

On the final point, Scottish Government and United Kingdom Government officials are working together on how legislation can close that loophole. I am not making a political point, but the incident happened under a previous Administration, and I do not think that it is as simple as saying that the Crown Office made a mistake. The case brought up a genuine gap in the law that must be addressed.

I have genuinely just been handed a piece of paper that was released at 11.52 by the Crown Office—I am sure that the constituency member will get a copy directly—which states:

"A Fatal Accident Inquiry is to be held to look into the circumstances of the deaths of 14 residents of Rosepark Care Home".

That was announced by the Solicitor General for Scotland today. [Applause.]

I am sure that the constituency member and, indeed, all members in the chamber welcome the fact that the fatal accident inquiry will seek to ensure that those who lost loved ones in the fire at Uddingston in January 2004 can know the full circumstances of that tragic incident as soon as possible.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I will take a further constituency question from Christina McKelvie.

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Following the detention of Fatou Felicite Gaye and Arouna Gaye, what progress has been made to stop the detention of children in Dungavel detention centre in Lanarkshire and what contact has the Scottish Government had with the UK Border Agency?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The Scottish Government is engaged in extensive contact with the UK Border Agency and, indeed, with UK ministers on that issue. I am extremely disappointed that, after a period when substantial progress appeared to be made on the issue of the detention of children at Dungavel, this incident has now arisen. I do not believe that the explanations that have thus far been presented by UK ministers explain what seems to be a reversion to a previous, totally unacceptable, practice.

It is the view of this Administration—and, if I remember correctly from previous votes, of the overwhelming majority of members of this Parliament—that it is not acceptable in Scotland to detain children in an establishment such as Dungavel.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

We are providing the right resources for the curriculum for excellence in terms of money, time and commitment to ensure that all Scotland's young people are equipped with the skills for learning, life and work that they need in the 21 st century. The previous Administration spent £10 million in developing the curriculum for excellence programme in the period 2005 to 2007. Since then, we have invested some £11.9 million, with a forecast figure of £30.1 million for the period 2009 to 2011.

We have put in place an additional year for implementation, announced three extra in-service days to support implementation, made provision for 100 additional teachers to support implementation in the classroom and supported the establishment of an implementation network, which will be led by the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland. Every teacher is receiving their own copy of the new curriculum guidance, which will be enhanced by world-leading on-line resources.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I thank the First Minister for that detailed answer. However, like all members, I have heard and read the concerns that leaders of unions and councils have expressed on the resourcing of education, including the curriculum for excellence. I understand that the partnership with councils means that they are responsible for delivering education on the ground, but part of any partnership is constructive discussion. Will the First Minister give an assurance that he or his ministers will meet council leaders, including those who have made such opinions public, to impress on them the importance of passing on appropriate funding to education?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I can confirm that education budgets are, of course, a matter for local authorities. All those with an interest in the success of our children and young people can make their views known to their local decision makers. We have provided record funding settlements for local government of £23 billion for the period 2008 to 2010.

Discussions are taking place and have been arranged between ministers and local government colleagues. We have a shared educational agenda with local government, which is set out in the concordat and includes delivery of the curriculum for excellence.

Let me point to an example of how that partnership is working. I am delighted to note that South Ayrshire Council has organised for today a curriculum for excellence festival for 1,400 teachers and colleagues who are involved in making the curriculum for excellence real in classrooms. Over two venues, some 78 workshops are planned that will examine how to set about improving learning and teaching to provide the young people of Scotland with the skills for learning, life and work for the 21st century. I think that the whole Parliament should welcome such indications that local authorities across Scotland are taking their responsibilities seriously.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

No doubt the First Minister has noted the concerns of the Scottish Secondary Teachers' Association about how the curriculum for excellence will work in practice. The SSTA is concerned that guidance about delivery has been too vague and that resources remain insufficient. In light of that, does the Government plan to accept the SSTA's recommendation to delay delivery further until a clearer and more robust strategy for implementation is in place?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

We are confident about the strategy for implementation and the enthusiasm of teachers across Scotland for the implementation of the curriculum for excellence. I have spelled out to the Parliament the increased and enhanced resources that have been devoted by the Government to ensure that the curriculum for excellence is a substantial success.

The whole Parliament will recognise that those resources are being devoted in times that do not look particularly propitious as far as public expenditure is concerned. [Interruption.] I hear the Labour Party complain about that, but facts are chiels that winna ding—there is a £500 million cut in the Scottish budget next year. However, despite Labour cuts, resources are being devoted to the curriculum for excellence, and that should be welcomed by the Parliament.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The Government is determined to avoid another lost generation so we are taking action to limit the disproportionate and damaging effect that recession can have on young people. Through 16+ learning choices, we will ensure that every young person has an appropriate and attractive offer of post-16 learning, including through schools, colleges, training, volunteering or non-formal learning.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I am pleased that the First Minister has mentioned volunteering as an option. However, two years ago, Scotland led the rest of the United Kingdom in providing full-time volunteering placements for young people. A month ago, Barack Obama quadrupled the number of places that are available in the United States on the programme that originally inspired Project Scotland. Unfortunately, while youngsters in Dallas and Pennsylvania will have better opportunities next year, youngsters from Dumfries to Perth will see the door closed in their faces. Will the Scottish Government reconsider its decision to end its funding of Project Scotland? Will the First Minister agree to meet the youngsters from Project Scotland who have benefited from their volunteering placements? Will ministers stop blanking Project Scotland volunteers and start backing them, giving them the opportunities that they deserve and want?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

There have been regular meetings between Project Scotland and ministers. I advise the former First Minister that we are making improvements in good destinations for young people in relation to employability. The position is improving: last year, 87 per cent of young people were in positive post-school destinations—seven points up from 2003-04.

Project Scotland did some excellent work, but we must also consider value for money in volunteering and the voluntary sector. The grant in 2007-08 was £6.5 million—20 per cent of our total investment in the third sector for 2008-09. There are many other volunteering projects in Scotland. The MV awards scheme encourages and facilitates part-time volunteering and cost a total of £800,000 in 2006-07. It provided 4,400 part-time placements at around £180 a placement. Community Service Volunteers Scotland placements cost around £9,000 for a full year, including the cost of bed and board. Project Scotland placements cost £8,500 for six months and did not include accommodation costs.

Good work is being done. However, given the fact that all Governments must consider which organisations can deliver cost-effective volunteering opportunities for young people on the scale that we require and in the way that we need them, it is pretty clear that the ministerial decisions on Project Scotland were correct.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The evidence is clear that the vast majority of pupils in our schools are well behaved and a credit to Scotland. That was the consensus in the debate on school discipline on 7 May, too. The number of school exclusions decreased by 11 per cent overall between 2006-07 and 2007-08, and the number of exclusions relating to physical assault decreased by 6 per cent over the same period.

Elizabeth Smith will have seen the comments that were made by Ronnie Smith, the general secretary of the Educational Institute of Scotland, in The Herald on 3 March:

"While we have problems with indiscipline, this tends to be low-level such as answering back rather than assaults."

However, any violence in schools is unacceptable. That is why the Government is preparing new guidance on exclusion, in partnership with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and other key stakeholders.