Scottish Parliament, 24 September 2009

417 contributions from 76 members. The official report.

Official Report 24 September 2009

Teachers

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Good morning. The first item of business this morning is a debate on motion S3M-4910, in the name of Rhona Brankin, on teacher numbers.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Another day, another education debate; another week, another broken promise. The Scottish National Party has now confirmed what we suspected was going to happen months ago and dumped its promise of smaller class sizes in primary 1 to 3. Another promise was quietly dumped yesterday. In fact, we said that it was dumped a year ago, but the SNP denied it. Yesterday, it dumped its commitment to increase access to nursery teachers for every child, because the number of nursery teachers went down again. However, we are here to debate teacher numbers, which is a hugely important matter. We have discussed it in the chamber several times and we on the Labour benches make no apology for returning to it today.

Teachers should be valued. I declare an interest because, like many other members, I am a former teacher. Most if not all of us can remember a teacher who made a difference in our lives. That is what we want for our children and what some of us want for our grandchildren. We want them to have teachers who encourage them not only to learn but to raise their ambitions and aspirations. Thousands of teachers throughout Scotland are doing that day in, day out. I start by acknowledging the great work that they do.

We should all have the utmost respect for the teaching profession. It is therefore unfortunate that the SNP Administration has seen fit to renege on its manifesto promise on teachers. The SNP manifesto was clear. It stated:

"We will maintain teacher numbers in the face of falling school rolls".

Ministers might not like to be reminded of that, but Labour members will continue to remind them of it from now until the next Scottish Parliament elections. It is clear from the first 28 months of the SNP Administration that it has no intention whatsoever of maintaining teacher numbers. The "Teachers In Scotland, 2008" census shows a cut of almost 1,000 in teacher numbers, spread right across Scotland, with 24 of the 32 local authorities having cut teacher numbers, including, the minister might be interested to hear, 12 of the 13 SNP-run councils.

The First Minister defended those figures by saying that pupil teacher ratios had been maintained at 13:1, but that was yet another shoddy attempt to move the goalposts to spare his blushes and those of his hapless Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning. Under the SNP, a majority of local authorities have seen either no change or a worsening in pupil teacher ratios.

Beyond those faceless statistics are real teachers with views and experiences, and we need to listen to them. I encourage SNP members in particular to look at the forums section of the Times Educational Supplement Scotland website, where they might learn something about life at the chalkface under their Government. On it, Pam writes:

"I am ... coming to the end of my third year as a teacher and have actually been asked to attend a job interview outside teaching. It's going back to the job I had before teaching, working in a lab and quite a good job. I enjoy teaching but am fed up with being unable to get a permanent job. I am at the point now that I don't think I can continue doing supply and having no job security, no stability and no regular income."

Jane writes:

"you will earn more as a shelf stacker in Asda than a supply teacher here. I haven't stepped in a classroom since the end of June. Supply far outstrips demand and there is very little demand for enthusiastic teachers these days ... we are just waiting on people to die or become ill or sustain some horrid injury. Teaching is a very casual profession now."

What is the SNP solution to that crisis in teaching? It is cuts. Fiona Hyslop and John Swinney are taking £10 million from the teachers budget next year. That is a betrayal of our young people. It is more about plugging holes in the SNP's budget than about doing what is right for the country. As Ronnie Smith of the Educational Institute of Scotland put it,

"Scotland needs more teachers, not fewer."

He said that the cuts will

"inevitably lead to fewer teachers in our classrooms and larger class sizes for pupils."

However, as we saw yesterday, the SNP's promises on class sizes have been ripped up. Yesterday's climbdown confirms what we have known for at least a year—that the SNP has no intention of maintaining teacher numbers to reduce class sizes.

Fiona Hyslop's solution to the issue of unemployed teachers is to slash spending on teacher training, but what she really needs to do is to keep her promise to maintain teacher numbers. If she had not cut teacher numbers by nearly 1,000, we might not have a situation where there are 543 applicants for one teaching post in Perth and Kinross.

The education secretary recently trotted out the excuse that local authorities are not replacing retiring teachers at the levels that were previously expected. Frankly, I think that that is a pathetic excuse. Having promised to maintain teacher numbers and utterly failed to do so, the Scottish Government is now pointing the finger of blame at local authorities. On this side of the chamber, we do not blame councils but, if the cabinet secretary is intent on doing so, perhaps she should have words with the 12 SNP-run local authorities that cut teacher numbers in the past year.

No matter how the cabinet secretary tries to dress up the figures, the General Teaching Council for Scotland statistics show a year-on-year decline in the number of newly qualified teachers who find full-time, permanent jobs. Ken Cunningham, the general secretary of School Leaders Scotland, says that the figures confirm

"the worrying trend of unemployment among usually very good, very well trained, newly qualified teachers."

That will be the Administration's legacy—a generation of talented teachers on the dole and lost to the teaching profession because of SNP incompetence and broken promises. As Dougie Mackie of the EIS says,

"The current difficulties in teacher employment are little short of a national scandal."

On the TESS website, a teacher who calls himself "SickOfHavingNoSecurity" writes:

"Think I will send Hyslop a calculator—she obviously does not have one in her office, and if I could—her P45. I can just photocopy mine and change the names."

I urge members to stick up and speak up for Scotland's teachers, parents and pupils and support the motion.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the most recent reduction in the number of teachers employed in Scotland revealed by the September 2009 public sector employment figures; further notes that this follows on from the Teachers in Scotland 2008 census, which showed that the number of teachers fell by nearly 1,000 on the previous year, and asks how this can be reconciled with the SNP's manifesto pledge and concordat commitment to maintain teacher numbers in the face of falling school rolls in order to cut class sizes; highlights with concern the Times Educational Supplement Scotland survey, published in August 2009, suggesting that only 15% of this year's newly qualified teachers had secured full-time permanent work at the start of the school term as well as the General Teaching Council Scotland follow up survey suggesting that, even half way through the 2008-09 school year, only around a third of the previous year's probationary teachers had found full-time permanent posts; believes that the Scottish Government has precipitated a teacher jobs crisis, forcing many of the most qualified new teachers in Scotland's history to look elsewhere in the United Kingdom or beyond for suitable employment; believes that this represents an appalling loss of talent to Scotland's education system and a gross betrayal of those enticed to train as teachers as well as those who voted SNP due to its election pledges on schools, and therefore calls on the SNP government to publish detailed plans of how it will deliver on its manifesto and concordat commitments on teacher numbers.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

I put on the record straight away the Government's regret that, in these difficult times, anyone is unable to find the job that they want in the profession that they have chosen. We know from the latest figures that 13.4 teachers per 1,000 in the workforce in Scotland are claiming jobseekers allowance. That figure is too high. However, it is important to note that it is still lower than the equivalent figure for England, which is 14.8, and significantly lower than the figures for Northern Ireland and Wales. [ Interruption. ] Labour members might be interested to know that that comes against a background of perhaps £2 billion of cuts by the Labour Party to education in England, so the figure there may worsen.

As members are well aware, we are in a critical position in relation to the education system here in Scotland. The curriculum for excellence is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to ensure that our education system equips our children to meet the demands of the future, and the teacher workforce is crucial to its delivery. We have provided record levels of funding for local government, despite what Rhona Brankin says, and, through our concordat-based partnership with local government, we have made substantial progress towards our ambitious class size reduction targets.

The average primary class size is 23.2, which is a record low. At 13.1 pupils per teacher, the pupil teacher ratio is also at an historic low for the second year running, and the proportion of P1 to P3 pupils in classes of 18 or fewer rose to a record high of 13.25 per cent in 2008. The largest class sizes have been tackled first and the proportion of P1 to P3 pupils in classes of more than 25 went down to a record low of 23 per cent in 2008.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

If the minister is making such substantial progress, when does he predict that he will meet his class size target of 18?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

Through the concordat with local government, we have committed to making year-on-year progress in reducing class sizes. As the figures that I have just given show, we have made record progress—in fact, substantially more progress than was possible under the previous Administration.

As I have said, that kind of achievement does not come easily. It has been made possible by record levels of local authority funding; in 2008 to 2010, for example, £23 billion has been made available. I am the first to acknowledge—and have said on previous occasions—that we would like to have seen more progress. However, we are working constructively with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and local authorities to identify the further progress that can be made over the coming months and years. Indeed, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning and Adam Ingram have been meeting councils to that end.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Will the minister give way?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

I am sorry—I do not have that much time.

Despite the financial pressures that formed the backdrop to last week's budget announcement, the total package of funding for local government in 2008 to 2011 comes to £35 billion, which is £4 billion more than in the period 2005 to 2008. The 2010-11 element of that investment is £12 billion, which represents an increase of £127 million on the figure for 2009-10.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Will the minister give way?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

No. It is also worth noting that COSLA has given a continuing commitment to pursue the commitments in the concordat. An important point that members will be aware of is that teacher employment is a matter for local authorities, which is as it should be. Despite the examples given by Rhona Brankin—

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Will the minister give way?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

No. Despite the examples highlighted by Rhona Brankin—[ Interruption. ]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

There are numerous examples throughout the country of the very significant progress that has been made. Indeed, 18 of our 32 local authorities have made progress on class size reduction. I should point out that those councils include not only West Lothian, which is SNP led, but Midlothian, which is Labour led. I am sure that Rhona Brankin will welcome that.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Will the minister give way?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

No.

However, the converse is also true. We need look no further than Glasgow City Council to find an authority that is haemorrhaging teachers and whose class sizes are increasing. Rhona Brankin did not mention this, but I think that it is worth noting that, out of the 226 probationers who became available in 2008-09, Glasgow has employed only 75 in temporary posts in the new school term and not a single one on a permanent contract.

As for the drop in teacher numbers to which Rhona Brankin referred, I point out that four councils—Glasgow City Council, Renfrewshire Council, North Lanarkshire Council and Aberdeen City Council—account for almost half the total figure. Renfrewshire and North Lanarkshire have made positive commitments to reducing class sizes in the coming years, and we all know about the situation in Aberdeen. The one council that stands out is Glasgow City Council, and it will be interesting to see whether the Labour Party acknowledges that point when it comes to the summing-up speeches.

Of course, the time lag between taking decisions on student teacher intake numbers and those teachers seeking employment after serving their probationary period is such that the vast majority of those decisions were planned for by the previous Administration. The 2008 teacher census, which we published in March, showed that there were 1,000 fewer teachers. However, we took immediate action to address the situation by reducing by 500 the student teacher intake targets for autumn 2009.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

On the overall picture, I am not entirely clear why progress towards reducing class sizes is compatible with a reduction in the number of teachers in Scotland. No matter who is responsible, is that not a difficulty for the Government?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

Obviously, there is a relationship between class sizes and the number of teachers. I have detailed already our progress on class sizes, and I am happy to come back to the issue when I sum up.

That is why, as the cabinet secretary announced yesterday, we are proposing to make regulations to limit primary 1 class sizes to 25 from the beginning of the 2010-11 school session. The previous Administration issued a circular with the intention of limiting P1 class sizes to 25—

George (Labour, Lothians)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Did I hear the minister say that he would be summing up? Does that mean that the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning will not be participating in this important debate?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

You certainly did hear the minister say that he would be summing up, which he is perfectly entitled to do.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

As I said, the previous Administration issued a circular—[ Interruption. ]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

The circular set out the intention of limiting P1 class sizes to 25. However, local authorities have subsequently found that it is scarcely worth the paper that it is printed on. [ Interruption. ]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order. There is too much noise.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

That is why we are making regulations to limit P1 class sizes, which the previous Administration did not do. We will consult on those regulations later this year and, in parallel with that, we will review the current unsatisfactory mixture of arrangements governing class sizes at all stages.

This Government is committed both to class size reduction and to our target of class sizes of no more than 18 in P1 to P3, and we are taking steps to ensure that progress continues to be made in that direction by legislating to clear up the ambiguity that was left by the previous Administration. We are also very concerned about the plight of the significant numbers of unemployed teachers and, again, we have plans to address that.

This time last year, the Labour Party brought a similarly half-baked motion to the chamber and it is a pity that, in the meantime, Labour members have been unable to develop their thinking. Their motion offers nothing positive. It offers no solution to the challenges that the education system and unemployed teachers face. It complains, but it does not contribute. The Government is offering solutions. We are serious about Scottish education and, for that reason, I urge members to support the amendment in my name.

I move amendment S3M-4910.3, to leave out from "the most recent" to end and insert:

"that Scotland benefits from a record low in average class size in primary schools, that the number of P1 to P3 pupils in classes of 18 or under is increasing and that the Scottish average primary class size is considerably smaller than those for England and Wales; welcomes the record levels of funding provided by the current administration to local government and the commitment set out in the concordat to reduce class sizes but notes that the employment of teachers is a matter for local authorities; welcomes the continuing commitment of the Scottish Government and local government to work together to make further progress on class size reduction; highlights with concern that the previous administration took no legislative action to support its class size reduction policy and notes the recently announced intention of the Scottish Government to introduce regulations for a maximum class size of 25 in P1 from the beginning of the 2010 school year and to review more generally how class sizes are governed, and also recognises the action of the Scottish Government to ensure a better balance between supply and demand of teachers."

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The Labour Party is quite right to highlight the crisis of the lack of employment for newly qualified teachers. I am sure that all of us in the chamber have been approached at our surgeries by, or have received correspondence from, newly qualified teachers who are in despair at being unable to find suitable permanent employment. They have often given up careers elsewhere to go into teaching believing that they could make a contribution and enticed by the message that was sent out to them by this Administration—and, to be fair, the previous one—that they would be welcome. Having spent a year at university, often at their own expense, they now find themselves struggling to find employment. The tragedy is that many are going back to their previous jobs, which represents a dreadful loss of talent to the teaching profession.

I sometimes think that Opposition education debates on Thursday mornings have become the parliamentary equivalent of small boys pulling the wings off flies. The trend is for the Opposition parties to gang up on the hapless Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning and her team, highlighting the latest failures in education. I am not without sympathy for the cabinet secretary in some of the things that she is trying to do but, with yesterday's announcement of the ditching of the flagship class size policy and today's debate on teacher numbers, in which the Labour motion makes clear the awful situation that we are now in, it has not been a good week for her.

I accept that local authorities find themselves in a difficult position. In that respect, I have to say that, in claiming that councils have more money than ever, the Minister for Schools and Skills mounted a quite extraordinary defence of the Government's position. It seems, therefore, that the entire blame for this scenario rests with local authorities, which, having been granted this largesse, are stealing money from education budgets to spend on invisible projects that we do not know about. If that is really the SNP's defence, it should say so clearly and tell us where the money is being spent in such an extravagant fashion.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

rose—

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

If the minister wishes to elaborate, I will give way to him

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

The figures for Glasgow City Council show that it intends to spend 1.4 per cent less on education this year than it did last year. Moreover, on the point about loss of talent, members might be interested to learn that this year's probationer of the year was employed by Glasgow City Council on a temporary contract only after it was exposed that the council was not going to use any probationers.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am grateful to the minister for that intervention. However, what he has not done is clarify where he believes all the extra money that councils are receiving is supposedly being spent. What is it that Glasgow City Council is spending all this money on that he thinks is extravagant and a waste?

Everyone in education understands that money is tight; indeed, headteachers are being asked to make efficiency savings. The fact is that whoever was in government would be facing this situation.

However, I start to lose my sympathy for the SNP when I recall that, when in opposition, it promised in its manifesto to deliver class size reductions. As we know, those reductions are taking place, but at a glacial rate; according to the latest figures, the SNP will deliver on its class sizes promise in 2095. In opposition, Fiona Hyslop was keen to criticise the previous Executive over the difficulties that newly qualified teachers found in finding permanent employment. Now that the situation has worsened, she has nowhere to turn.

That said, I want to be constructive, and our amendment suggests two positive steps to help the situation. First, we reject the notion that scarce resources should be spent on free school meals for the children of well-off parents. Even if such a policy were justifiable in times of plenty, there can be no justification for it when we are facing spending cuts. That is simply a waste of resources that could be spent on employing more teachers.

Secondly, we believe that headteachers should have much more power over teacher employment. At the moment, a headteacher can fill a vacancy in one of three ways. It can be advertised in the local newspapers, a surplus teacher can be transferred from another school, or a commitment can be made to take on a probationer once they are fully qualified. However, the decision remains under the control of the local authority, not with the headteacher. Headteachers' freedom of operation is limited and often they end up having to take teachers whom they might not have wished to take because the local authority has required it. We believe that giving headteachers more power would improve the teacher employment situation.

We are seeing a huge waste of talent as those who have, at a great expense to the taxpayer, been trained in teaching find themselves unable to find an outlet for their skills. Indeed, many are being lost to the profession, possibly permanently. The SNP made a rod for its own back on this issue with all the promises that it made in opposition. This week, the policy to cut class sizes has been ditched, and we can only hope that the commitment to maintain teacher numbers will not go the same way. The cabinet secretary has a duty to start delivering on education; if she does not do so, we will have many more Thursday mornings like this one.

I have pleasure in moving amendment S3M-4910.1, to insert at end:

"; considers that the universal provision of free school meals in P1 to P3 will impact on the ability of councils to recruit and retain teachers, and believes that head teachers should have much greater say in the recruitment of teachers and other staff in their schools."

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

I thank the Labour Party for raising this issue. Others have referred to the colossal waste of talent in having trained teachers, whose training has been paid for out of the public purse, sitting at home instead of being in our classrooms.

Back in 2007, the Scottish Government spoke of the historic concordat with local government as though it were a milestone in the governance of Scotland and a breakthrough in relations between local and national Administrations. It is now clear that it is more like a millstone shackled to our local authorities as they are burdened with the delivery of undeliverable Government promises with insufficient support and resources, and carrying all the blame for Government failures.

Among the Government's failures and broken promises—and there are many—is its failure to maintain teacher numbers and reduce class sizes in primary 1 to 3. The minister, Keith Brown, was more than happy to direct the blame for that towards Scotland's local authorities. He did that earlier this year in an education debate and again today when he told us that teacher employment is a matter for local authorities. If responsibility for teacher employment and class sizes is so clearly not the responsibility of the Government, why did the SNP make such bold pledges on both of those issues in its election manifesto? Why were there no caveats then about the limitations of its power to deliver? In truth, the SNP has centralised the policy but localised the blame.

The Minister for Schools and Skills said that he is

"disappointed with the results of the 2008 teacher census and the implications for teachers after their probation year."—[Official Report, 7 May 2009; c 17203.]

I imagine that that is little comfort to those newly qualified teachers, who I expect would use a stronger word than "disappointed" to describe how they feel about their prospects and this Government. It is little comfort to Scotland's missing teachers—a generation of missing teachers.

Just this week, the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee received more information from the cabinet secretary on the curriculum for excellence, which she said is

"a strategic vision for a better, fairer and more robust system that promotes quality of achievement through education".

In the past, the cabinet secretary has quoted the scholar Joel Barker, who said:

"Vision without action is merely a dream."

Question marks remain about the delivery of the curriculum for excellence. Without action from the Government to back its vision with the resources that are needed to make it a reality, it might become a nightmare, not a dream. There can be no more important resource than the required numbers of properly trained teachers to implement the curriculum for excellence properly. Keith Brown acknowledged as much today. Is it not a pity that the SNP has cut 1,000 teachers in its two years in government—1,000 teachers who would have made the curriculum for excellence happen?

It can be nothing short of a nightmare for many newly qualified teachers who are unable to find work and many teaching students who are working hard for their qualifications but are deeply concerned about their future. Last month's Times Educational Supplement Scotland showed that just 15 per cent of last year's probationer teachers had found full-time permanent jobs at the beginning of this academic year. In Glasgow, out of 226 enthusiastic new teachers who completed their probationary year last year, not one had found permanent employment.

If this was a phenomenon particular to Glasgow, perhaps we could see some sense in the Government's pathological passing of the blame to local authorities, given that Glasgow City Council is a Labour administration. However, when we consider that, in each of Scotland's 32 councils, fewer than half—and in most cases significantly fewer than half—of last year's probationers have found permanent employment, it is clear that this is a national problem. Where then is the national solution from the national nationalist Government?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

Where is your solution?

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

I am not the Government. You are the Government, unfortunately.

Where is the master plan that will deliver what the Government promised on education, smaller classes and maintaining teacher numbers? What progress is being made on the implementation of the recommendations of the teacher employment working group, which include greater reconciliation between local workforce decision making driven by financial necessity and the national workforce planning process? How will that work be helped by the Government's pass-the-buck attitude to the problem of falling teacher numbers? What progress is being made on the policies that the working group called for in relation to retirement patterns and winding-down arrangements, the use of post-probation teachers to fill supply posts and the utilisation of permanent supply pools?

After more than two years of the SNP Government, only 13.2 per cent of P1 to P3 children are in class sizes of 18 or fewer, but the First Minister had the audacity last week to say that the Government is making "significant progress". Yesterday's announcement cannot be characterised as significant progress. It was a complete and utter abdication of the policy.

Back in April 2003, John Swinney said:

"Scotland's children can't wait any longer for smaller class sizes."

Well, I have news for them: they are still waiting under the SNP. The SNP has delivered 1,000 fewer teachers than it inherited two years ago. As our amendment says, Government figures that were published yesterday show that pre-school teacher numbers are continuing to drop at an increasing rate, too.

We were clear in our manifesto that we wanted 1,000 more teachers in our classrooms to reduce class sizes and boost children's education.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

You should be closing now.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

In June 2007, Fiona Hyslop declared that the Government was

"already working to meet other parties' demands for 1,000 new teachers."—[Official Report, 20 June 2007; c 882.]

Today, she stands accused of failing to meet those demands and, more important, failing to meet the expectations of the people of Scotland and the promises of the SNP's election manifesto, yet again.

I move amendment S3M-4910.2, to insert after "class sizes":

"; raises concern about the implementation of the Curriculum for Excellence in the face of falling teacher numbers; acknowledges that the previous administration increased the number of teachers by 4,600 between 1999 and 2007; notes the continued reduction in the number of full-time equivalent nursery teachers as shown in the Scottish Government's Pre-school and Childcare Statistics 2009".

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

We come to the open debate. Members will have picked up that we have a little bit of flexibility in hand, but speeches should be around four minutes.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

This is not an academic debate about facts and figures; it gets to the very heart of the SNP Government's failure to deliver for Scotland's children and young people and says loud and clear that a manifesto pledge to deliver class sizes of 18 for primary 1 to 3 was no more than a cruel con trick on parents, teachers and pupils throughout Scotland. The SNP Government was elected on a false prospectus, on a pledge that it knew it could not fulfil, on a commitment that it knew it was never going to deliver. This is a debate that impacts on the lives of individual children the length and breadth of Scotland. It is not about abstract concepts but about real people.

In South Lanarkshire in 2007, when the cabinet secretary was appointed, there were 1,801 teachers in primary schools and 1,812 teachers in secondary schools. By 2008, there were only 1,674 teachers in primary schools and 1,763 teachers in secondary schools. South Lanarkshire Council is a Labour council. I make no apologies for saying that the teacher numbers have fallen, but why have they fallen? They have fallen because that cabinet secretary failed to get the necessary resources into education.

The cabinet secretary says, "Teacher numbers have fallen, but average class sizes are down slightly." That is not what she promised; she said that she would maintain numbers. She says, "Don't blame me; it's those big bad councils that did it and ran away." Those are the excuses that she peddled last night on "Newsnight", but she is too scared to come to the chamber and peddle them herself today. Cabinet secretary, you would have been as well in your bed if you were not prepared to come and defend yourself in the chamber instead of sending somebody else. That is your job. Stand up in here and be accountable for your decisions.

Cabinet secretary, you like to refer to the historic concordat, but I would call it the historic con trick. Councils can work only with the resources that you give them and the legislation before them. Why not act now and find money for local authorities to do what you said they were going to do? Why legislate for class sizes of 25 when you should be legislating for class sizes of 18? That is what you promised.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

You will have your time next, Ms Campbell. I am sure that you will debate for Clydesdale to great effect.

Cabinet secretary, the truth is that you promised to deliver smaller class sizes with no resources. Under the historic con trick, that promise was uncosted and undeliverable. You simply abdicate responsibility for all bad decisions and take the credit for the good.

The real reduction in teacher numbers in South Lanarkshire is 176. At the same time, there are 99 probationer teachers seeking employment—teachers who could be doing a good job. Last year, my son had a probationer teacher. She came into teaching from another job—a mature individual with lots of skills and experience. All the parents would agree that she was one of the best teachers that they had seen in the school. However, up until the weekend before the classes resumed on 18 August, she had no job. Even now, she has only a part-time supply job. She is a great teacher, who does not have the security of a full-time contract, because the Government is not delivering the resources that it promised the people of Scotland it would.

What about the three young people at Lanark grammar school who embarked on an advanced higher history course, because they thought that it was the best course to allow them to get into the universities of their choice, only to be told six weeks later that the course had been withdrawn? The families have been told that there is a resource issue. The history teacher remains in post, but the four hours a week that had been allocated to the three pupils to study advanced higher history has been reallocated to cover possible short-term sick absences among teaching staff as a whole because of scarce resources. The young people have therefore been left high and dry by the Government. I am talking about real people, not abstract concepts.

One of the tenets of Scottish life is that education can provide opportunities for all of us, regardless of our status, to move on and better ourselves. However, in the two years of SNP government, teacher numbers have fallen by 1,000, probationary teachers are failing to find full-time employment, classes have been cancelled for students who want to learn, and primary school pupils have been let down as promises about class sizes are dropped. Yesterday, the cabinet secretary at last came clean and admitted that she would not legislate for classes of 18 in primary 1 to 3. That is the cost to our nation of the SNP Government. Breaking up Britain is more important to it than building up Scotland. The real con trick is on the families of Scotland who trusted the SNP at the previous election. Its false promises have finally come home to roost.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I remind members that they should always speak through the chair, please, rather than directly to each other.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Every child in Scotland deserves the best possible start in life and the best possible education. We owe it to teachers and support staff—the dedicated professionals who deliver education—to debate teacher numbers in a fair and rational manner. We must be clear about the goals that we want to achieve and the challenges that exist in achieving them.

The SNP Government knows the value of education in Scotland. In the face of the global recession, supporting our education system at every level is an investment in skills and knowledge that will allow Scotland to grow in the future. That is why we reintroduced free education in universities and why we are committed to getting things right in the earliest years of primary education, especially through free school meals and lower class sizes.

While the Scottish Government continues to look with confidence at what Scotland can achieve and how best to achieve that in the face of the tightest budgets that any devolved Administration has had to deal with, the Labour Party continues its relentlessly negative carping and criticism. It has no new ideas and no positive outlook for the future. We are all scunnered with hearing the cry of broken promises. [Interruption.]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Will the member take an intervention?

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

No. I want to make progress, please.

The cries that we hear are simply a broken record that Labour members play over and over again, irrespective of the content of any Scottish Government announcement or any policy that it brings forward. Only in the Labour Party's eyes could figures that show year-on-year progress towards lower class sizes be seen as evidence that class sizes are not falling, or a commitment to reduce the legal maximum number of pupils in primary 1 classes from 30 to 25 be seen as an announcement that we are not serious about cutting class sizes.

Karen Gillon may be interested to know that, in South Lanarkshire in 2006, when her Government was still in charge, fewer than 7 per cent of children in P1 to P3 were in class sizes of fewer than 18 pupils. In February this year, under the SNP, that figure had almost doubled to 13.7 per cent.

Of course, Labour is still trying to deflect attention from the record low class sizes. There is an average of 23.2 pupils per primary class.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

Will the member take an intervention?

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

No. You did not take an intervention from me. You might have been interested to know that—

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

You should speak through the chair, please, Ms Campbell.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Okay. I will make some progress.

Labour is trying to deflect attention from the record low class sizes by focusing on teacher numbers. However, once again, the broken record spins around to reveal that, in fact, the SNP is dealing with a mess that was bequeathed to it by a Labour Administration that got its sums wrong.

It takes time to train teachers. It takes four years to complete a bachelor of education course and one year to complete a postgraduate diploma in education course. Either way, teachers who finished their probationary year in June 2009 would have studied on a course as part of a cohort of trainees whose numbers were set in either 2003-04 or 2006-07 by the previous Administration. We accept that planning to provide teachers is not an exact science. That is why the cabinet secretary established a workforce planning task force. It was established so that future plans can be made with confidence, irrespective of which party is in charge.

Even with such challenges, the SNP has achieved an historic low in the pupil teacher ratio. There is now one teacher for every 13 pupils in Scotland, compared with one teacher for every 17 pupils in England and Northern Ireland, and one teacher for every 18 pupils in Wales.

The situation is open to sudden and not easily predictable change. There are almost 10,000 primary and secondary teachers in Scotland who are over 55 and could retire at any time. If that happened, I have no doubt that the Labour Party would be the first to howl that we had failed to provide enough trainee teachers to fill the gap. That is not enough to stop the Labour Party simply trying to apportion blame to the current Administration for the number of newly qualified teachers who are looking for work. Of course, it is not the Scottish Government's job to recruit or employ teachers directly—that is, rightly, the role of local authorities. Perhaps it is just coincidence that most of the local authorities that have seen fit to cut the number of teachers that they employ are run by the Labour Party. SNP-majority councils have, on average, increased spending on education by 3.5 per cent this year; for Labour-majority councils, the figure has been only 2.5 per cent. In national and local government, the SNP puts the interests of Scotland's children first.

People in Scotland may hear the noise that is being made by Labour's broken record about broken promises, but they will pay attention to experience on the ground. Many children throughout the country are benefiting from our investment in education, and many more will continue to do so in years to come. I am confident that the Scottish Government will do all that it can to get the right number of teachers in the right place at the right time. That is the difference between getting on with government and the simple complaining from hapless Opposition members.

David Whitton (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of the motion in the name of my colleague Rhona Brankin.

Like other members, including Murdo Fraser, I receive e-mails and letters from young probationary teachers who feel badly let down by Fiona Hyslop and the SNP. It is little wonder that she is sneaking away now and that she will not listen to the rest of my speech. Those teachers trained for a career in teaching and are finding that there are no jobs for them despite all the great promises that were made by the now-departing cabinet secretary. We know from her shameless performances yesterday and today how Fiona Hyslop deals with promises. She can appear on television, but she refuses to take part in this debate.

I wonder what the cabinet secretary would say to Jenny Boyle from Lennoxtown, who is a constituent of mine. Jenny is a fully qualified primary teacher who is currently on jobseekers allowance. Her mum qualified as a teacher after having her family, and Jenny wanted to follow a teaching career from a young age. After qualification in 2007, she did her probationary year at St Margaret of Scotland primary school in Cumbernauld; she finished her year in June 2008. Since then, there has been a dwindling amount of supply work. She always had excellent reports from the headteachers of the schools in which she was employed, and she received many thank-you letters from parents. So far, she has applied for more than 30 jobs and has had five interviews for jobs, all of which went to internal candidates. She sits at home every day waiting for the phone to ring to find out whether she will work. That is the sort of thing that used to happen with dock labourers. Who would have thought that, in an SNP-led Scotland, teachers would be put in the position of labour for hire on a daily basis?

Jenny is particularly concerned about the number of schools that still use retired members of staff to fill gaps rather than post-probation teachers. One school at which she taught had two retired teachers for learning support or absence cover; at another school, retired teachers were used to cover the non-contact time of other members of staff. Jenny's mother-in-law, who retired from teaching in the summer, was asked to go back to her old school for two days a week. To her great credit, she said no.

Like other graduates, Jenny has a student debt and an overdraft, but she cannot begin to pay them off until she has a full-time job. She signs on for the jobseekers allowance, but every time she does supply work, even if it is for only one day, she has to sign off, because what she earns cancels out her jobseekers allowance. Like many other young Scottish teachers on the dole, she has considered working abroad. She and her partner want to buy a house, but they cannot do so because of her uncertain situation.

Another constituent of mine, Donald McDonald from Bishopbriggs, decided on a career change after 20 years in industry. He qualified as a primary school teacher and has just completed his probationary year. We all know that there is a great shortage of men in primary teaching. His pupils enjoyed his computer-based lessons, but that has not helped him. He has volunteered to work in local schools to gain experience while he, too, waits for the phone to ring and a job to be offered. He cannot keep that up for ever, because he has a wife and family to support. He describes the chance of even an interview for one of the few jobs on offer as akin to a lottery win and shares Jenny's concerns about the use of retired teachers to plug gaps.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will the member take an intervention?

David Whitton (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

I am always grateful for an intervention from Mr Doris.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

In the member's conversations with Jenny Boyle and Donald McDonald, did he inform them that there are 10,000 teachers in Scotland who are over 55 and could retire at any point and that they should hang on in there, or did he just tell them his side of the story and make cheap party-political points instead of putting their careers first?

David Whitton (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

If Mr Doris was a constituency member, he would know that it is my job to put forward the concerns of my constituents in the chamber. Perhaps he can tell the people to whom he speaks why 1,000 teaching jobs have been lost since his Government came to power.

Other constituents have written about family members who have emigrated to places such as Australia and New Zealand or who have given up teaching and sought work in another profession. The cabinet secretary cannot duck responsibility for that. The examples that I have given happened on her watch—they happened since the SNP came to power in 2007.

Budget figures for next year show a cut in the school allocation of over 3 per cent. Promises were made, but those promises have been broken. Worst of all, enthusiastic young people who see teaching as more than a job and who want to help to educate the next generation have been let down badly by the SNP. As the Labour motion says, that is

"an appalling loss of talent ... and a gross betrayal".

Fiona Hyslop has presided over this teaching crisis and, ultimately, she will pay the price.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I agree with the concerns that have been raised on teacher employment for 2009-10. Teachers who are now looking for work, having completed their probationary year in 2008-09, and who are part of the training intake that was decided on early in 2007 for one-year postgraduates—or, indeed, in early 2004, for those doing a four-year course—are unemployed partly as a result of the badly managed recruitment decisions of the Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition in 2004 and 2007.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Will the member give way?

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

In a minute.

In every year since 2005, an ever-increasing number of trained teachers have failed to secure permanent employment, in part as a result of the previous Administration's decisions. I will take an intervention from Ms Brankin on those decisions.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

The previous Administration got teacher numbers up to over 53,000. In this Government's first year, 1,000 teaching jobs were lost. That is the truth. Does the member recognise those figures? Does he accept that teacher numbers were at a record high of more than 53,000 under the Labour-Liberal Democrat Administration?

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

That intervention allows me to draw attention to the 200 teachers whom Glasgow Labour has failed to employ.

In two short years, with the SNP Government's prioritisation of education spending, our primary schools now enjoy record low average class sizes. Labour members may not think that that goes far enough, but that is a bit rich coming from a party that does not even believe in lowering class sizes. That is hypocrisy, hypocrisy, hypocrisy, not education, education, education.

In our concordat commitments, we made our policy for lower class sizes clear. Let us not forget that national Government sets the agenda, but local government employs the teachers. Where the policy of the elected Government in the concordat agreement, to which all local authorities signed up, is respected and adhered to, class sizes are coming down. Local authorities, not Government, employ teachers. That is clear. Does any member want education departments across Scotland to be centralised? I do not think so.

In Glasgow, the Labour-run council has chosen not to implement smaller class sizes. It prefers to make cheap political points against the SNP than to support teachers, children and families. Labour in Glasgow is letting down our children badly. The closing of 20 primary schools and nurseries against the backdrop of a sham consultation amounted to no more than the wanton destruction of local communities. Class sizes are rising, while teacher numbers are down, as is spending on education, which is now the lowest in the country.

Steven Purcell's priorities are all over the place. Last week, Purcell spoke of

"a dagger in the heart of Glasgow."

When Glasgow Labour closed the primary schools and nurseries, that was a dagger in the heart of every community. That was the real dagger in the heart of Glasgow and it was wielded by the Glasgow Labour Party.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Will the member take an intervention?

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I will take no more carping from Ms Brankin.

Labour members carp away, filling the chamber with an unwanted air of cynicism. Does that sound like Rhona Brankin? I think so. Labour entirely misses the point: the SNP has a new ambition for Scottish education. Labour prefers attack, attack, attack; it has nothing positive or constructive to say. The SNP Government will legislate to reduce primary 1 class sizes to a legal maximum of 25. When the Labour-Liberal Democrat Executive failed in its class size targets, did it legislate to reduce the legal maximum? It did not. For Labour, it is not education, education, education, but hypocrisy, hypocrisy, hypocrisy.

The SNP will take no lessons from Labour; we will act. We are reducing class sizes and standing up for teachers. Labour should come to the chamber with something constructive to say. That is what this country needs; it is what our teachers, pupils and communities need. People want constructive policies, not Labour negativity. I ask members to reject the Labour motion.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Nothing is more important to the future of Scotland than the education of our children. For that reason, maintaining teacher numbers in the face of falling school rolls seemed to be one of the better policies of the Scottish Government. However, infuriatingly, the minister gave no explanation of why the Government has failed by a figure of 1,000 to achieve that objective. Instead, he trumpeted the so-called record resources to local government. In effect, he blamed local government for the failure. As Rhona Brankin reminded him, 12 of the 13 SNP councils have failed, including the City of Edinburgh Council. The case of Edinburgh is particularly worrying, because the city does not have a falling school roll. In fact, over the next 10 years, primary school rolls in Edinburgh will increase by 20 per cent.

As it happens, the cabinet secretary has been talking quite a bit about Edinburgh recently. Last night she gave a television interview, but perhaps it would best be left in obscurity. In answer to a question that I put to her last week, she said:

"the City of Edinburgh Council ... should be making efforts to reduce class sizes ... it wants to concentrate on areas of deprivation where, as we know, having smaller class sizes gives schools the space and time to raise standards of literacy and numeracy in those who will benefit most."—[Official Report, 17 September 2009; c 19743.]

A couple of weeks ago, George Foulkes and I had a meeting with the City of Edinburgh Council education convener on the council's school closure proposals. We asked her whether the council had built class sizes of 18 into its proposal. We expected a long and detailed answer, but she just said, "No." The school closure proposals in Edinburgh will result in larger class sizes, including in areas of deprivation. Fort primary school in my constituency has the largest percentage of pupils who take free school meals of any school in Edinburgh. In spite of that, the school is 10 per cent above similar schools in terms of attainment. The proposal to close Fort primary school will result in £145,000 of savings in teacher costs. In other words, if the school is closed, the result will be a higher pupil teacher ratio in the larger school that the Fort pupils will go to.

Of course, I understand the arguments about saving money spent on maintaining school buildings; sometimes there is an argument for closing schools for that reason. However, I have never come across a school closure document that seeks to make two thirds of revenue savings from cutting staff. In Edinburgh, school closures are being used as a mechanism for cutting teacher posts. In my constituency, the result will be larger classes and overfilled schools. I made the point at a public meeting last night on Royston primary school, which is also up for closure.

As we have seen in the debate today, and not for the first time, there is an enormous gap between the SNP Government's policies and the reality on the ground. The policy, which we keep hearing about, including on television last night, is for year-on-year reductions in class sizes and maintaining teacher numbers. However, every day across Scotland, the reality contradicts the policy. It is time for the Scottish Government to remember that nothing is more important for the future of Scotland than the education of our children.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

Three years ago, Fiona Hyslop said:

"Scottish education has been lacking in strong political leadership. It's time for new energy, actual delivery, dynamic vision and passionate leadership of education in Scotland."

Is it not a pity that, instead of that, we got the cabinet secretary and an SNP Government that has failed to deliver on its election bribes in education more than in any other policy area?

I see that my comments have brought the cabinet secretary back into the chamber—I am pleased to see her. As Karen Gillon pointed out, the cabinet secretary could have had an extra hour in her bed this morning. When she finally got up, she should have had a bit of what Karen Gillon and Bob Doris had for breakfast—we have had some passionate speeches this morning. That is perfectly understandable, as the debate provides a timely reminder of the terrific waste of teaching talent over which the Government presides. That waste of talent should, and does, genuinely concern every member of the Parliament. Dougie Mackie of the EIS summed up the situation well when he said:

"the current difficulties in teacher employment are little short of a national scandal ... the fact that young teachers cannot find work is a loss of public money dedicated to training and a potential waste of human capital at a time when young teachers are often at the forefront of new initiatives in schools."

The Government is failing in our schools. It committed itself to maintaining teacher numbers, so that with falling school rolls—I take the point that Malcolm Chisholm makes about Edinburgh—it could deliver its discredited class size policy. We now know that it has failed to deliver that policy. Just when we were all about to give up completely on the Scottish Government on class sizes, it announces that it has already given up on itself by bringing forward legislation to cap primary 1 classes only at 25—a proposal noticeably absent from the Scottish Government programme that was proudly reeled off by the First Minister earlier this month. Yesterday the cabinet secretary could not even bring herself to face Parliament with the news that the policy was about to hit the scrap heap, and made her announcement in Glasgow instead. That is unsurprising—not only is the measure a humiliating climbdown from the election promises of class sizes of 18 in P1, P2 and P3, but it will achieve very little, given that about 95 per cent of P1s are already in classes of 25 or under. The real action is needed in P2 and P3.

It is shocking to hear any member, especially an SNP member, give the advice that Bob Doris gave to the teachers who are languishing at home—to hang on in there until a few teachers decide to retire. We know that the number of teachers who are choosing to retire is an issue, given the economic situation in which we find ourselves. However, Bob Doris's advice seemed to be the 2009 equivalent of Norman Tebbit's "Get on your bike"—but probably not as good.

Rhona Brankin, Murdo Fraser, David Whitton and others made the point that there is a terrific waste of human capital. Some will question whether the teacher induction scheme raises too many expectations, but Liberal Democrat members firmly believe that the guaranteed probationary year remains an improvement on the previous system. What is required is proper management of the systems of supply and demand. Yet again, the SNP has spent today's debate passing the buck to local government—trying to sidestep the fact that its promises to maintain teacher numbers at the record level of 53,000 achieved by the previous Administration and to reduce class sizes have helped to fuel probationers' expectations of jobs for all. The Government has failed to give local government the financial and legislative tools that it needs to reduce class sizes to 18 and to employ the number of teachers that we need.

Rightly, members have highlighted the low number of people who are getting full-time permanent posts. The Times Educational Supplement Scotland showed that only 15 per cent of probationers had secured permanent teaching posts—a significant fall from the 32 per cent who secured such positions in 2007. The GTC follow-up survey showed that, halfway through the school year, only a third had secured permanent employment. As some members have pointed out, that has a real impact on people's ability to live their lives as they wish.

I have a real fear that the uncertainty surrounding teaching posts will act as a deterrent to some Scots who would otherwise have entered the profession. These are tough times for Scotland's councils, and all the signs are that they will get tougher. The Government keeps saying that sufficient money is in the local authority settlement, but member after member—including the minister—has acknowledged that teacher numbers are falling across the country.

The Tory amendment makes a reasonable point about priorities—we certainly agree on the issue of free school meals. This is an important debate that has highlighted yet again the Government's broken promises. It has also highlighted the importance of a well-trained, well-motivated teaching profession to Scotland's future wellbeing. Teachers deserve better than they are getting from the SNP.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Malcolm Chisholm made the point that few jobs are more important in defining the future of this country than being a teacher. That is why this morning various speakers—with considerable passion—have been right to identify the current disgrace of a large number of teachers, both new and experienced, being unable to find a job. If headteachers were free to comment on the matter, I doubt that one of them would be prepared to accept that situation. Like every parent and pupil, they know that a good school depends on the headteacher's ability to recruit the best staff. They also know that, at present, they cannot do that job properly because of local authorities' ability to restrict the labour market. That makes it exceedingly difficult for headteachers to ensure that there is stability in teacher appointments, with the result that far too many classes have to put up with a change of teacher during the school year.

Of course, difficult economic circumstances mean that more of the older generation of teachers are postponing their retirement, but there are also far too many constraints in the teaching marketplace, not least those that are imposed by the Scottish Government's disastrous class size policy, which becomes more chaotic by the day.

Workforce planning has been dealt a severe blow by the fact that local authorities, many of which are geographically large and diverse, operate a centrally controlled recruitment policy that pays little heed to the needs of individual schools. We all know headteachers who are told from which employment pools they must appoint staff. The Herald newspaper has reported that newly qualified teachers across the country are finding it difficult to find permanent jobs because of a worrying trend—the fact that some local authorities are deliberately preventing new teachers from getting jobs because they have stronger employment rights than probationary teachers, who are a cheaper option. What became of the 12 key recommendations of the teacher employment working group report, which the cabinet secretary told us in June 2008 would remove some of the rigidities?

It is ludicrous for any Government to assert that it can find every qualified teacher and probationer a permanent job. That is simply not in its power—we would not expect it to be. However, it is in its power to carry out a complete reappraisal of the recruitment process to allow much greater flexibility within the demand structure so that it better reflects supply and to prevent the situation of 564 unfilled posts, which was the case in the previous two sessions. Rigid central control has failed, and it is time to let headteachers make more of the running. They should be free to choose the best staff, instead of being hide-bound by the bureaucracy of local authorities, many of which do not even keep a good record of data on teacher numbers, and the disastrous central diktats of a failed class size policy.

Thanks to the excellent progress that the GTC has made in recent years, the standard of teacher training is improving all the time. That also has the effect of raising standards among older, more experienced teachers. What a waste it is that so much talent is currently consigned to the sidelines. It does not take a genius to see what effects that will have on those who are currently at college and university and may be considering teaching as a career.

Worse still—if that were not enough—teachers look at the SNP's flagship schools manifesto pledges and its subsequent school report. On class sizes, the SNP said:

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

I would still rather that it had said "or fewer". That is now a chaotic policy, which finally bit the dust yesterday. On physical education, the SNP said:

"we will ensure that every pupil has 2 hours of quality PE each week delivered by specialist PE teachers."

That is an important policy, but only two councils say that they can achieve it. On outdoor education, the SNP said:

"We will work towards a guarantee of 5 days outdoor education for every school pupil."

That is another important pledge, but no councils are delivering it. On teacher numbers, the SNP said:

"We will maintain teacher numbers in the face of falling school rolls",

yet we have 1,000 fewer teachers. On raising standards, the SNP said:

"We will pay particular attention to raising the achievement of the poorest performing 20 per cent of school pupils",

but we find that many standards are declining.

What a catalogue of failure, and what a massive turn-off to anyone who is either in or considering the teaching profession. I hope that the Parliament will support the amendment in Murdo Fraser's name.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I call Keith Brown.

George (Labour, Lothians)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Do you have the power to call instead the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, so that she can accept her responsibility and reply to the debate?

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I suspect that the member knows the answer to that question. I have the power to call anyone who wishes to speak. In this case, I call Keith Brown.

George (Labour, Lothians)

Further to that point of order—

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Mr Foulkes, would you sit down, please? I have dealt with your point of order, which was not a point of order.

George (Labour, Lothians)

This is a point of order.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

It had better be a point of order.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

No. I will take Mr Foulkes.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Will Mr Foulkes give way to me first?

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

There is no giving way on points of order, Mr McConnell. Mr Foulkes.

George (Labour, Lothians)

You might pronounce my name properly from time to time, but that is another matter.

Is it not appropriate for you, as Presiding Officer, to exercise your power to call the cabinet secretary to accept her responsibility and reply to the debate? She was on "Newsnight" last night but she is failing to come along and answer the debate—

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Sit down. I choose from among the members who have indicated that they wish to speak in the debate.

Mr McConnell, do you still wish to make a point of order?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Yes. Perhaps the Presiding Officers collectively could reflect on the absolute need for the chair to recognise when a member wishes to make a point of order, regardless of what they personally think of that point of order. I wish you to reflect on that in the course of the day.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

We allow members to make points of order but once it becomes obvious during the making of that point of order that it is not in fact a point of order, we reserve the right to stop the member.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

I am grateful for the opportunity to sum up on behalf of the Government, even if Mr Foulkes does not want me to. The Government is committed to improving Scottish education, which is absolutely crucial to our purpose of increasing sustainable economic growth. We will improve Scottish education through curriculum for excellence, and our teachers are the agents for change that will bring about those improvements.

Despite what has been said, we have achieved record low class sizes and pupil teacher ratios. There are increasing numbers of children in classes of 18 or fewer, and fewer children in classes of 25 or more. Further, record levels of funding are being directed to local government—whether or not the Opposition likes that fact.

We have a legacy from the previous Administration that we need to address. We have an oversupply of teachers and confusion about maximum class sizes. This Government is taking action to sort those out.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

No. I am just starting.

We have cut student teacher intake targets for the session that has just started, and we will do the same for the intake in autumn 2010. We need to restore a reasonable balance between teacher supply and demand. We will take the tough decisions that are necessary to achieve that. We will make regulations to limit P1 class sizes to 25 from 2010 and review the current unsatisfactory mixture of class size control mechanisms.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

rose—

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

rose—

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

Will the minister explain the point about the oversupply of teachers? If he still thinks that he has an oversupply of teachers, how many more teachers will he cut out of teaching numbers in Scotland?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

It is clear that the demand for teachers has to match the supply. We have taken action to reduce numbers by 500 because of the oversupply. The member knows full well that some decisions were taken three and four years ago—we are trying to correct some of those false assumptions.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Order.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

On the point that was made earlier about morale within the teaching profession, along with the cabinet secretary I had the chance yesterday to speak at the Scottish learning festival. Not one single teacher, not one person looking for a job in teaching and not one headteacher made comments that fit with the Opposition's assertions. However, I was repeatedly told the extent to which teachers are fed up with the apocalyptic nature of statements made by Opposition parties, and the effect that that is having on morale in the education community.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

rose—

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

In relation to retaining teachers and local government, I refer members to the statement from COSLA's education convener, who said:

"We also acknowledge that money was retained with the local government settlement at a level equivalent to maintaining teacher numbers at 2007/08 levels."

I would have thought that the Opposition would acknowledge that. I would also have thought that Karen Gillon would acknowledge the fact that in South Lanarkshire there has been an increase of nearly 50 per cent in the number of classes with fewer than 18 pupils in P1 to P3—that was not recognised in her speech.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

Will the minister acknowledge the situation in a number of urban schools in South Lanarkshire, such as Crawforddyke primary school in Carluke, where class sizes in P2 and P3 were previously 25 and are now 28 and 31?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

I still hear no acknowledgement from Karen Gillon of the 50 per cent increase in the number of P1 to P3 classes going below 18.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

The minister is missing the point.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

No, the member is missing the point.

It is clear that the Opposition has nothing positive to say. Do Opposition members wish to make any suggestions? There have been one or two suggestions from the Conservatives, including the idea of abolishing free school meals, which I will not accept. Do Opposition members want to reintroduce ring fencing in local government? Their councils and their councillors do not want that. Will they introduce amendments to the budget that will result in even more resources going into teaching? I do not think so.

It is important to realise that the teachers who finished their probation year in 2008-09 undertook training in numbers that were decided in early 2007 or early 2004. It is also important to realise that nine out of 10 teachers whose probation year was 2007-08 were employed in some form by the end of the following school year.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

If the SNP Government's target for teacher numbers is not to maintain them at 53,000—which it manifestly is not—what is it?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

The Government's overriding priority is to ensure that there are enough teachers to deliver the education system that we want in this country. That is not a definite science. It has been difficult for previous Administrations. It is interesting to note that the number of teachers going straight from training to permanent employment has been in decline since 2005, and that—as Bob Doris said—around 10,000 primary and secondary school teachers are over 55 and could retire at any time. When that happens, it is important that we meet the resulting demand.

To listen to the overwrought rhetoric of some members, we would not think that teacher unemployment is lower now than it was in the early years of the Labour-Lib Dem Administration. Most important, it is necessary for any mature debate on the issue to recognise that the employment of teachers is undeniably—despite what has been said—a matter for local authorities.

Rhona Brankin forgot to mention some other facts, for example that £2 billion of cuts in education have been proposed south of the border. There have been proposals from the Lib Dems to abolish tuition fees—

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

rose—

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Order.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

We have heard nothing more from the Liberal Democrats about the proposed £800 million cut in the Scottish budget. Members have a choice to make: either they choose the past way of doing things, with central Government pulling the strings, or they come with us into the future and work in true partnership with local government.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

I am pleased that the cabinet secretary has been able to join us for the conclusion of the debate, although I am staggered that we should need to hold such a debate to force the Scottish Government to take action on teacher numbers. The accumulation of evidence that ministers are failing to honour their commitments to teachers is now so overwhelming that we can only conclude that it is being deliberately ignored.

I believe that most of us were genuinely shocked in March when the teacher census was published.

The surprise was not that the number of posts was down—as Murdo Fraser and many other members have highlighted, we all received e-mails and approaches from constituents who let us know that trouble was afoot. The surprise was the scale of the job losses—nearly 1,000 teaching posts lost in just a year. Last week, the public sector employment figures confirmed precisely the same trend. To add insult to injury, this week we discovered that the number of nursery teachers is also down for the second year running, despite the First Minister's specific assurances on that point.

Across the board, in every sector, the teaching jobs problem is becoming a teaching jobs crisis. Yet, despite a crystal clear manifesto commitment from the SNP, Scottish ministers are doing nothing to turn the situation around. The SNP manifesto and the concor—I beg your pardon, the concordat; I hope that I will never have to say that again—both spelled out:

"We will maintain teacher numbers in the face of falling school rolls to cut class sizes".

That simple promise offered security to the profession, encouragement to new recruits and trainees and, of course, improved discipline and a better learning environment to parents and pupils. Instead, we have had a series of cuts.

The fact that school rolls are falling has probably served to disguise the gravity of the situation. The First Minister and his education team have tried to hide behind the fact that we have a static pupil teacher ratio, as if to say, "Well, matters aren't getting any worse." However, matters are getting worse, and hundreds of teachers up and down the country are chasing jobs. As Rhona Brankin said, there were 543 applicants for one job in Perth and Kinross. In addition, hundreds of teachers are being employed on temporary rather than permanent contracts. The result, if we are not careful, could soon be a return to a disillusioned and dispirited profession.

Just last year, studies told us that the lack of job opportunities is damaging the career prospects and professional development of young teachers. In fact, the teaching crisis is having a particularly deleterious effect on new entrants to the profession. Newly qualified teachers are being forced abroad, elsewhere or out of the profession entirely. That is despite the fact that the average age of most new entrants is more than 30. People who have had jobs and careers and who are married and have homes are being let down.

If people are lucky enough to find work, the casualisation of the workforce—the dramatic shift away from permanent posts—leaves them vulnerable and anxious. I was struck by the parallels that David Whitton drew between teachers and dock workers in the past. As we debate the situation, teachers are at home, waiting anxiously by the phone.

The effect on other areas is dramatic. There are reports that some teachers' contracts are not being renewed as they approach the end of the year, so that they do not accumulate employment rights.

What has been the Scottish Government's reaction? It has attempted to deny that problems are arising. Members will recall that, last year, the First Minister's strategy was to describe the fall in the number of nursery teachers as a substantial increase. I thought that such an approach could not be taken again this year, but there have been unfortunate echoes of it from several members, including the minister Keith Brown.

I was encouraged that the minister started his speech with an expression of regret—well, he should apologise—but he then had the gall to claim that the SNP has made substantial progress on its class size target, and he did that the day after the SNP officially replaced a class size target of 18 with one of 25. The minister refused to answer me when I asked him when, if the SNP still has its illusory target, the target will be reached. That is because, on the Government's figures, it will take more than 80 years to reach the target. Is that substantial progress?

The SNP's first strategy is to deny that things are happening; its second strategy is to blame someone else. The strategy is familiar to us all and was mentioned by Murdo Fraser, Margaret Smith and other members. I liked Margaret Smith's phrase:

"the SNP has centralised the policy but localised the blame."

It is always someone else's fault. In this case the SNP is not blaming Westminster, as it usually does—although I bet some SNP members think that Westminster is ultimately behind the issue—and instead is blaming local councils. As Karen Gillon said, the SNP is blaming those pesky local authorities.

The SNP's amendment asks that the Parliament

"notes that the employment of teachers is a matter for local authorities".

Whatever the role and responsibility of councils, has it escaped the minister's notice that SNP-controlled Renfrewshire Council and SNP-controlled Aberdeen City Council started this? As Rhona Brankin pointed out, 12 out of 13 SNP-controlled local authorities have cut teacher numbers.

When the SNP is forced to take action, what does it do? The cabinet secretary's reaction was to cut teacher recruitment. How can doing that maintain teacher numbers, improve discipline in classrooms and help to reduce class sizes? Such an approach does nothing for the teachers who are currently employed. Keith Brown suggested in his closing speech that there is a problem of oversupply. The issue is not oversupply; it is about ensuring that there are enough jobs for teachers to go to. It is not even about creating jobs; it is about maintaining jobs, just as the SNP said in its manifesto.

The previous Executive did much to restore the professional standing of teachers by improving pay and conditions, introducing the induction scheme, reducing class sizes and employing record numbers of teachers. All that work has been put at risk by the negligence of the SNP Government. I urge members to support Labour's motion.

Child Protection

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-4911, in the name of Karen Whitefield, on child protection.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am pleased to open this debate on child protection for Labour. Along with all members, I appreciate how important child protection is for our society. It is unfortunate that Karen Whitefield cannot take part in the debate. There might be heated exchanges in the Parliament during the debate, but I hope that members will acknowledge Ms Whitefield's commitment to the issue and accept her apologies.

Public tragedies have brought us to this debate. We all know that far too many children live in family circumstances that put them at risk. There might have been more tragic outcomes but for the dedication and professionalism of social workers and other family support workers. The death of Brandon Muir shocked and sickened people and awoke many to the chaotic, dysfunctional and dangerous circumstances in which some children live. I am the parent of a young child, and the circumstances into which Brandon Muir was born and raised would be unimaginable for my child. Many people in Scotland reacted similarly to the terrible circumstances of Brandon's death.

Social workers have witnessed dramatic societal changes in recent years. We do not underestimate how difficult their job is. More unborn babies are being placed on the child protection register because their mother has a drink or drug problem, and the number of babies who are born suffering from drug withdrawal symptoms is increasing. There are more families in which there are generational substance misuse problems. Social workers and other professionals are at the sharp end of those issues. They carry the responsibility of making informed judgments and they must be supported in that. We acknowledge that they do a difficult and pressured job and we want to make their job as easy as possible.

I hope that the debate will be constructive and that members will acknowledge how difficult child protection is. There might be disagreement about the way forward, but we will all take part in the debate for the right reason: to ensure that our child protection system is as good as it can be.

I think that we all agree that the significant case review and review for chief officers reports into the death of Brandon Muir identified significant gaps and inadequacies in the sharing of information between agencies that were concerned with the child's care, which contributed to the inability of services to protect him.

Concern about local child protection is not unique to Dundee. Since 2007, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education has published critical reports on Midlothian Council, Moray Council and Aberdeen City Council. The recent "Summary of Indicative Quality Indicator Results from HMIE Inspections" showed that 23 per cent of local authority child protection services in Scotland were evaluated as "weak" or "unsatisfactory" on at least one indicator. We acknowledge that more than 75 per cent of services are performing well, but any squint at the figures will confirm that 23 per cent are underperforming, which is far too many.

How can we improve services and ensure that no child is vulnerable? We must all acknowledge that we still have inadequate systems for the sharing of information that is vital in the protection of children. Labour thinks that the Government is not doing enough to address that. The Government's actions certainly do not match what was intended in the draft children's services (Scotland) bill.

We need to be better at identifying the problem. The "Hidden Harm" report estimated how many children are affected by parental drug or alcohol misuse. We would welcome action to ensure that those children are identified and supported. I hope that members will support our call for the Scottish Government to report to the Parliament on the steps that it has taken to identify children who are at risk because they live with parents or carers who are alcohol or substance dependent. We acknowledge the road to recovery approach, which is mentioned in the Government's amendment, but it involves considering children in the context of an adult's drug or alcohol problem and is too light on how we can measure the impact on children.

We would like the Government to make more progress on implementing the recommendations in "Hidden Harm", and we would welcome a statement on how the work will be taken forward. In light of that, I do not see the point of the amendment in Robert Brown's name, which seems to add little to the debate.

The Government needs to show leadership. It is not easy dramatically to increase placements for children who are removed from their homes, but we cannot stand back and leave children with parents whose addiction puts them at risk every day. Of course, time and resources must be dedicated to helping families to stay together, but child protection services must be supported financially and professionally to take difficult decisions unhindered. We must listen to Barnardo's chief executive Martin Narey, who says that we have a system in which we are more content to try to fix families than to do what is in the best interests of the child. We should think about what would be acceptable for our own children before we leave other children in situations in which they are vulnerable.

We welcome many of the actions that the Government has taken, which are set out in its amendment, but we fear that the Government is not going far enough and is presenting proposals that tinker around the edges of a significant problem. The national review of child protection guidance is welcome, but it will not get to the heart of the issue. Do we need to challenge the orthodoxy? Do we have a system of child protection that is able to meet the challenges of our modern society? Do we have the right balance between the welfare of the child and the needs of parents and carers? Are we properly resourcing child protection services? Do the resources properly reflect the scale of the issue, particularly drug and alcohol misuse? Do we need to re-examine and change our view on intervention?

That is not a criticism of the people who provide child protection services day to day. As policy makers, we are responsible for the direction of travel and for resourcing the system. That is why the Labour Party believes that we need a national inquiry into child protection in Scotland. We need to take stock of the serious concerns that HMIE and the reports into Brandon Muir's death have raised.

The Scottish Government needs to redouble its efforts to deal with the problem. The First Minister's recent response at question time that

"We have a very good child protection system in Scotland"—[Official Report, 25 June 2009; c 18905.]

is in danger of being seen as complacent, but it does not reflect the Government's amendment, which

"recognises that further improvement is necessary".

In light of the recent HMIE reports, it cannot be denied that we need to improve child protection services pretty dramatically for some children. Labour believes that it is time that we questioned the system.

I move,

That the Parliament notes with grave concern the Summary of Indicative Quality Indicator Results from HMIE Inspections, published on 17 September 2009, showing that 23% of local authority child protection services in Scotland were evaluated as weak or unsatisfactory; further notes with similar concern the findings of the significant case review and review for chief officers reports into the death of Brandon Muir, revealing gaps and inaccuracies in the sharing of information between agencies concerned in his care and the terrible circumstances of his life as well as death; believes that the situation highlighted by these publications cannot be tolerated in a civilised society; acknowledges and commends the efforts and dedication of staff involved in the safety and care of Scotland's children, often under considerable pressure but believes that these reports confound the comments of the First Minister on 25 June 2009 that we have a very good child protection system in Scotland; recognises the initiative taken by the previous administration in tackling this problem by bringing together a series of actions contained in the Hidden Harm report; calls on the Scottish Government to bring forward a report and to make a statement to the Parliament on the progress that it is making in implementing the recommendations of Hidden Harm and also what it is doing to build on those recommendations, and also calls on the Scottish Government to report to the Parliament on the steps it is taking to identify those children who are at risk as a result of living with parents or carers who are alcohol or substance misusers.

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

None of us in the Parliament disputes the need to keep Scotland's children safe; what Claire Baker's comments show is that we differ on how to work with partners to best achieve that objective.

The Government recognises that there is room for improvement and fully supports hard-pressed staff who, for the most part, do an excellent job, often in very difficult circumstances. We hear about the tragic cases, but we hear less about the daily challenges that staff who work with vulnerable children face and overcome. We are keen to build on the good practice throughout Scotland—the foundations for which were laid by the previous coalition Administration—and are working in a structured way with those who are responsible for child protection to address the concerns that have been highlighted in the various reports, including those arising out of Brandon Muir's death.

I agree that the circumstances of Brandon Muir's life were intolerable, but the prime responsibility for that lay with his parents. We need to enhance the capacity of parents and communities to support their children and to know how and where to share any concerns that they have. We must also ensure that services are alive to and able to respond effectively to risks. That is why we are working closely across children's services to learn from the undoubted good practice throughout Scotland to identify improvements.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

The minister talks about the need to support parents. Does he acknowledge that the figures show that an unacceptable number of children live with drug and alcohol-abusing parents and that it is time for a rethink on risk, with the emphasis being on the child?

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The emphasis is on the child. Safety is the overriding consideration. I do not recognise Rhona Brankin's leader Iain Gray's description of the current system as operating a presumption for keeping children in unsafe conditions with their families.

I will set out the range of actions that the Government is taking and show how they combine to form a programme of activity to keep children safe as far as possible. No system can protect every child, but we can do our best to ensure that children are as safe and protected as possible.

We regularly meet child protection committee chairs to ensure that national policy is developed in partnership with professional stakeholders. I recently announced that we will shortly recruit a national coordinator to strengthen and support the work of local child protection committees and to increase the emphasis on multi-agency working.

Marilyn Livingstone (Labour, Kirkcaldy)

The minister knows my interest in the topic, as I am the convener of the cross-party group on survivors of childhood sexual abuse. Is he aware that the centre for the vulnerable child in Fife has a waiting list of up to 16 weeks, which I am working hard with colleagues to address? I also ask him about the promise of further Government support through additional funding from the mental health division for a child psychology post over the next three years—

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The intervention is a bit long now. The minister gets the gist of it.

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I would be happy to meet Marilyn Livingstone to discuss the local circumstances in Fife.

Our child protection inspection regime is the most robust in the United Kingdom. It challenges and highlights good practice and areas for improvement. We are reviewing the 1998 national child protection guidance and will issue a consultation in the spring. The guidance needs to reflect the changing environment in which child protection services are now delivered and the changing risks that our young people face.

The blight that substance misuse now places on the lives of far too many children in Scotland is unacceptable. Within a year of taking office, we issued "The Road to Recovery: A New Approach to Tackling Scotland's Drugs Problem", which included a chapter on protecting children. Our approach seeks to realign some of the positive action that is already under way with the Government's preventive, early-intervention agenda and places an emphasis on support for families. We now have a comprehensive alcohol framework, which was launched earlier this year and is backed by record investment totalling just under £120 million over the three-year period 2008-09 to 2010-11. That represents a tripling of resources compared with the previous three years.

All that, along with the progress that is being made on risk assessment and information sharing as part of the review of child protection guidance, forms part of the wide-ranging approach that we are taking to tackle these difficult issues.

We have also embarked on a second round of more targeted and proportionate child protection inspections that will show how services have learned and improved from the first round. In the coming weeks, we expect a detailed report from HMIE on the messages from the first three-year round. That general report will help to draw out a comprehensive overall picture for the first time.

All those activities are coherently linked together under our strategy for keeping children safe, which is shared with stakeholders, and all are being delivered under the existing legislative framework. Yes, we must challenge and probe and work with partners to improve services and outcomes, we must encourage parental responsibility, we must challenge whether the child's best interests can be addressed within their family, and we must never be complacent, but we should also recognise the good basis from which we start and the work that is under way to secure improvements. Therefore, I invite colleagues to support the Government amendment, which recognises the considerable progress that has been achieved so far, and to encourage the development of our work.

I move amendment S3M-4911.2, to leave out from "notes" to end and insert:

"notes with concern the 23% of local authority child protection services in Scotland that scored weak or unsatisfactory in at least one of the reference quality indicators, reported in the Summary of Indicative Quality Indicator Results from HMIE Inspections, published on 17 September 2009; welcomes the fact that 77% of authorities have achieved positive child protection reports; recognises the immensely valuable contribution made by those professionals working in frontline child protection services; recognises that further improvement is necessary and will be informed by the second round of inspections now underway; looks forward to HMIE's summary report that will provide the most comprehensive national picture of child protection that Scotland has ever had, which, taken together with the findings of the recent significant case review into the death of Brandon Muir, will feed into the national review of child protection guidance; encourages measures to address the increasing prevalence of substance misuse and its impact on children within the framework of Road to Recovery; encourages the promotion of the Getting it Right for Every Child approach, and looks forward to public consultation on the review of national child protection guidance that will address assessment of risk and information sharing for all children, including those suffering from parental substance misuse, domestic abuse and other risks to their safety and wellbeing."

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I welcome the tone with which Claire Baker opened the debate and the minister followed. It is important that there should be a unified Parliament view on child protection matters, which are of great importance to the future of Scotland's children.

Few burdens rest more heavily on social workers, teachers, youth workers, police officers and, indeed, politicians than the protection of our children. We know that some children have simply appalling starts in life through neglect by those who have responsibility for caring for them. We also know that the consequences follow young people through their lives and can blight the lives of their children too.

Over the past 10 years, and before then, we have had many reports and inquiries. They have often been insightful and have often confirmed the same messages. All the reports had three basic points in common: the need for partnership working and information sharing between agencies; the need for individuals within the system to take personal responsibility for action; and the need to identify and target the children who are most at risk. Those children are often with parents and families who are alcohol or drug abusers—a growing problem, as Claire Baker rightly said.

If anything, there has sometimes been too great an emphasis on partnership working and information sharing and too little emphasis on individuals taking urgent action based on that information. Too many times, information has gone round the system rather than stopping and moving forward to action. Report after report has identified the presence in the system of enough information to put anyone on alert in cases in which action was not taken or not taken urgently enough.

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The member will be aware of the getting it right for every child programme, which addresses the issue of referring on inside the system. Clearly, the member is familiar with the origins of that programme. I assure him that we are making significant progress.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I am grateful for the minister's intervention in that regard.

The Labour motion is highly pertinent. Evaluation of local services has shown that there are far too many weaknesses. To be fair, there have not always been weaknesses in every area; nevertheless, a quarter of council areas have "weak" or "unsatisfactory" gradings. The processes for producing sustained improvements exist, with HMIE targeted inspections and follow-up work, but that approach needs a strong and sustained ministerial lead and priority to make it happen, as well as full commitment from the local authorities concerned. The minister rightly made the point that we need to have structured responses in child protection and to follow through on the lessons that we know about.

Ministers are properly accountable to Parliament for how they perform their duties, so the Liberal Democrat amendment proposes that there should be a full report to Parliament within three months—before Christmas—and then reports at regular intervals on progress on identifying and focusing on children who are at risk, on which information is still lamentably vague, on the follow-through on the "Hidden Harm" report and on HMIE's inspection and improvement work.

The clear focus of all that work must be the welfare and best interests of children. It is, no doubt, often best to support children in living with their own families or with grandparents or other relatives. However, the briefing that we had on that from the Association of Directors of Social Work was astonishingly complacent and lacking in any sense of hope for the future. Yes, we have to be realistic; yes, no system of child protection can guarantee a child's safety; and, yes, we have a shortage of adopters and fosterers. However, I increasingly feel that Barnardo's Scotland and others are right that more children need to be removed from chaotic and dangerous families—I use the word "dangerous" advisedly—and that that must be done much sooner, before their lives and health are irreparably damaged. I know from conversations with people in the field that others feel likewise.

Parliament and Government cannot set targets or make individual decisions on those matters, but there is a sense that decisions are driven by resource issues, such as the number of foster carers and the lack of alternative carers, and sometimes by inappropriately applied views about the natural family unit, rather than by consideration of children's welfare. Government can do many things to support the workers in the field, not least in bending its efforts to the effective recruitment of more foster carers, possibly through a high-profile national campaign akin to that used to recruit children's panel members.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

Will the member take an intervention?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I am in the last moments of my speech, I am afraid.

Today's debate is too short to do the subject justice. However, these children are our children, and it is our job and everyone's job to ensure that they have the best start in life.

I move amendment S3M-4911.2.1, to insert at end:

"recognises the initiative taken by the previous administration in tackling this problem by bringing together a series of actions contained in the Hidden Harm report; calls on the Scottish Government to take effective action to identify and focus on those children who are at risk, particularly as a result of living with parents or carers who are alcohol or substance abusers; calls on the Scottish Government to report to the Parliament within three months and thereafter periodically on the progress made on this, in building on the recommendations of Hidden Harm and in the follow-up inspection work by HMIE, and looks for a child-centred approach to child protection that has the welfare and best interests of children at its heart."

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

This debate sits in the context of two main issues. First, there is the growing number of reports into child protection services, which, as Labour has rightly identified this morning, have too often been found seriously wanting when it comes to looking after the best interests of the child. Secondly, there is the crisis—I use that word advisedly—in parenting skills. While each of the three speakers so far has identified the first issue as extremely important for the Parliament, the second issue must be a priority for debate in every corner of Scotland. We want to use this debate to pursue that theme in order to help deal with the root causes of the problem. After all, a substantial number of child protection cases, though not all, would never occur if more parents were better able to harness the appropriate skills.

Let me deal first with the question of child protection procedures and the fact that, earlier this month, 23 per cent of local authorities were rated as "weak" or "unsatisfactory" in relation to their child protection services. That is a deeply worrying statistic, particularly for local authorities such as Dundee City Council, Moray Council, Aberdeenshire Council and Midlothian Council. On top of that, we have had deeply disturbing high-profile cases, such as the death of little Brandon Muir.

There has been consensus across the chamber about how to improve child protection procedures in line with national legislative changes. The Scottish Government has made good progress in some areas through simplifying structures, such as those that surround disclosure procedures, and trying to end the culture of crisis management that has often been the result of too much buck-passing of responsibilities. In addition, the more carefully targeted inspection programme will bring benefits, as will the determination of all parties in the chamber to support earlier intervention strategies. However, it remains the case that the lives of far too many young people have been blighted by incompetence within the system.

It will be important that the Scottish Government gets the forthcoming children's hearings bill right. Ministers have been forced into a major rethink because they did not consult fully and because some of their initial proposals were rightly seen as a challenge to the traditional ethos of the children's hearings system. The Government has said that it will ensure that that ethos is looked after. I hope that that happens, because that system is vital to children in Scotland and we must get it right.

For me, the issue of parenting skills lies at the heart of the debate. It is a hugely difficult and complex issue, which is similar to that of drugs and substance misuse, but that is no reason to shy away from it or be reluctant to take bold and radical action. Indeed, as Annabel Goldie made very clear in her recent speech to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, there is no option to be anything other than radical. Family breakdown from one cause or another costs the UK over £20 billion a year. The resulting burden on society, especially on family relatives, social work services and our justice system, goes much, much deeper than just the money. We do not pretend that our party has all the answers—we do not—but neither do we believe that there is any time to waste in bringing the matter to the top of the political agenda.

We totally accept the Scottish Government's focus on the early years, but why can it not also tackle child protection within education spending? Why must we spend £30 million a year on providing free school meals to those who do not need them? That money could go into providing better support for the very young children who are the victims of irresponsible parents, providing universal health visitors for all young children, or providing support for the hard-pressed voluntary sector, which does such a fantastic job for so many children.

It is also time we had a major reform of the UK tax and benefit system to end the perverse financial incentive against couples who choose to marry, and to end the benefit system that penalises married couples. Last week, the Conservative party received from lain Duncan Smith and the cross-party Centre for Social Justice a three-point plan to help more households into work and tackle the penalties that work against constructive parenting.

A very large number of parents in society genuinely find it difficult to pass on parenting skills to their children because they themselves are the children of parents who do not possess those skills. Those people need our help because they have also been let down in some way or another. I understand the call to remove children from parents whose behaviour puts them in danger, but we must not delude ourselves about the numbers involved. Children's panel members will be the first to tell us that not even using multistorey tower blocks in each area of Scotland, which would involve prohibitive costs, could cope with all those suffering from parental neglect.

This debate is not easy, and I fully agree that there is an issue about child protection. However, there is a much bigger issue about parenting and engaging parents in their responsibilities and their child's education and about ensuring that the welfare state supports rather than penalises them. I hope that all parties will be able to sign up to my amendment.

I move amendment S3M-4911.1, to insert at end:

", and further calls on the Scottish Government to acknowledge the concern about the growing number of parents in society who lack the necessary skills to bring up their children responsibly and to address this issue as a matter of urgency."

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

In 2006, the previous Labour-led Executive published a draft children's services (Scotland) bill. Regrettably, the Scottish National Party decided to abandon that bill because it believed that more had to be done before changing the way in which information is shared by different agencies. It is three years since that draft bill was issued, but little has been done—at least, there is no evidence of much being done—and a bill has yet to see the light of day. The Government has published only one draft bill that relates to child protection—the children's hearings (Scotland) bill—but it had to drop that, before resurrecting it, so inept is the team of education ministers. If that is an indication of how seriously the SNP takes the matter, we should be alarmed for the future safety of children in Scotland under this Administration.

If the SNP genuinely believes that its e-care framework or the vulnerable persons system for Scottish police services meets the provisions that were envisaged in our proposed children's services (Scotland) bill, we really are in trouble. That is why Labour, but in particular Iain Gray, has stated on several occasions that we would support a children's services bill if the SNP introduced it.

A recent report showed that 90 per cent of child abuse happens in the home. It is therefore essential that we do everything that we can to protect vulnerable children in a place where they should feel safe and free from harm. The Scottish Government's website states:

"Scottish Ministers are committed to improving the protections offered to children and young people in our communities. We recognise that the best way to do this is by taking appropriate, proportionate and timely action to support those children who need it."

Those are absolutely the right words and they indicate the action that we would expect to see from the Government, but how much time does the SNP need before we see that action?

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee West)

Will the member reflect on the fact that his politicisation of the issue does neither him nor those involved in child protection any service?

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

I am always happy to take an intervention from Mr FitzPatrick, but I have found it to be a waste of time on every occasion. I am not politicising the debate but highlighting the need for the Government to take decisions. Any criticism of the Administration is used by the SNP to say that we are carping and complaining. Our job is to hold the Government to account. Mr FitzPatrick must accept that we need to say it as it is: we cannot accept a cosy consensus that is a false consensus.

We should not really be surprised by the situation, given that the SNP prefers to spend time on the national blether. Would it not be better to put that on hold for a while? So far, the SNP Government has wasted £700,000 of taxpayers' money on its national conversation instead of using that money to fund services to protect our children. What type of Government prioritises a referendum bill over the need to address the serious issue of child protection?

The seemingly endless review of child protection services is a poor substitute for the action that is needed. Our children deserve better than that. No member would want to see any other child's life ended in the way that Brandon Muir's was because of an inability of child protection agencies to share information with each other.

Under this Administration, we are asked to accept a situation in which the majority of inspection reports mark our local authority child protection services as "satisfactory", which means that strengths just outweigh weaknesses in meeting children's needs. From the briefing that was issued yesterday, it is apparent that the Association of Directors of Social Work is happy to accept such low standards. That should worry us all. I am pleased that such low standards are not good enough for the Labour group in the Parliament.

The children's charter that was developed under the previous Labour-led Executive pledged that children and young people who are at risk of neglect or abuse would get the help that they need when they need it and that professionals would use all the powers available to them in order to help such children. We also pledged that those involved with helping such children and young people would share information to help to protect them and to work effectively on their behalf.

I am still 100 per cent committed to those pledges. I am disappointed that the current Government clearly does not share that commitment.

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I read the Labour motion for today's debate with some interest. The motion—this epistle of doom—points an accusing finger at the professionals who work in council child protection departments and suggests, as Michael McMahon has just done, that they are not up to the job. The motion conveniently ignores the 77 per cent of inspection reports in which child protection services were rated as good and as having already reached the standard that others are striving to reach. The motion also ignores the fact that staff whose council receives a negative report will use the report as constructive criticism to help to improve service performance. The time to assess a report's overall effect is after the follow-up inspection, when it can be seen what actions have been taken as a result of the comments that were made in the initial inspection report.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I am not sure that the member has read our motion, which

"commends the efforts and dedication of staff involved in the safety and care of Scotland's children, often under considerable pressure".

If that is not recognition of the commitment and dedication of social workers, I do not know what is.

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Rhona Brankin quotes only a small part of that epistle of doom. Michael McMahon has just claimed that the Association of Directors of Social Work is happy with low standards. I do not believe that the professionals who are on the front line every day are happy with low standards. I was on the front line with them for 19 years of my career, and I will not have that profession done down by Labour members. Serious professional people who do a serious professional job deserve better than to have their efforts taken out of context in an attempt to score petty party-political points.

Let us get the matter straight by considering what the professionals say about the proposed national inquiry—although we have not heard much about that today because, I believe, Iain Gray has dropped the proposal after taking on board the professionals' opinion. The Association of Directors of Social Work says:

"We do not want to see an inquiry into child protection, which will divert energy and scarce resources away from service delivery; our inspection regime is delivering results and the majority of councils and their partners are delivering good services; those that are not are being supported to improve".

I am glad to see that Iain Gray has taken on board those comments of the front-line professionals.

Four of the 32 councils received reports in which the actions taken by child protection staff in response to immediate concerns were rated as unacceptable. Four out of 32 is not good, but those four will strive to improve so that they get a better result next time. Only one of the 32 councils—only 3 per cent of the total—received a report in which the service was rated as unacceptable on whether children's needs are met. That council will strive to improve. No council was rated as "unsatisfactory" on listening to, understanding and respecting children, and I hope that we will hear some acknowledgement from Labour members that those workers deserve some praise. On what is surely the prime indicator for child protection services—whether children benefit from strategies to minimise harm, which means whether child protection services actually protect children—no council was rated as "unsatisfactory". I hope that Labour will have the good grace to recognise that.

Weaknesses are identified in the reports—11 authorities were rated as "weak" across four indicators—and those weaknesses need to be addressed. I believe that they will be addressed by the professionals on the ground, who deserve our support and thanks rather than any criticism. Those five "unsatisfactory" reports and 11 "weak" reports represent only seven councils out of all those that were inspected.

Recently, Susan Deacon said:

"My heart also sinks when I hear one party somehow implying that either they have the best ideas or another party's failing. This is a classic area where politicians have to be able to get together across party lines, look beyond legislative solutions and act in the best interests of their society as a whole."

I believe that Susan Deacon is right.

The Parliament should praise those councils that have received good reports and acknowledge that councils will strive to improve things by using the reports that they have received. We should encourage those councils that have not got there yet to lift their performance. Having worked on the front line, I have seen at first hand the amazing work that goes on in child protection and early intervention teams. Those workers go out every day to do a job that our society needs them to do but that we wish was not necessary. They deserve our support, and they have mine.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

It is only correct that we recognise the progress that has been made following the "Hidden Harm" report, but that progress must be measured against the scale of the problem. Much more still needs to be done if we are to be confident that children are no longer subjected to the abuse that Brandon Muir suffered in his short and troubled life. That is why I support the call for an inquiry. Certainly, more work needs to be done to provide a greater understanding of the options available for such children, the risks that are accepted on their behalf and the lack of capacity in kinship and foster care. Our ambitions and our priorities for such children should be set by this Parliament, not simply managed by hard-pressed front-line staff.

If anyone has any doubt about how hard that job is, they need only read the Official Report of the Health and Sport Committee of 25 March 2009, when a range of health visitors, headteachers, general practitioners and social workers gave powerful and damning evidence on the frustrations and obstacles that they face every day. They spoke about children who are

"never in the same house two nights running"

and about

"families in which the mother and gran are addicts, and it is the great-gran, who is in her late 70s, who is looking after young children"

without adequate support. They described a drug withdrawal process that

"can take five or 10 years",

and they said that

"health visitors have really big case loads ... so ... they are really reliant on parents to make contact if any problems arise."—[Official Report, Health and Sport Committee, 25 March 2009; c 1715, 1723, 1705.]

Children's services were also described as "haphazard", and mention was made of social workers being refused access to vulnerable children. All of that is on the parliamentary record for members' attention.

Although I accept that more work needs to be done through an inquiry to establish some areas, I am impatient for action. I believe that there are things that we can do straight away to mitigate the impact of drugs on vulnerable children. What needs to be done? We need to meet the basic requirements that were set out in the "Hidden Harm" report. We need to accept that there are risks for children associated with living with an addicted parent; we need to identify and assess the level of risk; and we need to ensure that those children's needs are met. It is not good enough that we cannot identify all the children in question. Finding them and assessing them must be our starting point. If a care plan is good enough for the addicted parent, it is surely good enough for the child of an addicted parent.

It must be accepted that children who live with parental addiction are at risk—they might be at varying degrees of risk, but they are at risk all the same. Part of the process must involve assessment of parental capability. We must ensure that social workers and children's care services have sufficient powers to get access to those children when their parents refuse to engage with care services.

The significant support that we provide to those adults, such as child benefit, housing benefit and the medical support that we offer through the methadone programme, needs to be set out in a contract so that they understand why we are giving them that support and, crucially, what we expect of them in return in terms of behaviour, parental responsibility and a commitment to progress towards a drug-free lifestyle. Lastly, the contract must point out the consequences of failure, which could affect their continued receipt of support and could include the possibility of their children having to be taken into care. If drugs cannot be taken out of the home, we need to take children out of the home. That is the reality.

The sad fact is that, if Brandon Muir had not died, he would still be living in that house of horrors, experiencing all the abuse and neglect that marked his troubled young life. Thousands of other children are surviving what Brandon was put through. They will grow up with the legacy of those traumatic experiences and, sadly, will often repeat the mistakes of their parents. We must act: we must continue to do more and do better to end that miserable cycle. If we do not, more children will face the misery that Brandon and others suffered.

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee West)

Child protection is a very serious issue. Nowhere is that more the case than in Dundee, where we recently had to come to terms with the tragic death of Brandon Muir at the hands of Robert Cunningham. In the wake of that event, the HMIE inspection was accelerated and an extremely thorough case review and independent report, which considered all the issues surrounding the case, were completed. Most significantly, the reports identified that agencies had failed to work together. Those failures must be—and are being—addressed.

Additional resources have already been allocated to meet the gaps in service in Dundee, to appoint more front-line social workers and to ensure that all multi-agency partners work together in the interests of Dundee's most vulnerable children. In addition, Dundee City Council immediately agreed that it would implement all the recommendations from all the reports to ensure that the action plan is put in place as quickly as possible so that vulnerable children in Dundee are better protected in the future. We all have a duty to ensure that lessons are learned from such a sad incident. I congratulate the vast majority of members of all parties who have spoken in the debate, who have stuck to the issue and who have struck the correct tone. It is important that we continue to do so.

Members might not be aware that Unison officials in Dundee have complained that the constant attacks on child protection services by a small number of people in one particular party are not helping those services. Our social workers, in particular, feel under threat at every turn. They are damned if they do and damned if they don't. In Dundee at the moment, social workers are being lambasted for taking a child into protection, but they cannot put their side of the story. They are interested only in the child concerned. Such trial by media is unacceptable. I congratulate most members—particularly Marlyn Glen, who is not in the chamber—for not taking part in that attack on our social services.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

Does the member recall that when the Parliament discussed Brandon Muir's sad death, he shouted, from a sedentary position, that that had happened under a Labour Administration? Does he regret doing that? Is that not a political insult?

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee West)

The member will be aware that I was responding to an attack by him on the SNP Government. My point was that it was not an issue of party politics. We should not put blame on any particular party. I believe that everyone in the Parliament is responsible, and we all have the interests of children at heart. Finger pointing does not help anyone. Unison representatives of people who are involved in children's services in Dundee sent out a clear message in that regard. I suggest that any members who want to point a finger should have a discussion with Unison in Dundee.

Each community relies on its social workers to protect its children. Instead of just attacking social workers, we must work together to improve services. As I have said, trial by media and partisan politics do not help the situation.

In Scotland, we are constantly working to ensure better protection for children. The Scottish Government has already launched a review of national child protection guidance and has started new targeted inspections to help raise standards across Scotland. It has created the multi-agency resource service, which is the UK's first hub for exchanging child protection expertise, and it is to appoint a national co-ordinator to support the work of child protection committees.

This Parliament has always sought to safeguard children across Scotland. The Labour-Liberal Democrat Administration passed a number of pieces of important legislation in that area, including the Protection of Children (Scotland) Act 2003, and I welcome the steps that it took during its time in government.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

rose—

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee West)

All political parties share the same aims when it comes to child protection, and we must work together with local authorities and other partners to ensure that those aims are met.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

rose—

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Ms Brankin, the member is just about to finish.

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee West)

My final point is about how the Parliament can do more to prevent children from coming to harm. The majority of cases that social work departments deal with are not like the case of Brandon Muir; they are cases of neglect. Evidence suggests that incidents of child neglect and harm are higher in households that have a history of alcohol abuse. If we can tackle alcohol abuse, which is the root cause of a large number of child neglect cases, we can make a real difference. I ask all members to consider that when the Government introduces legislation that will have an impact on the issue.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

There is no doubt that social workers across Scotland do an excellent job in very difficult circumstances. It is a job that I do not envy them: their having to face the trauma, the despair, the sheer deprivation and the lack of support and care in many families is extremely stressful and demanding. In the cases that we hear about in which something has gone wrong, sometimes a mistake has been made by a basic grade worker and sometimes there has been a failure of management, but all too often there has been a failure of the system—there is an organisational reason for it. All too often, the issue of resources has not been properly addressed.

One of my fears is that we are, in the current climate, taking no action to protect social work budgets that are already under pressure and which will come under more pressure. Instead, we are leaving it to local authorities, whose budgets are already under strain. We should not be surprised when things go wrong, given some of the budgetary constraints.

That said, one thing that worries me about today's debate is the existence of a conspiracy of complacency among politicians and professionals. When we see something going wrong, we should not be frightened to speak out. It does no good to talk about how well things are going and the need to learn lessons from mistakes and difficulties. We should be prepared to speak up when we know that a system is failing. I suggest that politicians and professionals are sometimes prepared to tolerate standards for vulnerable children that they would not tolerate for their own children or grandchildren.

I still hear stories of frustration because workers in one agency do not have access to information that is held by another agency. There is no good reason why that should continue; it continues only because of the failure by the Scottish Government and ministers to take the action that is required to ensure that information is exchanged where necessary.

I come to the points that were made by Christina McKelvie about HMIE. She is right to repeat Susan Deacon's comments that no one party has the best ideas, that it is wrong to imply that other parties are failing and that we should all be working together on the issue, but it does no good to try to distort or ignore the reality of the HMIE inspections. If a school were to get a "satisfactory" report in an HMIE inspection, there would be an inquiry into the school's performance because that would not be good enough. A "satisfactory" report is barely scraping a pass.

I refer to "The Summary of Indicative Quality Indicator Results from HMIE inspections, 2009", which reveals that out of 30 councils, 16 are barely passing or are failing on the quality indicator that "Children's needs are met"; 24 are barely scraping a pass or are failing on the "Recognising and assessing risks and needs" indicator; 17 are barely scraping a pass or are failing on "Operational planning"; 17 are barely scraping a pass or are failing on "Leadership and direction"; and 18 are barely scrapping a pass or are failing on "Leadership of change and improvement". That is not good enough for our children; it is not good enough for those who are enduring hidden suffering in homes throughout the country. We must be prepared to invest and we must put our money where our mouth is. If there are continuing failures, it is right that politicians and professionals should be held to account.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

As I said in my opening speech, this is a timely debate and it has, by and large, been an important and high-quality debate. I agree with and support the comments that some members have made about the heroic efforts that are made by front-line staff, but we should not use the heroic efforts of front-line staff as a shield against proper debate on the system under which they work. We must get that balance right.

I agree with the impatience for action that was so ably expressed by Duncan McNeil. His comments on social work powers and agreements with methadone users were valid and helpful contributions to the debate.

I would like to build on the comments that were made by Hugh Henry, who has knowledge of the issue from his time as senior minister on such matters. In essence, he said that the system ought, in effect, to be such that it treats all children as if they were our children. That must be the central message that goes out from the debate. Some impatience must be shown on the matter and, as the minister said, there must also be an element of structural reform.

It is important to put the issue in context. As has been said, the damage to children is done not by positive action by social workers or youth workers, but by the parents or carers. The central issue that we face is that what we are trying to do through our services is not exactly to second-guess, but to get at what is going on in individual families, often when there is not a desire on the part of those families to let the public authorities know what is taking place. It is inevitable that from time to time the systems that are in place will have problems and will fail to catch individual instances that they perhaps should, in retrospect, have caught. Our job is to ensure that the systems are as good as they can be, which they are manifestly not.

The central point that should come out of the debate is that there must be a process of structural improvement. Our Administration put in place arrangements to take the matter forward. There were the child protections that Peter Peacock—I think—launched way back, the reports that have been touched on in the motions and amendments, and the actions that were taken to report on to Parliament on progress. There have been many inquiries into these issues, both general Government inquiries, the forthcoming HMIE general report and inquiries into individual tragedies. In large part, we know what needs to be done, but the problems have emerged from not doing the things that we know need to be done.

Some issues have emerged from the growing crisis that has been caused by rising levels of drug and alcohol addiction. I say to the minister that it is necessary to keep a very close eye on the resources that go to that problem. We know that resources are tight, but we do not want things to drop off the edge. In that regard, one has heard stories about voluntary sector organisations whose services have been terminated because of funding issues.

In that context, Elizabeth Smith was right to talk about the need to improve the resilience of parents and parental knowledge and information. We all know that the old-fashioned way in which knowledge went from grandmother to mother to daughter has in many families in recent years broken down. Many young people, some coming out of the care system, do not have the parental skills to take to the new generation. We must address those issues.

The minister mentioned the issue of alcohol resources. It would be helpful if we made best use and full use of all the alcohol resources including, for example, the underused facilities at Castle Craig, on which I have been corresponding with the minister.

These are difficult issues, so it is important that we get right our approach. As the previous debate on the issue was, this debate has been short, but many good points have come out of it. I hope that ministers will reflect on the points that have been made and will ensure that matters are taken forward as well as they can be, and that they will give attention to both the structures and the reporting mechanisms, which is the central point of the Liberal Democrat amendment.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

This has been a serious debate and it has, rightly, been markedly different in tone from the first debate this morning. With the exception of a few party-political points that have been made, members recognise that we are dealing with very serious issues about some of the most vulnerable people in society. I have been struck by a number of the powerful speeches from members of different parties, and in particular by Duncan McNeil's comments on cases about which he knows.

There has been a lot of discussion about the HMIE figures and there have been attempts by both sides to spin them. For my part, I say that it should be a source of great concern to us all that aspects of 23 per cent of child protection services in local authorities were evaluated as being "weak" or "unsatisfactory". I agree with Hugh Henry that that is a wake-up call for us and that much more needs to be done.

Robert Brown made a fair point in his first speech about the briefing that we received from the Association of Directors of Social Work, which seemed to dismiss the statistics as not reflecting the true picture. We should be concerned, as we would be when a school gets a bad inspection report, that HMIE is saying what it is about child protection services.

A number of members referred to cases in the media, such as the tragic case of Brandon Muir in Dundee. There has been debate for many years about the point at which authorities should intervene in family situations and remove children for their protection. If we go back 30 or 40 years, local authorities took a much more interventionist approach than is taken today. I remember being at primary school with a group of youngsters from the local children's home, who were there for a variety of reasons, most relating to family breakdown. Nowadays, children's homes are very rare because most children are either supported in a family situation or, if they have to come out of that situation, they go into foster homes. That change has happened in my lifetime under Governments of all political persuasions.

It is easy to understand why that change took place, as the record of institutional child rearing was not good and we now have the legacy of far too many incidents of child abuse that occurred in such situations. However, many people are concerned that the pendulum has swung too far and that we now have an in-built reluctance to intervene and remove a child from a difficult or dangerous situation. It is right that we have a debate about whether and to what extent we should redress that balance. Barnardo's, the children's charity, has been calling for a new approach and for more children to be removed from their parents. We must give the matter serious consideration.

Just as the authorities seem to be too reluctant to intervene in some cases, in other cases they are far too enthusiastic. Earlier this week, there was a bizarre case at Livingston sheriff court, in which a mother who smacked her 14-year-old child, who was on drugs and alcohol and had head-butted her and stabbed her in the thigh with a pair of scissors, was taken to court and charged with assault. Fortunately, the sheriff at Livingston saw sense and granted an absolute discharge, but I have to wonder what on earth the point was of dragging that mother to court, at great public expense, when doing so was clearly inappropriate. Those resources could surely have been better spent elsewhere.

I agree with a lot of what Christina McKelvie said about social workers. Social workers are, undoubtedly, underappreciated and they all deserve our support. However, that is not to say that we should refuse to criticise when there are failures. Parliament must set out where there is room for improvement.

Elizabeth Smith referred to the important issue of parenting, which we have raised on several previous occasions. In some cases, we are dealing with second or third generations of parents who do not have the basic skills that they need to bring up their youngsters. I hope that the Government will address that.

A society will always be judged on how it treats its most vulnerable members: few people are more vulnerable than are children in at-risk settings. We must do much more to ensure that we are getting it right for all children who are in that situation, so I hope that the Scottish Government will listen to all the points that have been made in this morning's debate.

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I thank Karen Whitefield for lodging the motion, which has led to a valuable discussion, and I am sorry that she was not able to be here to speak in it. Different points of view have been expressed, but there is much common ground. We agree that every child has the right to be kept safe, and we agree that we must do all that we can to ensure that we have a robust child protection system. We also agree that child protection practitioners do a difficult job and do so, on the whole, with great skill and dedication.

In that spirit of consensus, I note that many of the child protection structures that are in place and much of the work that is under way were begun under the previous Administration. At the time, my SNP colleagues and I supported and worked constructively with the then Scottish Executive on those developments. I look forward to working with the other parties again.

Liz Smith spoke with conviction about the need to support parents and to help them to develop the skills that they need to raise and nurture their children. We share that view. The Government's early-years framework, "The Road to Recovery: A New Approach to Tackling Scotland's Drug Problem" and the getting it right for every child initiative are designed to identify where help and support are needed by parents to ensure that their children develop and fulfil their potential.

I am happy to confirm to Robert Brown that the Scottish Government will continue to report quarterly to MSPs on child protection issues and on progress in implementing getting it right for every child, which places the child's wellbeing at the centre. Those reports will include updates on the second round of HMIE inspections and will record progress on "The Road to Recovery", which embraces the recommendations of "Hidden Harm". Together with the alcohol framework, "The Road to Recovery" is guiding how we are addressing the risks and poor outcomes that are experienced by children who are affected by parental substance misuse. We are also developing specific tools to meet the needs of children who are affected by parental substance misuse.

The first round of child protection inspections has given us an unprecedented picture of how services are performing throughout the country, and 77 per cent of local authorities have received a positive report. Nevertheless, we are committed to improving that proportion—it is, after all, one of our 45 national performance indicators. Areas that received "unsatisfactory" reports have been actively improving services, which has led to good progress being reported in Aberdeen and Midlothian. Other areas have received excellent reports, so we must ensure that we spread good practice where possible.

We must build on the strengths that we know exist and we must ensure that the system is continuously improving. The tragedy of Brandon Muir, like other horrific cases before it, has rightly led to a high level of awareness of child protection issues and to concern that other children might face a similar fate. However, Scotland's children will not be best served by radically changing a child protection system that is basically sound, with detailed guidance already under active review. Earlier, I outlined some of the work that we are doing to improve services for children who are affected by parental substance misuse. That will remain a key priority.

There have been calls for a shift towards taking more children from parents who misuse drugs or alcohol. In my view, that is an oversimplification of a complex problem. Where necessary, child protection services remove children from families, and the number of children in care is increasing—it increased by 6 per cent in the past year alone and has increased by 27 per cent since 2004. Scotland has the highest number of looked-after children who are accommodated away from home in the UK. Some 81 out of every 10,000 of our under-18s are looked after away from home, compared to only 54 out of every 10,000 in England. Crucially, children are taken into care as a result of individual risk assessments. We are not establishing an arbitrary quota.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Will the minister share his views on the crisis in foster care? That resource gives another option I terms of what Government, local authorities and individual social workers can do and avoids their decisions being informed by resource limitations rather than by what is in the best interests of the children.

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

As Mr Brown will be aware, new looked-after children regulations have recently been approved by Parliament. They set out what we need to do to encourage foster care recruitment, which is a priority for me. The position is also set out in the getting it right for every child programme and in our kinship and foster care document. I agree with Robert Brown's emphasis on that point.

We have heard calls for information sharing. That sounds positive, but it would not be helpful at this stage. The sharing of information must be based on sound decision making by individuals, not on broad legal dictums. Too much information can be as bad as too little, as the crucial piece can be lost in the noise.

No child protection system can ever provide a 100 per cent guarantee of safety for every child, but when things go wrong, we must learn and improve. Child protection is a complex problem that requires sophisticated systems of support. Sound-bite solutions will not help. I ask members to support the Government's amendment, which recognises the robust work that is already under way to ensure continuous improvement. We are also happy to accept the Conservative and Liberal Democrat amendments.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

I am sorry that my colleague Karen Whitefield cannot be with us today, but I am pleased that I have the opportunity to take part in this morning's very important debate.

Many members have said that protection of our children should always be at the top of our agenda. As Hugh Henry said, it is right that MSPs should challenge a system that has been identified as having problems. We should not be complacent and we should not be afraid.

I believe that Adam Ingram is sincere when he says that child protection is on his agenda; therefore, I question why he feels the need to amend Labour's motion. The motion refers to the HMIE report, which found that 23 per cent of local authority child protection services in Scotland have been evaluated as being "weak" or "unsatisfactory". Inspectors do not use those terms loosely, so of course we should be concerned. Parliament should be demanding action from the Scottish Government to correct that.

The motion and the Government's amendment acknowledge the dedication of the staff who are involved in the safety and care of Scotland's children. Do we not owe it to them to challenge the system that is in place, as other members have said, in order to ensure that they can do the job with which they are tasked?

Everyone seems to agree that the "Hidden Harm" report provides a good basis on which to progress and improve child protection services. The report highlights issues around information sharing. The minister just referred to that, and I must take issue with his stance on it.

In a speech in Dundee, following the Brandon Muir court case, Iain Gray called on the Scottish Government to legislate to require the sharing of information between agencies, so that no child's life slips through the bureaucratic net. Always, following the tragic death of a child—Brandon Muir or any other child—we hear calls for better information sharing among agencies: people throughout Scotland cannot understand why the issue has not yet been resolved. Previous attempts to legislate were withdrawn because it was felt that they did not capture the issue appropriately. I accept that. However, the minister has had more than two years to come back to Parliament with alternative proposals. When will we have those proposals? The issue has not gone away, the situation has not got any better, but we still hear—even as recently as the Brandon Muir case—that information sharing is an issue.

For most of us, the first line of child protection involves not social workers but parents. Therefore, when the Conservatives and my colleague Duncan McNeil call for support for parents, they are absolutely right. Some parents' problems result from substance abuse, so those addictions need to be tackled. Other parents' problems stem from their having themselves been neglected and uncared for, which means that they do not know how to care for their own children and need specific support. I ask that the minister tell us what the Scottish Government is doing about providing that support.

My colleague, Duncan McNeil, has long campaigned for better identification of children who are at risk. He and many others have raised the issue again today. Various figures are quoted by the Scottish Government, the ADSW and so on, but we do not have a precise grasp of the numbers of children at risk. That is not good enough. If we do not know the scale of the problem, how can we provide adequate resources and staff to tackle it?

Some members, including Robert Brown, referred to the briefing from the ADSW, which told us that no matter how good it might be, no system can offer 100 per cent guaranteed protection. I think that we would all accept that, regrettable though it is. However, that does not mean that we should not strive to improve the system. To be honest, I was also surprised at how complacent the ADSW's briefing appeared to be. When I meet social workers, they constantly say how they find it difficult to find time to do everything that they need to. However, just last week, the Scottish Government released statistics that say that the number of staff who are employed in social work in Scotland had dropped by 2,400 in the past three months. Even if the Scottish Government is not concerned by that decrease, I would have expected the ADSW to be.

I am also a little surprised that Robert Brown does not feel able to support the Labour motion. His amendment concentrates on focusing on the child and determining what is in the best interests of the child. I hope that Mr Brown accepts that that is a given—that is what we are talking about today. The child is central to all of this.

I agree with Robert Brown that today's debate has been too short. This is a serious issue:

Unfortunately, it has been left to the Labour group to bring it to the chamber. The Labour motion calls on the Scottish Government to tell Parliament what it is doing to better identify children at risk, to report to Parliament on the progress that has been made in the implementation of "Hidden Harm" and to state what further actions it is going to take in regard to "Hidden Harm" and the child protection services that were identified by the HMIE report as needing to make significant improvements. We also call on the Scottish Government to accept the Conservative amendment's call to offer support to parents and to tell us what it is doing in that regard.

I would have thought that all members across the chamber could support that call to action. Our criticism of the Scottish Government is that it appears to be complacent and inactive. Our motion gives the Government the opportunity to come to the chamber and say so, if that is not the case.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — General Questions

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothians)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it now has an expected date of publication for its independent assessment of the energy options open to Scotland, as recommended in the "First Annual Report of the Council of Economic Advisers". (S3O-7902)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The Council of Economic Advisers is currently considering the report.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothians)

What weight will the Scottish Government give the independent report, given that the Council of Economic Advisers and the business community have concerns about the energy policy?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The Government obviously pays particular attention to the issues and proposals that are put forward by the Council of Economic Advisers. We are fortunate to have access to a range of individuals who give of their time, commitment and energy to address some of the strategic questions that face Scotland. Of course we will consider the opinions that are expressed by the Council of Economic Advisers, as we have demonstrated in our response to the council's first annual report, in which the Government explained and set out some of the approaches that we are taking to address the significant issues that were raised.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Has the cabinet secretary endorsed the report that the marine energy group of the forum for renewable energy development in Scotland—FREDS—published on 26 August, which praised the £13 million wave and tidal energy scheme that was put in place by the previous Scottish Administration and recommended

"that the scheme be re-run with an increased budget"

by his Government, and will he implement that recommendation?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The Government is giving significant support to the development of wave and tidal energy in Scotland. Indeed, on a recent visit to the Orkney islands, I saw some of the most recent developments in that area. Further, the First Minister recently inaugurated the new Scottish European Green Energy Centre in Aberdeen, with which Mr Macdonald will be familiar.

Naturally, Mr Macdonald will expect me to point out that the Government has to live within a fixed budget. We have made our decisions in relation to investment. If Mr Macdonald and his colleagues have any alternative proposals to offer in that process, we will, of course, be delighted to consider them.

I see that Rhona Brankin is shaking her head. I assume that that means that she has not got a clue what to suggest.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Question 2 has been withdrawn.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it has received recommendations from the Scottish Court Service regarding the future location of the justice of the peace courts in the sheriffdom of South Strathclyde, Dumfries and Galloway and, if so, what those recommendations are. (S3O-7935)

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

The Scottish Court Service has recommended to me that Annan, Cumnock, East Kilbride and Girvan courts should close. I am currently considering that recommendation.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

The original communication from the Scottish Court Service suggested that the order would be laid in early September. Given that that same proposal was rejected soundly by the Justice Committee in May this year, I entreat the cabinet secretary not to resubmit the order, since it is very unlikely to get through the committee or Parliament.

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

As I said, I am considering the recommendation from the Scottish Court Service and discussing matters with members of the committee and others. If Elaine Murray wishes to discuss the matter with me, I am happy to do so.

I have not made a final decision. I will consider the recommendation, but I will also have to take other factors into account. As Elaine Murray correctly said, I will have to weigh up the views that were expressed by the Justice Committee on the last occasion that the matter was addressed in parliament.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

To ask the Scottish Executive what the minimum number of required teaching hours will be per month for each early years establishment serviced by a peripatetic teacher. (S3O-7919)

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

It is for local authorities to decide how teachers are best deployed in pre-school settings to reflect local needs and circumstances. Research evidence is inconclusive on how much teacher time is required to improve children's outcomes, so there is no robust basis for setting minimum thresholds for teacher access in full-time, part-time or peripatetic settings. It is clear, however, that teacher support needs to be regular and sustained.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

We have heard another cop-out from the minister: a grand promise was made, but there has been no action to back it up. The minister talks about input being sustained. Will he confirm that, as I am told, a two-hour visit from a teacher once a term will be sufficient?

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

No, that will not be sufficient at all. The statistics that were published yesterday on support for pre-school children show a 4 per cent rise—to 70 per cent—in the number of pre-school children who have access to a General Teaching Council for Scotland-registered teacher. That is the equivalent of an extra 3,600 children, which is real progress.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am sure that the minister would not want to mislead Parliament. He said in response to my first question that it was a matter for local authorities to decide. However, he then said that a two-hour visit once a term would not be acceptable. If the minister knows what is not acceptable, why has he just told me that that is for local authorities to decide? Can you help me, Presiding Officer, in trying to get the minister to reply to the question or to withdraw the misleading information?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

You know that that is not my role, Mr Henry, but I am sure that the minister has noted your point.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Bang goes another manifesto promise. We now know that access to a nursery teacher for every child has been dropped from the manifesto. Will the minister confirm whether the number of children who have access to a qualified nursery teacher has gone up or down? From my reading of the statistics, the number has gone down.

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I am happy to correct Rhona Brankin in her interpretation of the statistics. There is, as I said, a 4 per cent rise in the number of pre-school children who have access to a GTCS-registered teacher, which is an increase of 3,600 children throughout Scotland. That is significant progress.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Question 5 was not lodged.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

To ask the Scottish Executive when ministers next plan to meet Strathclyde Police Authority and Glasgow City Council to discuss marches and parades. (S3O-7909)

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

Although I meet regularly with Strathclyde police authority, I have no plans to meet with it or with Glasgow City Council to discuss marches and parades. I would be happy to discuss the matter with Strathclyde police authority at a future meeting if it wishes to do so.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

The minister will be aware that the Government recently justified a £3.5 million capital city supplement to Edinburgh on the basis that it recognised

"factors that are unique to Edinburgh as Scotland's capital city. These include the marshalling and hosting of events, such as marches and parades".—[Official Report, Written Answers, 27 January 2009; S3W-20053.]

However, in a written parliamentary answer to me it later emerged that Glasgow played host to 357 marches and parades, while Edinburgh hosted 129. Given those statistics, and the fact that Strathclyde police authority informs me that the cost of policing parades over the summer months alone came to £1.7 million, will the Government now commit to acknowledging factors that are unique to Glasgow and address the funding imbalance by providing additional support to the city?

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

The member mixes up two distinct matters: events of a cultural nature that occur in Edinburgh and some events that occur in the west of Scotland that are euphemistically described as cultural. I do not view Orange marches as falling into that category.

I acknowledge the extreme pressures on the police as a result of marches and that is why, in opposition, we supported Bill Butler's party when it was in government in giving local authorities powers to exercise greater control. We support the exercise of those powers by local authorities where they see that that is appropriate, and the work that local authorities do with the police to achieve the correct balance in protecting our communities' rights while ensuring that people have the right to march and protest.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I draw the cabinet secretary's attention to a proposed demonstration in Glasgow in November that is unwanted and clearly not cultural. The English defence league plans to come to Glasgow and spread its hate and poison outside mosques. We should say no to that. I have already written to Strathclyde Police and Glasgow City Council. Will the cabinet secretary back me by making representations to both those organisations to ensure that that poison is not spread in our country?

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

Such events are, as I said in response to Bill Butler, a matter for the local authority, but our Administration has always said that it will support local authorities when they act in defence of their communities. The defence of the community includes not only the wider community, but specific minority communities that must be protected from those who seek to spread poison and bile. Strathclyde Police will, as always, have our support in taking whatever steps it feels are necessary to protect every citizen and every community in Scotland from those who seek to do them harm.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The cabinet secretary indicated in his response to Bill Butler that he would be happy to discuss these matters with Strathclyde Police if it wished to do so. I respectfully remind him that his predecessor signed a written agreement with many of the marching organisations and with the police in Scotland on the subject of marches and parades. Will the new Scottish Government continue to support that written agreement? Will the cabinet secretary monitor its implementation proactively, rather than waiting for the police force in Strathclyde or elsewhere to raise the matter with him?

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

We support the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2006 that Mr McConnell and his Government introduced, which gives local authorities powers over such matters. We believe that local authorities are best placed to protect their communities. That may not have been Mr McConnell's view, or he may have forgotten it, but the purpose of the 2006 act was to allow local authorities—which are best placed to do so—to provide a balance in deciding which marches are appropriate and beneficial for a community, and which are inappropriate and unacceptable. We fully support the right of local authorities to make those decisions and to take the advice of our police and work in conjunction with them. It is not a matter for micromanagement—we should support the legislation that Mr McConnell introduced and of which he should be proud.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My question referred to the written concordat with the marching organisations and the police authorities in Scotland that followed from the 2006 act, rather than the act itself. I would be grateful if you would indicate whether it is appropriate for Mr MacAskill to write to me with a reply to that question, as he misunderstood what I asked.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

As I am sure that Mr McConnell knows full well, it is for the minister to decide how he responds.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will provide an update on the rules regarding vaccination for bluetongue disease in sheep. (S3O-7892)

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

The requirement to vaccinate cattle and sheep will remain in place until it is suspended on 25 October. After that, there is a lower risk of bluetongue infection because lower air temperatures mean that we will be in a transmission-free period. The Scottish Government and stakeholders will meet towards the end of 2009 to discuss vaccination arrangements for 2010.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Is the minister saying that vaccination will not be compulsory after 25 October? If that is so, will he agree that it is far more convenient for the jab to take place in the months that precede winter—September, October or November—rather than waiting until January, when the ewes will be in lamb and there will be extra stress?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

The current arrangements were drawn up after full consultation with all stakeholders, including the sheep sector. We will continue, as I said in my previous answer, to discuss the arrangements for 2010. If the sector wants to propose any changes to the arrangements, we will listen closely.

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what progress has been made in implementing "The Government Economic Strategy". (S3O-7896)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

In the face of recession and a tightening budget squeeze, implementation of "The Government Economic Strategy" is being driven across the public sector through a range of co-ordinated actions that are designed to achieve the Government's purpose of increasing sustainable economic growth in Scotland.

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

"The Government Economic Strategy" includes a laudable target to increase the business start-up rate. According to the Scotland performs website this morning, performance against that target is improving. However, that runs counter to the evidence in the global entrepreneurship monitor report for Scotland, which is published by the Hunter centre for entrepreneurship. Does the Government believe that the business start-up rate is improving? If not, what does it intend to do about that?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Mr Brownlee will be aware that within the Scotland performs information system there is a published set of guidelines about the measures that are looked at and the information that is considered to inform the final decisions that are taken by statisticians—I reiterate that they are taken by statisticians and not by ministers—on the performance within that system. All of that is independently assessed. I have made it clear all along that the Government will consider whether the measures that are used to judge on those points are appropriate and adequate. If Mr Brownlee has representations to make on that point, I will of course listen carefully to them.

On business start-ups, the Government is focused on ensuring that we improve the business start-up rate in Scotland. The investment that we have made in the business gateway, Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise is designed to support that process, and we will look for other ways to improve performance and ensure that Scotland can deliver the economic growth that the Government believes is possible.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

To ask the Scottish Executive how the 2010-11 budget will assist local communities. (S3O-7914)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The Scottish Government's spending plans for 2010-11 will mean protection for front-line services, households and local businesses at a time of economic hardship as well as on-going investment in our economic recovery plan, all of which will greatly assist local communities throughout Scotland.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

I have previously asked the Scottish Government to recognise through its budget the particular needs of the city and communities of Glasgow. It has failed to do so. This year, it proposes to rob the city of £120 million-worth of investment, and the much-needed jobs that would come with it, in order to pay for its pet projects such as the national conversation. Why does the Government continue to treat Glasgow and its communities unfairly? [ Interruption. ]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Why is Glasgow having to take the hit for the obsessions of this Scottish Administration?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I unreservedly thank Patricia Ferguson for the opportunity to put on the record once again the very strong level of support that the Administration is giving the city of Glasgow.

I start with the fact that the city of Glasgow receives the largest per head funding through the local government distribution formula of any mainland authority in Scotland. Into the bargain, I remind Labour members who were perhaps not listening last week that the M74 project is being completed at a cost of £690 million—a project that the previous Administration was unable to fulfil at any stage. [Interruption.]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

We then have the M80 Stepps to Haggs motorway at a cost of £320 million, the national indoor sports arena in Glasgow and the Southern general hospital, not to mention the significant transport improvements on the rail network including the Edinburgh to Glasgow rail improvement programme. In addition, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning has announced £300 million of support through the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council for the Glasgow city centre colleges.

I really do think that the Labour Party has to look at the facts and understand that the Government gives full support to the city of Glasgow.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive when and how it will report on the conclusions of its review of the local government grant distribution process. (S3O-7951)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I have just received the joint review group's final report and I am considering the recommendations. An announcement on the way forward will be made in due course.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

Does the cabinet secretary agree that the gap between the most poorly resourced and the best-resourced councils is too great? Will he commit to meeting the five councils that receive less than 90 per cent per capita allocations with a view to exploring the introduction of a floor below which local authority funding to each council will not fall?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

As briefly as possible, please, cabinet secretary.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Certainly, Presiding Officer.

The issues that Alison McInnes raises are central to the consideration of the review of the distribution formula. As I said in my previous answer, I have just received the report. I think that I have had meetings with each of the local authorities that Alison McInnes refers to, but I would be delighted to meet them again and listen to representations. As I said, I will make appropriate announcements once the consideration of the review is complete.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Before we come to First Minister's question time, I know that members will wish to join me in welcoming to the gallery the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of the Parliament of Victoria, Jenny Lindell MP. [ Applause. ]

Equally, I know that members will wish to join me in welcoming the Lithuanian Ambassador to the United Kingdom, His Excellency Dr Oskaras Jusys. [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-1894)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

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

I know that the whole chamber will wish to take this opportunity to record its appreciation as a national Parliament for the life of Bill Speirs, the former general secretary of the Scottish Trades Union Congress. Bill made a substantial contribution to Scottish life for many years and will be greatly missed by us all. [Applause.]

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

I thank the First Minister for those words, which I am sure are echoed across the chamber and throughout Scotland.

On 5 September 2007 the First Minister was asked a straight question: would he reduce in this parliamentary session class sizes to 18 in primary 1, 2 and 3? For once, he gave a straight answer; he said, "Yes". But that was not true, was it?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The commitments were set out in the concordat with local government, which was published in 2007 and which said that there would be "year on year progress" towards lower class sizes of 18 in primary 1 to 3 in Scotland. Throughout Scotland, there has been year-on-year progress. Class sizes in Scotland are now at a record low, thanks to the actions of this Government and many local authorities around Scotland.

But some local authorities have not been quite so much in favour of a class size reduction policy. Is not that true?

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

Indeed. Twelve out of 13 Scottish National Party-led councils have failed to make progress and have reduced their teacher numbers. That was certainly not the straight answer.

Last night on television, Fiona Hyslop was asked five times when the class size promise would be delivered. She could not answer. This morning, Fiona Hyslop did not speak, so Keith Brown was asked when the promise would be delivered. He could not answer. Let us try the organ grinder. Will the First Minister tell us when the promise will be delivered?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Under this Administration, there will be year-on-year progress towards that class size target, which is in dramatic contrast to Labour's failure to meet its class size target when it was in government. Not only are we determined to make that year-on-year progress at this hugely difficult economic time, but we are going to have class sizes that are lower than those either under the previous Labour Administration or anywhere else on these islands. That will be the aim of the Scottish Government and our local authorities.

Of course, Iain Gray did not wish to comment on the fact that the largest local authority in Scotland, which is under Labour control, is itself responsible for 20 per cent of the decline in teacher numbers in Scotland. Why on earth should that be? Would anyone on the Labour benches care to comment?

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

As Benjamin Franklin once said,

"He that is good for making excuses is seldom good for anything else."

The issue is not just about class sizes. A year ago, the First Minister told us that nursery teacher numbers were "substantially increasing". They were not; they were falling. Moreover, in his manifesto, he said that he would

"maintain teacher numbers in the face of falling rolls".

However, he has cut 1,000 teachers out of our schools. The promises on class sizes, nursery teachers and school teachers—not one of them was true, was it?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

We now know for the first time just how many nursery teachers there are in Scotland: there are 2,590. Unfortunately, that figure cannot be compared to figures in previous years, because the Labour Administration double-counted hundreds of nursery teachers because they worked at several schools. In other words, under the Labour-Liberal Administration, if a nursery teacher worked in two schools, they were counted twice; and if they worked in three schools, they were counted three times. I am not sure that Iain Gray was fully familiar with that double and treble-counting policy, but I am sure that he welcomes the fact that we now have an accurate estimate of nursery teacher numbers in Scotland.

Would it not be wonderful if every council in Scotland shared the enthusiasm of this Government for lower class sizes? Would it not be wonderful if our largest local authority was not engaged in the practice of cutting teacher numbers, increasing class sizes and closing primary schools, despite receiving more per head than any other local authority in this country?

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

I am delighted that we have accurate figures for full-time equivalent nursery teachers in pre-school education. What those figures show is that last year there were 34 fewer nursery teachers and the year before that there were 14 fewer. The numbers are not going up; they are going down.

The First Minister was elected on a false prospectus. In a tight election, he made cynical promises to children, parents, teachers and students—promises that he never intended to keep.

Here is how one of those teachers feels:

"Think I will send Hyslop a calculator—she obviously does not have one ... and if I could—her P45."—[Interruption.]

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

SNP members can laugh. The teacher continued:

"I can just photocopy mine and change the names."

The education secretary is making Alex Salmond look like a fool. Will the First Minister make that teacher's day and give Fiona Hyslop her P45?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

If Iain Gray had attended the education debate, he would have heard that story being told. I am concerned about the future of teachers and post-probationers in Scotland. [ Interruption. ]