Scottish Parliament, 8 October 2009

362 contributions from 75 members. The official report.

Official Report 8 October 2009

School Buildings

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

The first item of business is a debate on motion S3M-4988, in the name of Rhona Brankin, on school buildings.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I am delighted to have the opportunity to debate this important issue. In opposition, the Scottish National Party spent plenty time making promises, but now it is spending its time making excuses. I am sure that we will hear a plethora of those again today.

The SNP's election manifesto in 2007 pledged that it would

"match the current school building programme brick for brick, and offer an alternative funding mechanism through the Scottish Futures Trust."

On both counts, the SNP Administration has failed. The Scottish Futures Trust is an expensive national joke—I see that John Swinney is laughing at his own joke.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The joke is on Rhona Brankin.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

The school building programme that was announced last week by Fiona Hyslop is simply too little too late. If it was the great triumph that she wanted us to think it was, why was none of the education ministers available to face scrutiny about the plans? The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning was happy to pose for photos but left it to back benchers to explain the SNP's school building programme—and, my goodness, that was amazing. Perhaps she regrets her reticence now, as the MSPs who were put forward to defend the SNP's position ably demonstrated the utter confusion at the heart of the party's school building policy and failed to get their stories straight.

Rob Gibson told the BBC's "Scotland at Ten" programme last Monday that some of the 14 high schools that were announced last week would be funded by the Scottish Futures Trust. Perhaps Mr Swinney will confirm what Mr Gibson said. Will the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning clarify in her speech how many of those 14 high schools will be built under the Scottish Futures Trust—not simply branded as Scottish Futures Trust schools but actually paid for through it?

The following day, Brian Adam told "Good Morning Scotland" that the SNP would build 350 schools this parliamentary session. The Government manages to change the figures as the days go by. Will the cabinet secretary tell me today whether 350 schools will be built this parliamentary session?

To top it off, when Joe FitzPatrick was asked on "Newsnight Scotland" last Monday how many of the 14 high schools would be built by the 2011 election, he replied, after a minute or so of complete waffle, that he was confident that some of them would. Will the cabinet secretary clarify whether that is, indeed, the case?

We can but ask; sadly, we will have to wait a long time before there are any answers. What a total shambles. It is one thing for education ministers to be posted absent; it is another for them to leave their colleagues floundering.

Labour members have long drawn attention to the keenness of SNP ministers to turn up at and take credit for schools that were planned and built under the previous Scottish Executive, but Fiona Hyslop took shamelessness to new heights last week when she went to pose for photographs at the new Armadale academy, which was funded under a public-private partnership. She described it as

"an inspirational example of everything a new school can be".

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I was delighted to open Armadale academy and will tell Rhona Brankin why. Before May 2007, the Labour Party—and Mary Mulligan in particular—told the people of West Lothian that, were an SNP Government to be elected, that school would not be built. Well, the school was built. I signed off the proposal in August 2007 and I opened it. We said that we would match the previous Administration's schools "brick for brick", and we have done.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

That is laughable. Armadale academy was a Labour school, planned under the Labour Party.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The Liberal Democrats have a Liberal school.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

That PPP project was planned by the previous Government, which gave West Lothian Council the initial agreement. If Fiona Hyslop wishes to check the record with the council, she will find that that is the case. If Mary Mulligan doubted that it would be built, that might be because she believed what the SNP said about PPP. The Government has not kept its promise to deliver schools through the Scottish Futures Trust. Absolutely nothing—not one school—has been built through the Scottish Futures Trust.

The cabinet secretary's comment that Armadale academy is

"an inspirational example of everything a new school can be"

is a ringing endorsement of PPP, for which I thank her. Three years ago, she said on her website:

"It's time to end PPP",

but it is difficult to know when to believe her. She pledged on 3 February 2007:

"Within the first 100 days of an SNP government we'd start replacing PPP with a Scottish Futures Trust."

The first 100 days—Mr Swinney is not smiling now.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I am always smiling when Rhona Brankin is on her feet.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order, Mr Swinney.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Fiona Hyslop continued:

"It would be a not-for-profit trust which would serve as an alternative finance scheme—and it would squeeze out the PPP programme".

However, so far, all the SNP has done is establish an expensive quango that is costing taxpayers £23 million. It is now abundantly clear that the Scottish Futures Trust will not fund any schools for the foreseeable future. The SNP amendment talks about how the trust is playing

"a central role in coordinating, facilitating and managing the new school building programme."

What a load of nonsense. The reality is that it is spending £23 million without buying a single brick for a single new school.

When they are not busy having their photographs taken next to PPP schools, SNP members like to denigrate them. Let us not forget that PPP built 119 of the 328 schools that were built under the previous Scottish Executive, compared with zero schools for the Scottish Futures Trust under the SNP. It is now clear that the 14 new high schools that were announced last week will all be built using capital spend without one brass farthing of Scottish Futures Trust money.

The SNP wasted two and a half years before making an announcement that could have been made in 2007—two and a half years during which it could have got on with providing our teachers and young people with the facilities that they deserve and a coherent school building programme that could have supported our hard-pressed construction industry. It is a disgrace that 150,000 pupils are languishing in substandard schools and thousands of construction workers are needlessly on the dole.

I make one thing clear: until last week's announcement, the SNP Government had not built or even commissioned a single school. I welcome the fact that it has at last commissioned new schools, including Lasswade high school in Midlothian. However, only 14 schools in two and a half years—about one school every two months—is a record to be ashamed of. I leave members to draw their own conclusions from the fact that three school buildings that were judged in 2008 to be category B, or of satisfactory condition, are being rebuilt in SNP council areas while dozens of schools in category C, or of poor condition, are overlooked. That point is certainly not lost on pupils and teachers at Newbattle high school in my constituency.

The SNP sticks grimly and doggedly to the script that it is matching the previous Administration's programme "brick for brick". The problem is the SNP's dodgy arithmetic—we will hear more about that today. The SNP wants to have its cake and eat it. It is trying to claim credit for school building projects that it inherited from the previous Administration as well as schools that will not even be built by the next election. Whether on timing or on hard numbers, the SNP is failing miserably to match its brick-for-brick pledge.

I urge members to speak up for pupils, teachers and parents and hold SNP ministers accountable for letting them down by supporting the motion in my name.

I move,

That the Parliament notes with concern that the Scottish Futures Trust has yet to fund a single new school building in Scotland despite the 2009 School Estate Statistics revealing that around 150,000 pupils remain in schools classified as being in poor or bad condition; is dismayed that, after more than two years, the SNP government has identified only 14 schools to be built under its first school building programme, that none of these 14 schools will be open to pupils in this parliamentary term and only 55 will be built in total by 2018; further believes that the SNP government's claims on the number of schools that it has commissioned are unsustainable given that its own School Estate Statistics reveal that a majority of schools built or substantially refurbished in the last two financial years were legacy PPP projects, and further believes that it is hypocritical for ministers to criticise PPP schools while praising them at their official opening and that the SNP's record in government is falling far short of its 2007 election manifesto pledge to "match the current school building programme brick for brick, and offer an alternative funding mechanism through the Scottish Futures Trust".

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

This is an opportune moment for the Parliament to debate school buildings, as the SNP Government passed two important school estate milestones this week. As a result of at least £2 billion of major investment in the school estate over the period 2007 to 2012, we have passed the 200 new or refurbished schools mark in the two and a half years since May 2007.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Will the minister give way?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

No, there is more to come.

The previous Administration delivered only 205 schools during the entire four years of its term. I can now tell Parliament that, on top of the 200 schools that are identified on page 3 of members' Scottish Parliament information centre briefing as having been built by March 2009, another 36 schools have been built since then, bringing the total to 236.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Will the member share with the chamber how many of those schools are PPP schools? Why is it that the official statistics were miraculously changed the night before the debate, after close of play last night? Can she confirm that there was no discussion with the official statisticians? Was any pressure put on them?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Absolutely not.

There is an issue with the accuracy of the Labour Party's motion. Page 3 of the SPICe briefing indicates that the majority of schools that have been built in the past two years are not PPP projects.

The pace of building and refurbishing schools is quicker under this Government than it was under the previous Administration.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. The minister says that today's motion is inaccurate. Given that the motion is based on the official statistics as they stood until 6 o'clock last night, can you confirm for us that it is competent for us to vote on it?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I am perfectly content that the motion is competent.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

This Government's investment has supported the delivery of new and refurbished schools at a rate of 1.2 schools per week over the present four-year session, as compared with the rate of just 0.76 schools per week that was achieved in the previous eight years.

From Eyemouth high school in the east to Inverclyde academy in the west and from Papdale primary in the north to Biggar high school in the south, pupils, teachers, parents and communities the length and breadth of Scotland are benefiting from better schools. We have already lifted more than 100,000 pupils out of schools that were in a poor condition.

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

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I am sorry—Ms Brankin has already taken up some of my time.

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

Is the cabinet secretary seriously claiming Eyemouth high school as one of her schools?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I say to Mr Purvis that £2 billion of investment is being put into the school estate between 2007 and 2012. No school project to which the previous Administration committed has been delayed or shelved by this Government, despite the unfunded PPP revenue payments that we have had to fund, to the tune of £40 million in the next financial year alone. I have signed off eight projects involving 49 PPP/non-profit-distributing schools, including Armadale academy, and have secured funding for them.

On top of that, last week I announced the first 14 secondary schools that will benefit from the new and additional £1.25 billion school building programme, which we are taking forward in partnership with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and individual local authorities. More Labour-led councils are benefiting than councils led by any other political party.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I thank the minister for the fact that last week resources were made available that will enable schools to be built in Ellon and Laurencekirk in the north-east. However, the historical burden of school building in Aberdeenshire is so large that the situation of Kemnay academy has not yet been addressed. Is there any prospect of the Government providing guidance on how the funding for replacing Kemnay academy may be obtained?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Local authorities continue to receive robust levels of capital investment. Between 2008 and 2010, £2 billion will be provided. The member is right to identify the problem of the historical backlog that exists in Aberdeenshire. Indeed, Aberdeenshire Council was the only local authority that benefited from two schools in last week's announcement.

Labour may not have welcomed the new secondary schools that will be provided from Wick to Ellon, Garnock to Dalbeattie, Mearns to Brechin, Harris to Eastwood, James Gillespie's to Auchmuty, Clyde Valley to Ayr and Lasswade to Dumbarton, but pupils, staff, parents and communities have, as have the Conservatives. As a consequence, 12,500 more pupils who are educated in schools that are in poor or unsustainable condition will be lifted out of that situation.

One reason why Labour was voted out in 2007 is that people wanted to see an end to the one-party state and the semi-feudal, Labour fiefdom approach to government. They no longer wanted a party that claimed schools as Labour schools. They are not Labour schools; they are not Liberal Democrat or even SNP schools, either—they are Scotland's schools, which have been paid for by the taxpayers of Scotland.

The SFT will deliver real benefits for our school building programme, as my colleague John Swinney will explain when he closes the debate. It is clear that the private finance initiative approach that was used in the past has not delivered best value for the taxpayer. Excessive profits have been made on investments, with the result that large windfall gains have been made at the taxpayer's expense. The SFT expects to make savings of at least 3 per cent over the span of the programme, which would equate to a sum of around the cost of an extra new secondary school or about five or six new primaries. Labour prefers models of excess profits; I make no apology for preferring extra schools.

Last week's announcement represents only a quarter of the new schools that will be built as part of the additional £1.25 billion programme. With COSLA, we established a school estate strategy, which Audit Scotland criticised the previous Government for not delivering. The SFT will deliver new schools.

Between 2007 and March 2009, 200 schools were funded and built. The present total is 236. At least £2 billion is being invested in the school estate between 2007 and 2012.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

Will the minister give way?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

No. The minister is closing.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

An additional £1.25 billion will be provided for 55 new schools. Since 2007, more than 100,000 pupils have been lifted out of schools in poor condition. We will spend an average of £700 million a year on schools over the lifetime of the Parliament. That compares with the £585 million per year that the previous Administration spent over the previous seven financial years. In every community and every corner of Scotland, schools are being built and funded by this Government. That is a record of which I am proud. Labour may not choose to see them, but pupils, parents and communities do.

I move amendment S3M-4988.3, to leave out from "with concern" to end and insert:

"that the Scottish Government inherited a school estate where around 260,000 pupils were in schools classified as being in poor or bad condition; welcomes the fact that this figure has fallen by 100,000 since May 2007 due to the £2 billion of investment in the school estate supported by the Scottish Government; recognises that in excess of 250 schools will be built during this parliamentary term compared with just 205 during the four years of the previous administration and that the Scottish Government will exceed its pledge to match the previous administration's plans brick for brick; commends the Scottish Government and local authorities for the increased pace of school project completions with the rate of delivery up from 0.76 schools per week over the eight years of the previous administration to an anticipated 1.2 per week over the period from May 2007 to April 2011 and further commends the additional investment over and above the schools that will be delivered through the capital budget allocations of each local authority, which will see an additional £1.25 billion deliver a further 55 new or refurbished school buildings across Scotland, and further welcomes the fact that the Scottish Futures Trust will play a central role in coordinating, facilitating and managing the new school building programme."

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I was about to moan about the fact that yet another Thursday morning in Parliament was being taken up by an education debate, but I have to say that the entertainment is getting better and better. The member who said last week that he was on the point of holding constituency surgeries on a Thursday morning because he knew that that was when debates on education, rather than on a subject for which he had responsibility, would be held—I will not embarrass him by naming him—had better come to the chamber.

That is not to belittle the importance of this morning's subject debate. Given that it remains the case that almost a third of our schools are in poor repair, with almost 200,000 pupils being educated in substandard accommodation, there is obvious concern, and parents rightly expect members of this Parliament to debate the issue as a matter of urgency. We are pleased to join Labour in putting that on record and will support its motion, but I believe that it is incumbent on members to submit alternative proposals.

No one doubts that it is not easy—and probably not possible—to solve the school buildings issue even in the medium term, particularly given the economic circumstances that we face, but we need to be realistic, pragmatic and consistent in our approach. Before I indicate some ways in which I believe that we can do that, I will outline my two main concerns about the Scottish Government's stance on the Scottish Futures Trust.

My first concern is that the SFT has been sold as the only alternative that is on offer for the school building agenda, despite the fact that many PFI and PPP contracts have a well-proven record. We do not accept that line, on the basis that it restricts some potential sources of finance.

Secondly, I am concerned about the Scottish Government's lack of clarity on the criteria that it wants the joint approach between national and local government to use when deciding which schools merit a new building. That confusion is revealed by the difference in the answers that the cabinet secretary provided to me and to Rhona Brankin when we asked, on separate occasions, what the criteria would be.

To me, the cabinet secretary said that

"special consideration would be given to those schools in categories C and D"

and to

"where there could be an impact on the greatest number of children",

although she clarified that by saying that she was concerned about the nature of the research that had been used to define categories C and D.

The cabinet secretary's reply to Rhona Brankin indicated that the criteria would depend on schools' suitability to deliver the curriculum for excellence, additionality—whatever that means—and local authorities' plans and readiness to proceed.

I have two points to make about those answers. First, they lack consistency. I do not doubt that some of features that the cabinet secretary identified are vital, but can we be totally clear about which ones are vital or about the importance that is attached to each of them?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The two responses are completely consistent. We have worked with local authorities to identify schools that merit a new building. The reference to additionality indicates that we are talking about schools that did not previously have identified funding streams. That is the sense in which added value would be provided. It is clear that we have worked extremely closely with local authorities, which have nominated the schools that they think should benefit first. My two statements are not mutually exclusive. We have been extremely open about the criteria that are being used.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I find that slightly strange, given the reaction of some local authorities.

My second point is that if the priorities are related to the readiness of local authorities to proceed, why is the Scottish Government so wedded to the ideology of the Scottish Futures Trust, which is a Government-funded company that would eradicate any private sector involvement in procurement and which, we are now being told, is not only the funding body but the advisory and co-ordinating body? If the Scottish Government really believes in local democracy, it has a strange way of showing that.

The Scottish Conservatives' overriding concern is to ensure that there is best value for taxpayers' money when it comes to delivering top-class education for our children. That means getting more out of the existing budget through better procurement, asset sales when it is possible to generate more income and plans to make more effective use of school campuses by the local community or other public services. To date, the SFT has not been able to do any of that.

Yet again, there has been a distinct lack of clarity and leadership in relation to this major plank of the Scottish Government's education policy. We agree with Labour that the current situation is not satisfactory, but in our criticism we must be mindful of putting in place more options and ensuring that we are able to get more out of the very limited resources that are available.

I move amendment S3M-4988.1, to insert at end:

", and believes that the school building programme should be funded so as to deliver best value for money and that all sources of finance, including those in the private sector, should be considered."

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

This is an important debate on an important issue. The importance that Liberal Democrats attach to school buildings is clear from our record in government.

Following her statement on the school building programme in June, the cabinet secretary suggested that

"it is about time that we stopped trading statistics on school buildings on a ping-pong basis".—[Official Report, 17 June 2009; c 18452.]

I am not sure how she trades her statistics and whether it is like when we traded cards at school. We all know that statistics sometimes tell us a little bit less than politicians might like to think.

A certain amount of hypocrisy is involved, given that, once again, we are using statistic after statistic in relation to an issue that, for most families in Scotland, remains crucial for the education of their children. Throughout the country there is a continuing sense of disappointment at the way in which the Government is handling the matter.

There is a great deal of hypocrisy in the SNP Government's position on the issue. Not one of the many schools that the cabinet secretary has told us about today—whether in Eyemouth, Armadale or wherever—was commissioned by the SNP Government.

I join the cabinet secretary in ignoring her own advice on so-called statistics trading on school buildings. The number of schools in Scotland that need to be replaced is 832, and the number of new schools that this Scottish Government, after two and a half years in office, and thanks to its endeavours alone, announced last week is 14. Matching the previous Government's policy "brick for brick" has simply meant that since taking office this Government has continued to support the investment plans that were in place under the previous Liberal Democrat Government.

Audit Scotland has made it clear that the previous Government delivered on our school building commitments—more than 300 schools were rebuilt or refurbished by the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party when we were in government, and hundreds more were planned and in the pipeline when we left office. That was good news for pupils and communities across Scotland. However, we know that Audit Scotland has also concluded that it will take 20 years to bring all our schools up to an acceptable standard, at an estimated cost of £5 billion. In the face of that staggering statistic, and given that the Government has presided over two years of paralysis thanks to the Scottish Futures Trust shambles, is it not right that Opposition parties should accuse the Government of being more interested in dogma in relation to PPP than in making sure that our pupils have decent schools and our young construction apprentices have jobs?

This is, and should be, about delivery. Our problem with the SFT is not dogmatic; if the SFT had been set up and somehow was about delivering schools, the Liberal Democrats would not have a problem with it. We do not have a dogmatic problem with the SFT in the same way that the Government has a dogmatic problem with PPP.

After more than two years of dithering and indecision—two years in which work on schools could have been well under way—the Government announces £800 million of funding. Has that come about thanks to the SFT? No, it is down to direct capital grant. Even the SFT briefing, which came to us at 10 o'clock last night, states that there will be no new primaries with that funding until at least 2011 and no new secondaries under this tranche until at least 2013, and that many schools will be delayed until 2018. Parents who voted SNP on the basis of the promise of more new schools may well attend their children's graduations before the first new truly SNP school opens.

Of the 150 schools that have been built since May 2007, which the cabinet secretary mentioned in her statistics-free speech, 109 were PPP projects. The SNP condemned those very same PPP projects as "morally criminal", yet the Government takes the credit for each and every one of them. It is as if ministers had become Bob the Builder, put on their hard hats and built the schools themselves. They smile in the photo opportunities and shake hands with teachers as if not scrapping the previous Administration's projects is somehow the same as having commissioned the schools.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Will the member give way?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

No. I am afraid that the member must wind-up.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

We should not be surprised at the sheer gall of this Administration. The Scottish Government is lowering its standards at an alarming rate week on week. Just two weeks ago, the First Minister was claiming success for a class size policy that has achieved just 13 per cent of its target; this week, the Government is patting itself on the back for a school building programme that has not built any schools. Week on week, the Government ditches policies; today, it should ditch the SFT.

I move amendment S3M-4988.2, to insert at end:

"; deeply regrets the ongoing ambiguity over the future allocation of resources under the school building programme and the absolute failure of the Scottish Futures Trust (SFT); considers that the Scottish Government's centralisation and poor handling of the school building strategy has caused serious uncertainty for local authorities and has undermined the autonomy of councils to determine their local priorities, and calls for the SFT to be scrapped immediately."

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

The importance of this debate was brought home to me on Tuesday night when I attended a school prizegiving at Trinity high—a school that was recently rebuilt under PPP—in Cambuslang in my constituency. I talked to the staff and pupils afterwards and was struck by the excitement and enthusiasm that they felt because they were in a new school building. The 23 per cent of school buildings in Scotland that are still in a poor or bad state must be addressed. The starting position is the 2007 SNP manifesto, which referred to matching building programmes "brick for brick" and told voters that the Scottish Futures Trust would be a low-cost finance option. The reality is that those pledges have not lived up to expectations. The SNP manifesto contains so many broken promises that it is not worth the paper that it was written on; in many ways, its title should be changed to "Welcome to Fantasy Land".

The SFT is a multimillion pound organisation that has moved at a snail's pace and has delivered nothing. As Margaret Smith said, we got a briefing note in our inboxes at 10 o'clock last night. Members might expect an organisation that is paying film-star wages to be able to get its briefing notes to MSPs more than 10 hours before a debate. The briefing note states that the SFT will "drive forward" the school investment programme. However, as we have heard, the reality is that the SNP announced the first secondary schools only last week, and none of them will be ready until 2013. I do not call that driving anything forward.

The briefing note also states that the

"SFT is rapidly developing innovative funding approaches".

I had to laugh, given that we are two and a half years down the line.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I know that the member was not in Parliament during the previous session, but is he aware that it took Labour five and a half years from announcing its funding mechanism to build the first school? The school in question was Dunbar grammar, and the project was a refurbishment rather than a new build.

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

I point out to the cabinet secretary that we had a rolling programme of investment in schools. The SNP Administration has taken two and a half years to make any commitment to roll the programme forward in future years. It seems to me that the SNP has failed parents and pupils; it has also failed the 8,500 construction workers who have lost their jobs this year. It must open up the funding pipeline so that more capital infrastructure projects can come through, giving us schools that are fit for the 21 st century and giving jobs to construction workers who are on the dole.

Dave Thompson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

The motion condemns the state of Scottish schools, but omits to say that they got into that state under the Labour and Lib Dem Governments. The motion also says that the

"majority of schools built or substantially refurbished in the last two ... years were legacy PPP projects",

but omits to say what the financial legacy of PPP has been to our councils. I will try to shed some light on that, so that we can see just how bad PPP was and why it had to go.

Highland Council has undertaken two PPP schools projects, the first in 2001 and the second in 2006. The cost of the first PPP school is now just over £3 million a year, and the cost of the second was predicted to be just over £18 million a year, after inflation, in the current financial year, which comes to a total of about £21.25 million at today's prices. The strange thing is that figures that were released recently by the Government show that Highland Council is actually paying £24.5 million this year for its PPP schools, which is £3.25 million, or 15 per cent, more than was projected. That is not exactly the best value that the Opposition claims it is.

How did the council get it so wrong? That huge increase in repayments seriously calls into question the value for money of the PPP projects, the way in which the business case was developed and how robust the figures for the public sector comparator were. There is no doubt that the private sector ran rings round the public sector with PPP. Respected figures such as Jim and Margaret Cuthbert have said that there have been gross failures at

"the value for money and affordability stages"

of the PPP process. That is very worrying, and it looks as though we are only now seeing just how bad some of the deals were. I fear that there is much more bad news to come.

Further problems that are linked to PPP are coming to light, and Highland Council is again at the forefront of the failures. The council recently revealed that it has been saddled with an overspend of £754,000 this year due to higher than expected rates payments for its PPP schools. The overspend is so high this year because the council received the first rates bills for the schools only in March—two years after some of the buildings were completed. The council expects the overspend to be smaller in the future, but it will still be £356,000 a year more than expected. That is an additional expense that will be incurred every year for the next 28 years, until the PPP contract ends in 2037. An extra £10.68 million in rates will have been paid by the end of the contract at a time when Highland Council will have been cutting teacher numbers in many of its schools. Good value, indeed.

The council has, of course, blamed someone else. Apparently, it has been let down by consultants and is now making threatening noises about taking legal action. I doubt very much that that will ever happen.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I am sorry to break into an extremely eloquent speech that explains the full cost of the PPP projects to Government, both national and local. The problem is that Dave Thompson is not comparing like with like. He is comparing outturn costs—which we all admit will be high—with the initial costs of projects that have been funded by central Government. Those two things are not comparable. Our country has debts that are building at a rate of £175 billion a year, and central Government grant will cost our grandchildren a fortune. Funding through central Government grant has no demonstrable advantage over funding by any other method, including PPP.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I will allow you extra time, Mr Thompson, as that was a rather long intervention.

Dave Thompson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

There is absolutely no doubt that the costs of PPP are far greater than the costs would be under traditional borrowing methods over the life of the projects.

That episode shows just how dodgy some of the figures for PPP projects are. In order to make the case that the new PPP schools were good value for money, all the stops had to be pulled out, which included ensuring that the projections for costs such as rates were competitive. I wonder whether there was ever a temptation for consultants, advisers or officials to be overoptimistic in their assessment of the likely costs of PPP projects, which led to their appearing to represent value for money. I intend to find out. I have, therefore, lodged a freedom of information request with Highland Council, asking for all documents—including letters, e-mails and reports—relating to the advice that the council received on the level of rates for the PPP schools. They should make interesting reading.

George (Labour, Lothians)

As Elizabeth Smith rightly said, this is the second successive Thursday morning on which we have had a debate on SNP education failure. It is the second debate in which you have kindly called me to speak, Presiding Officer. It is also a special one because it is the debut of the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning in such a debate. Indeed, the SNP is so worried that we have two cabinet secretaries present—not just the Scarlet Pimpernel, but Don Quixote también.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I have previously asked you not to use nicknames in the chamber, Lord Foulkes. I would be grateful if you would stick to that, thank you.

George (Labour, Lothians)

I am glad that John Swinney was earlier called to account for his sedentary interventions. I must say, they make mine sound like whispers.

Last week, we debated the breaking of the SNP promise on class sizes and the scandal of unemployed teachers. Now, we are debating SNP failure on the school building programme. My colleagues have already eloquently exposed the hypocrisy of the SNP on that. For years, SNP members attacked the Labour Party for all the money that we spent on PFI and PPP school building programmes. Now, Dave Thompson and others are saying that we did nothing at all. They cannot have it both ways.

Similarly, they keep moaning on about the United Kingdom Government not providing enough cash for the Scottish Executive, but we know that the Scottish Executive is getting more money now than ever. That is illustrated by the school building programme that we have just heard Fiona Hyslop go on about. Where is the money coming from? It is coming from that wicked Alistair Darling and the UK Government. It is not coming from anywhere else. The SNP cannot have it both ways.

Even with all that money, the SNP cannot get it right, as my good friend James Kelly said. The Scottish Futures Trust is an albatross that is not really flying yet. I will illustrate that with a case involving the City of Edinburgh Council. Under a Labour council and a Labour Executive, there was a continuous programme of the building and major refurbishment of primary and secondary schools, including Craigroyston primary school, Castleview primary school, Forthview primary school, Craigour Park primary school, Craigmount high school and St Thomas of Aquin's high school. I could go on naming all the schools that were built or refurbished under Labour.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Lord Foulkes has just told us that we cannot have it both ways. While he is on the subject of the City of Edinburgh Council and capital investment in the city, will he accept that, had he decided not to force the SNP Administration to support the trams project in Edinburgh, that would have liberated capital expenditure investment in schools and, more important, would have liberated the city of Edinburgh from a colossal and increasing financial burden?

George (Labour, Lothians)

Of course, the money for the trams is coming from that wicked man, Alistair Darling and the UK Treasury. It is a question of priorities.

Under Labour, from 1999 to 2007, 34 primary and secondary schools were built in Edinburgh. Since the SNP took over in Edinburgh—I hesitate to say this, but it took over in collaboration with the Liberals—not one school has been built in the city. If Labour had continued in office, locally and nationally, the school building programme in Edinburgh would have continued, with Portobello high school, Boroughmuir high school, James Gillespie's high school, St John's primary school and St Crispin's school all in the pipeline. Instead, we have had two wasted years.

Let us consider the two new schools that are allegedly going ahead. The council has apparently got the £41 million that is required for Portobello high school, but no site has been agreed yet and the school will not be built by the time the SNP Administration is out of office. So much for matching our previous school building programme "brick for brick". James Gillespie's high school will cost £42 million, of which the Scottish Government will find two thirds, while the council will have to find £14 million out of its budget. However, the convener of the council's education, children and families committee has said that the money is not available. So much for matching our programme "brick for brick".

That is a legacy of failure, and even the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth will not be able to explain it all away.

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

To have any school in Scotland in a substandard state is unacceptable; to have 260,000 pupils in schools that are in a poor or bad condition is absolutely disgraceful. However, that is exactly the mess that Labour left behind when it was turfed out of office in 2007; another mess that Labour left us in, another Labour failure, and another Labour round of "It wisnae me" from Rhona Brankin. It is just as well that the SNP ended Labour's time in office in 2007 and replaced it with a Government that is determined to improve Scotland and a team with the imagination to dream a better country.

We now have 100,000 more children in better schools. The SNP pledged to match Labour's school building programme "brick for brick" as the first step towards sorting the problems in Scotland's school estate. We realised that Labour's plans actually consisted of just a number in a manifesto, that Labour had not planned the 250 schools that it imagined it would build. Unplanned, unfunded and disorganised—that is quintessential Labour. Like so much else that Labour does, there was plenty of packaging but not much product—plenty of fur coat but a distinct lack of lingerie.

The SNP Government has already delivered all the schools that Labour planned and is well on the way to delivering the full 250 schools that we promised to build. In the first two years of this Administration, the SNP has built 200 schools, which means that it has two years left in which to deliver the remaining 50—I think that it will deliver more than that. I think that a Government in this excellent condition should be able to make that pledge.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Christian McKelvie is famous for her interview on "Newsnight" in which she condemned the profits of privateers. Is she happy about her Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning having signed off a PPP contract, as she so proudly said she did? Is she also happy about the fact that Angus Grossart said that the use of private money would be welcome in the Scottish Futures Trust?

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Rhona Brankin obviously did not listen to what Dave Thompson said about the absolutely disgusting cost and the privateers and the profiteers who were courted by the Labour Party. I inform Rhona Brankin that it took six years of running the Scottish Office and the devolved Scottish Government before Labour even checked on the condition of the school estate in Scotland. I will take no lessons from Labour.

Not only will this Government pass the target of 250 new schools within one parliamentary session, but the cabinet secretary has already started work on the tranche after that. She recently announced another £1.2 billion agreement with local authorities for new schools to be built after the election, with another 14 secondary schools announced and the primary schools still to come. The primary schools will start to be delivered in 2011, and the secondary schools will follow them. Building schools properly instead of building the absolutely rubbish schools that were built at the start of the PPP process is a better way forward.

I take it that Rhona Brankin will want to welcome that forward planning, especially given that a replacement for Lasswade high school in her constituency is featured in those plans. Labour never built it, but the SNP is going to. She will also want to welcome the £25.5 million investment that has already been made in Midlothian Council's school plus programme and the eight schools that have been completed in her constituency.

Iain Gray will want to welcome the improvement project for 11 schools in East Lothian, as well as the infrastructure investment plans for Dunbar, Letham and Wallyford primaries and the two primaries and one high school that have been finished in East Lothian.

Lord Foulkes will want to welcome Edinburgh's wave 3 schools, which are to be completed within two years, and the eight primary schools that have already been completed.

In Glasgow, 12 schools have been completed, in North Lanarkshire 16 have been completed, and in South Lanarkshire 22 have been completed. Thousands of pupils are in better schools today because of the actions of the SNP Government—thousands of pupils whom Labour abandoned.

Not only is the SNP Government meeting and beating our manifesto pledge and Labour's manifesto non-pledge, it is planning for the future. The SNP is investing in the future of our country rather than following Labour's failures of the past. Then SNP is a party that puts Scotland first and seeks to create a better country. We are building Scotland up; Labour should stop talking Scotland down.

I support the amendment in Fiona Hyslop's name.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

The SNP's record on education has been abysmal. It has made promise after promise and has broken every one of them. It is right that we hold this incompetent SNP Administration to account, and education is an area in which its record of failure has been most evident.

On 28 September, Ms Hyslop issued a press release that claimed that the Government and local authorities were

"on track to lift 100,000 school pupils, by 2011, out of tired and crumbling school buildings".

By 1 October, however, the Deputy First Minister was asserting that 100,000 children had already been lifted out of those conditions. She made no mention of partnership with the local authorities and no mention of the fact that Ms Hyslop thought that achieving that goal would take until 2011—in fact, she made no mention of Ms Hyslop whatever; it was just the Deputy First Minister indulging in the usual SNP bluster. Today, however, I notice that Ms Hyslop seems to have adopted Ms Sturgeon's mantra, but has been found wanting again.

I have asked a question—I await an answer—seeking further information on how all those announcements relate to Glasgow. Let me assist Ms Sturgeon and Ms Hyslop by telling Parliament that not one school pupil in my constituency has been lifted out of a poor or bad school by this Government. Across Glasgow, the local authority has reduced its category C and D primary schools in the past year by taking very difficult decisions—decisions with which I did not agree.

Anne McLaughlin (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

The member says that the SNP has not lifted any pupils out of poor schools in her constituency. Does she take credit for Glasgow's Labour council lifting so many pupils out of the schools that they wanted to go to, that their parents wanted them to go to and that their local communities wanted them to go to, and putting them into schools that are in poorer condition?

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Ms McLaughlin was clearly not listening to me. However, in answer to her, I will quote what the deputy leader of the SNP group in the council said when the announcement of the school closures was made:

"We understand it makes sense to pay for the education of children in good quality accommodation rather than heating half-empty classrooms."

Anne McLaughlin should take the matter up with her own colleagues.

As I said, I opposed those closures, and I called in this chamber for the SNP to support Glasgow to provide new schools in Wyndford and Cadder. However, it failed to do so. I asked the cabinet secretary in a debate what she could offer the children, parents and communities who were affected by the closures but, of course, she could offer nothing.

Labour in Glasgow has rebuilt or refurbished every secondary school in the city, built 64 schools over 10 years—11 secondary and 53 new primary schools have been delivered as part of a phased programme that has seen new school campuses being built in my constituency in Possil Park and Milton, with another planned for Ruchill. On Ms Hyslop's new statistics that have been produced overnight, I can tell her categorically that the plans for the St Monica's campus in Milton, which opened to pupils in early spring, were originally taken forward by the previous Labour-Liberal Democrat Administration. She may not claim credit for that—we will not allow it.

Pupils in those communities are learning in the most modern facilities thanks to their Labour council and the previous Labour-led Executive. Teachers in those schools are working in modern buildings with modern equipment, and the communities around those schools are using the campus facilities that have come with them. The facts speak for themselves: Labour delivers, while the SNP fails the schools test in Glasgow.

The hypocrisy of the SNP is unbelievable. As we know, it promised to match Labour's school building programme "brick for brick" but has not done so. It campaigned against school closures in my constituency but offered no alternatives. It announced the construction of just 14 schools throughout the whole of Scotland, but not even one of those will be in Glasgow.

The SNP Government is once again ripping off Glasgow. Glasgow is yet again being penalised by the Government. We are paying the price for working hard over previous years to provide the best possible education facilities for our young people, and the communities of my constituency and constituencies across Glasgow have been abandoned by the SNP.

Does the Government not see that it is as a direct result of its policy failures that the latest phase of Glasgow's pre-12 strategy—the first under this SNP Government—is the first since devolution to offer not a single new school building in the city? That is a damning indictment of the SNP's education policy, and is one that the cabinet secretary will not be allowed to forget.

Fiona Hyslop has indicated that she expects to announce the first tranche of primary schools that are planned to be built under the school building programme by the end of the year. She has indicated that she hopes that every local authority in Scotland will benefit from the first phase of the programme. However, those aspirational comments are quite different from the headline on the Glasgow SNP website, which screams "SNP pledge new schools for Glasgow".

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The member should wind up.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

We know, by the SNP's own recent admission, that that particular website is prone to "glitches" with "100s" of inaccuracies.

Every party in the chamber would assert that it views education as a high priority, but after two and a half years in Government, the SNP has still to prove it.

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

The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning claimed, when she intervened on Rhona Brankin at the beginning of the debate, that not cancelling a previous PPP school project in West Lothian was an "inspirational" decision.

That surely cannot be the same cabinet secretary who, in 2007, told the Parliament's Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee:

"We think that schools and pupils will obtain far better value from a futures-trust funded school than from a PPP-funded school."

She went on to say:

"However, the futures trust will provide a very attractive option for local authorities and I think that many are waiting with great anticipation to use it."—[Official Report, Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, 27 June 2007; c 40.]

I am not sure when anticipation turns to despair, but I think that we are very much on that threshold.

Every SNP member who has spoken in today's debate has spent the first half of their speech condemning PPP schools, and the second half taking credit for opening them. I was interested to hear the cabinet secretary champion Eyemouth high school, which is one of three PPP secondary schools in Berwickshire. The SNP campaigned tooth and nail against that PPP project in the Borders, and now the cabinet secretary heralds it in her speech as something for which the Government should take credit.

Fiona Hyslop talks about an "inspirational" PPP school, while her back benchers say that when she opens the school, she should pull the cord and say, "I hereby open this morally criminal school."

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

We said that we would match the Labour and Liberal Democrat PPP programme, and we did. None of the projects was cancelled: they all went ahead. Construction began on Eyemouth high school in September 2007, and the school opened in March 2009. The schools and the buildings can be inspirational, but I do not think that PPP is the model that we should continue to progress. We have honoured the commitments and spent £40 million each year—

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Jeremy Purvis has only got four minutes.

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

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

Christina McKelvie called the schools "rubbish". Within the space of 10 minutes, "rubbish" schools have become "inspirational" schools, according to the SNP.

As my colleague Margaret Smith said, not scrapping schools that were planned by the previous Executive is not the same as building new ones; just as signing off, announcing, awarding and opening projects is not the same as commissioning new projects. Primary school pupils can tell you that, if they are educated in the right sort of buildings that we hope to build for them.

In March this year, on "Good Morning Scotland", John Swinney was asked, "Hand on heart, cabinet secretary, has the Scottish Futures Trust turned out to be everything that you wanted it to be?" He replied, "Of course it has." The Scottish Futures Trust, which the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth said would fund schools, has no funding.

From reading the briefing that members received at 10 o'clock last night—which bodes well for the future efficient delivery of the Government's programme—we should apparently be reassured. What is the Scottish Futures Trust doing with its £5.9 million budget this year? The briefing states:

"SFT is currently visiting recently opened schools to bring best practice"

in delivering more efficiency. Those are obviously not the "rubbish" schools that we have heard about this morning. Is that efficiency, as we have heard, 3 per cent over a decade-long programme, which is considerably less than the existing efficiency targets for local authorities?

The Scottish Futures Trust, in its briefing, gives itself credit for supporting the pathfinder project. It also mentions the East Renfrewshire pilot, for which the Government has set out a timetable. The first school will be ready in August 2013, and the last school will be ready in August 2014; which involves a phased construction programme over 12 to 24 months.

We are not seeing any efficient delivery, nor any co-ordination. The sting could well be in the tail, however, because the SFT has indicated in its own business plan that it will be charging councils for some of the work, which presumably includes the visits to schools that the briefing mentions.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The member must wind up.

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

Charging councils for visiting a previously-built PPP school is surely not all the cabinet secretary had hoped for from the Scottish Futures Trust.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Last Thursday really was a sad day for SNP manifesto promises. Until that point, it had been assumed that the Scottish Futures Trust, although seriously ailing, might itself have a future as the provider of funds for capital projects and new school buildings. The matter was put beyond doubt at First Minister's questions, however, when Nicola Sturgeon, the Deputy First Minister, refused to answer a question from Johann Lamont on whether the SFT would provide any cash for Scotland's crumbling schools. It became clear that whatever the Scottish Futures Trust is, it is certainly not a source of funding.

However, the SNP was quite clear in its 2007 manifesto, which stated:

"We will match the current school building programme brick for brick, and offer an alternative funding mechanism through the Scottish Futures Trust. With better value bonds we can release more money to invest in the frontline."

There is no alternative funding mechanism for the Scottish Futures Trust, no better value bonds, and no third way to funding schools as an alternative to traditional methods or PPP.

In case we needed any clarity on that, we received—very late yesterday evening, as James Kelly said—a briefing from the Scottish Futures Trust in advance of today's debate. Note to highly-paid members of the SFT board: it is not helpful to send a briefing for a debate, which contains information to aid members in making their contributions, at 10 o'clock on the evening before we are due to arrive in the chamber.

The briefing states:

"SFT is rapidly developing innovative funding approaches to meet the new challenges."

We are now two and a half years on from the election, and we await those "innovative funding approaches" with bated breath.

We on the Conservative side of the chamber are not churlish. If the SFT actually delivers value for money for the taxpayer, that is a good thing; and we await it with interest. It is now clear, however, that the SFT is a management mechanism rather than a funding mechanism. It is a million miles away from what the SNP promised in its manifesto; Fiona Hyslop and her colleagues should make that quite clear, and apologise for their failure.

Because we are generous in spirit, and we still want to give the SFT a chance, we will not support the Lib Dem amendment.

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

Will the member give way?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

If Mr Purvis will forgive me, I want to make some progress.

I am rather confused by the Lib Dem amendment, because I saw a Lib Dem press release dated 3 February 2009, which was headed "Lib Dems secure serious measures for serious times". It states:

"Tavish Scott, Leader of the Liberal Democrats ... has secured an economic recovery plan for Scotland with 'serious measures for serious times' following Budget negotiations with the First Minister."

It goes on to say:

"The SNP have changed their position on the Scottish Futures Trust. They will now give the quango a funding stream to restart school building in Scotland. Local councils and the construction industry had criticised the SFT for paralysing investment."

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

Will the member give way?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

In a second.

More recently, on 28 September—just 10 days ago—a Lib Dem press release stated:

"Malcolm Bruce MP welcomes new Ellon Academy announcement".

It quoted Mr Bruce as saying:

"'As part of last year's Scottish budget, Liberal Democrat MSPs secured a commitment for a funding stream for the Scottish Futures Trust: I am delighted that this has now borne fruit with this announcement.'"

Perhaps, Mr Purvis, it is just a "rubbish" press release?

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

Murdo Fraser said that the SFT is now, in his view, purely a management rather than a funding body. If that is the case, should the management function not be carried out by Government?

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Mr Fraser, you should begin to wind up.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I was enjoying myself so much that I did not realise I was running out of time. All I can say to the Liberal Democrats is that they need to get their lines right, in respect of what their members of the Westminster Parliament are saying and what their MSPs say in this chamber.

For our part, we will support the Labour motion and, of course, we promote our amendment. It is important that we consider all funding mechanisms for new schools, but it is also important that the SNP realises that it has woefully let down Scotland's parents, pupils and teachers.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The distinction that Jeremy Purvis sought to make took the contortions that we get in the chamber to a ridiculous extreme. He tried to say that not cancelling a school project is not the same as building the school. I am sure that what matters is the fact that the schools are being built.

Under the SNP Administration, the proportion of schools in good or satisfactory condition has risen from 68 to 75 per cent, with a corresponding fall in the number of schools in poor or bad condition.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I ask Margaret Curran to allow me to develop my arguments.

We expect more than 250 school building projects to be completed during the current session of Parliament, with 236 completed already, exceeding our manifesto pledge to match "brick for brick" Labour's manifesto commitment of 250 schools. I cannot imagine how—

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

rose—

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Here is Rhona Brankin about to intervene on me in her usual thankless fashion, despite the Government's achievement in matching "brick for brick" the Labour Party's manifesto commitment.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

How many of the schools that the Government is promising to have completed by the end of this parliamentary session will be part of the Government's school building programme rather than council programmes?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The Government's school building programme will deliver 250 schools during this session of Parliament. How can I marshal the facts more simply for the people in the Labour Party who do not listen?

Of course, Rhona Brankin has made a speciality of criticising the Government's performance on education policy. It is important that we remind ourselves of the assessment of Rhona Brankin that was given by her own colleagues when she was promoted into the Cabinet on 10 January 2007. Quoted in The Herald, a senior Labour figure admitted to being "gobsmacked" by Ms Brankin's promotion, describing it as "a reward for incompetence", so we will take no lectures from Rhona Brankin on these questions.

In this session of Parliament, we will spend, on average, £700 million per annum on schools, compared with the £585 million per annum that the previous Administrations spent in the previous seven years. We will build 1.2 schools per week as opposed to the 0.76 that the previous two Administrations built.

Of course, the issue of school building is materially anchored in how we pay for the proposals, and I will move on to make a number of remarks on that, but let me first make a point about the competence of the previous Administration and its financial planning. If we had not continued the school building programme, that lot would have moaned about the fact that we had not taken all the projects forward. We have taken them forward, but we are also meeting an increased financial liability—between the current financial year and the next one—of £100 million in the cost of repayments for those schools. Members shake their heads, but those are the facts.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I will give way to Margaret Curran in a moment.

In the next year, there will be an increase of £57 million. The budget line for PFI repayments is going up at a time when the Administration's budget is falling in real terms. That is not sensible financial planning by Margaret Curran and her colleagues.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I thank the cabinet secretary for finally giving way to me.

I ask the cabinet secretary why he is replying to the debate. Is he stepping into the education team? When was that decision taken and why? Also, given that he is the finance secretary, can he tell us specifically how much the Scottish Futures Trust will contribute to the building of schools in this session of Parliament?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

This morning, Lord Foulkes was queueing up to say that it was lovely to have me here; now Margaret Curran is moaning that I am here. I am here because the motion contains a lot of drivel about the SFT and I am the minister responsible for the SFT. That is why I am replying to the debate. [Interruption.]

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Order.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I cannot move on without referring to Mr Fraser's absolute demolition of the Liberal Democrats' hypocrisy on the issue, but let me add to Mr Fraser's repertoire. I thought that he had perhaps stolen a press release that I had found, but I have another one, from 2 March 2009, which is headed:

"Darling should not attempt to give PFI kiss of life—Cable".

Vince Cable went on to demolish the arguments for PFI, so perhaps there should be a little consistency in that debate.

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

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I think that the Presiding Officer wants me to draw my remarks to a close.

At the heart of the school building programme will be the expertise of the Scottish Futures Trust. The first phase will be funded through direct capital investment in the schools programme, to allow construction to start as quickly as possible on the buildings that require the most attention. Through the Scottish Futures Trust, different funding models, including the non-profit-distributing model, will be options for later phases. We are asking the Scottish Futures Trust to work actively on that and it will discuss the matter with COSLA, authorities and the Government.

We have made it clear—and Elizabeth Smith's amendment makes the correct point in this respect—that it is important that we deliver maximum value for money for all our investment. I do not think that any of us could fail to see the lack of efficiency in the design, procurement and construction of the early phases of the PFI schools.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I am afraid that the cabinet secretary's time is up.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Audit Scotland has criticised that, and we have to address the question of value for money.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

Last Monday should have been a red-letter day for the Scottish Government. At last, albeit two and a half years late, it had a schools programme of its own. The first new schools to be commissioned by an SNP Administration—that was surely something to celebrate and shout from the rooftops. Perhaps there would be a parliamentary statement, a debate, or possibly even a comment from Mr Salmond. Instead, here we are, more than a week on, and an Opposition party has yet again been forced to hold a debate to bring the Government to the Parliament to explain itself. At least this time the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning has had the good grace to join us, although I am surprised that she feels the need to elicit Mr Swinney's support.

We heard a lot of shouting from Mr Swinney. He shouted that he was the minister responsible for the Scottish Futures Trust. I wonder whether he will be shouting that at the next election.

Why the timidity? Why the odd situation of an Opposition party lodging a motion on what should be a flagship Government policy? To fully appreciate the situation, it is helpful to try to imagine what voters thought in 2007 when they voted for a party that promised:

"We will match the current school building programme brick for brick, and offer an alternative funding mechanism through the Scottish Futures Trust."

I wonder whether any of those voters expected to wait two and a half years to hear an announcement about 14 schools, none of which will be built until 2013 at the earliest? I wonder whether any of them expected to wait two and a half years for a new funding mechanism only to hear that it is no such thing.

The trouble with last week's announcement is that, instead of meeting people's aspirations and expectations, it leaves them flat. It reveals a Scottish Futures Trust that does not work and shows up the hollowness of the SNP's repeated but baseless claims of record investment.

It is difficult to know where to start with the Scottish Futures Trust. The point has been made by Margaret Smith, James Kelly, Murdo Fraser and others that £23 million has been spent but there is not a single brick to show for it. That would be laughable if it were not so serious. Last week, we discovered that the SFT spent more than £100,000 on consultants just to advise them who to recruit. What did they say? Those with experience of building schools need not apply? Sending e-mails at 10 o'clock at night qualifies you? The SNP's amendment suggests that the SFT's job is only to

"play a central role in coordinating, facilitating and managing the new school building programme."

There is no mention of funding or building anything. The SFT has been not a way of building schools but a way of stopping school building. For two and a half years, it has given the SNP an excuse not to commission any schools of its own.

We now find that the first 14 schools that the Government has announced will be built using traditional procurement. As Rhona Brankin pointed out, they could have been announced on day one. No wonder the SNP is not bragging about them. Of course, ministers find it difficult to brag about the 14 planned new schools because they have been pretending to build everyone else's schools since they were elected.

Bizarrely, they seem to have commissioned schools before they were even elected into Government. The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning pretends that every local authority school is, in fact, an SNP commission; indeed, in an excellent speech, Jeremy Purvis highlighted the hypocrisy of the SNP's position in its steadfast refusal to announce a PPP programme while repeatedly claiming to have commissioned PPP schools right, left and centre. As Mr Purvis pointed out, every SNP member who spoke this morning condemned PPP schools in the first half of their speech, only to go on to claim them in the second half. I should also point out that Christina McKelvie did not just call the schools rubbish; she called them disgusting. The cabinet secretary herself mentioned excessive profits and then went on to talk about Eyemouth high school and her visit to Armadale academy. That is duplicity.

Dave Thompson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

What does Mr Macintosh have to say to Highland Council, which this year is paying £3.25 million more than expected? It is now spending more than £25 million a year on PPP schools, a figure that was not supposed to have been reached for 30 years. How much will that sum increase in future years?

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

Does Mr Thompson welcome these new schools or does he think that they are a disgrace? Is the SNP proud of the PPP schools and is it commissioning them, or does it think that Scotland's pupils do not deserve them? As Murdo Fraser and Elizabeth Smith pointed out, PPP schools throughout Scotland, including those in my area, have been delivered on time and on budget and are delivering a service. That is more than the SNP has done in two and a half years.

Back in January, in answer to a question from my colleague George Foulkes, the First Minister famously took credit for 71 commissions, some of which the BBC immediately revealed to be half-built before the SNP was even elected into power. The most recent announcement has made it clear that, on top of the 71, the 250 or even the 350 schools that are mentioned, there will be 55 new schools, none of which will be ready before the next election and some of which will not even be built until 2018, or two elections from now. The SNP expects us to believe that asserting something repeatedly and loudly enough makes it true. However, a look at its claims about funding and investment reveals them to be as overheated as its claims about supposed commissions.

As for statistics, last month we challenged the SNP on teacher numbers, and members were too scared to turn up and debate the subject. This week, when we challenge ministers on school buildings, they try to fiddle the figures the night before. I can scarcely recall a more flagrant or political abuse of Government statistics. Do they have so little confidence in their arguments that they sneak in changes the evening before a debate?

Last week, the cabinet secretary stood outside a PPP school; this morning, she tries to pretend that such schools have no part in the SNP's programme. No matter how the SNP tries to fiddle the figures, it cannot hide the fact that the Scottish Futures Trust has failed to deliver one school.

The SNP promise on school building was not of its own making. In fact, it was an attempt to copy the previous Liberal Democrat and Labour Executive and, if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, I suppose that it was a recognition of the success of our investment in the school estate. For all their talk this morning of ambitions and record funding, ministers have attempted not to outbid us, as they tried to do with class sizes, but to match us. Sadly, though, the result is the same. The SNP has deceived the people of Scotland, has failed to deliver on its education promises and has let us all down.

Volunteering

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-4985, in the name of Johann Lamont, on volunteering.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Labour has chosen to use its time to debate volunteering and the voluntary sector both in recognition of their importance and because it is concerned about the lack of opportunities for consideration and scrutiny of the Scottish Government's approach that the Government has afforded. The Scottish Government has promoted a wide range of non-debates in the chamber, but I cannot remember when these particular issues were last debated.

We want to give voice to concerns that are being reported to us by people throughout Scotland who are too afraid to speak up or speak out on their own behalf. Indeed, I have been struck by the significant number of briefings that we have received as a result of this debate. I thank everyone who provided a briefing; it is a measure of the subject's importance that they have been submitted.

It is right to recognise and celebrate the voluntary sector's role and we salute the volunteers who make a real difference to people who are very often the most isolated and vulnerable in our communities. We know that volunteers can identify need, help to shape services and reach out into the parts of our communities where the state cannot go. Volunteers such as those who work for Home-Start in my constituency can support and be trusted by vulnerable families who might fear more formal interventions by social work or health staff. We know that volunteers make a massive social and economic contribution and that their influence on community life and cohesion is beyond measure. We know, too, that volunteering enriches the lives of volunteers, both young and old; indeed, we have seen how significant the support for volunteering among older people has been.

Warm words, however, will sustain neither volunteers nor the voluntary sector and, like many others, I remain concerned that in its approach the SNP has been typically high on rhetoric but weak on delivery, with a separation between what it says it cares about and what it provides resources for. I am also struck by the gap between ministers' approach, which borders on the complacent, and the issues that have been raised at a local level, including funding cuts, fears for the future and increased concern about the conditions of those who work with the voluntary sector. In the time available, I will try to highlight some of those concerns.

First—and I do not say this lightly—I have been struck by the extent to which those involved have suggested that there is an atmosphere in which it is difficult for them to air concerns. I hope that we all believe in and celebrate the independence of the voluntary sector, but the threat of the withdrawal of funding if critical voices are raised seems all too real. That cannot be acceptable, but it has been reflected in the debate on the future of the councils for voluntary service network and the development of local interfaces. Instead of following the principle of voluntary collaboration, we seem to be driving towards a forced measure, with funding being used to create compliance. As I said, that is entirely unacceptable.

Secondly, there is concern that the Scottish Government seems to be of the view that the development of volunteering opportunities does not require resources. The national volunteering strategy seems to have come to an end, and the single outcome agreements say nothing about the need for such strategies to be developed at a local level.

Thirdly, not that long ago, Unite, Unison and the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations came together to highlight to the Parliament the crisis in the voluntary sector. Who can forget the image of the hearse, which captured the fear of the sector's destruction? Well, SNP back benchers will have forgotten it, because they did not have the courage to turn up and speak to the people who were raising these concerns.

There is also grave concern at the Scottish Government's lack of understanding of the powerful role that volunteering can play in tackling disadvantage, and we need to be proactive in encouraging such activity in our most disadvantaged communities. After all, volunteering can improve skills, build confidence and form an important bulwark against the consequences of economic recession. We need the Scottish Government to act, especially when we are faced with two contrasting sets of figures. First, 18 per cent of adults in deprived communities volunteer, while the figure for Scotland is 33 per cent; secondly—and in stark contrast to that—the figure for young people not in education, employment or training is 11 per cent for the whole of Scotland, but 25 per cent in our 15 per cent most deprived communities. The Scottish Government must find a way of intervening to ensure that our poorest communities, which would benefit most from the skills that volunteering can bring, are afforded such opportunities.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Central Fife)

Does the member not agree that one of the difficulties that the voluntary sector is facing is the move to compel people who do not want to go into employment or training to accept a place in the sector? Surely the whole ethos of volunteering is that it should be voluntary. Does the member agree that compulsion in this matter is very wrong and will she condemn the United Kingdom Government for trying to force through such a measure?

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I regret the fact that Tricia Marwick wishes to attack the United Kingdom Government, rather than join us in contemplating challenges in our local communities. Young people in poor communities could be afforded the opportunity to volunteer, which would address the fact that disproportionate numbers of them have been hit by the recession. The Scottish Government's answer to that situation is to end funding for ProjectScotland, a body that has a focus on reaching out to young people for whom it is more difficult to access volunteering opportunities and who would benefit disproportionately from them. There are examples of that in my community and, I am sure, throughout Scotland.

Despite that, the Scottish Government is ending ProjectScotland's funding. The Government says that it is a matter of cost, but the reality is that 87 per cent of the money from the public purse that is used to support volunteering opportunities through ProjectScotland goes directly into the pockets of the young volunteers and, from those young people, out into the hard-pressed communities in which they live. We know that 40 per cent of ProjectScotland's volunteers come from the 20 per cent most deprived communities. At a time of economic recession, it is bizarre for the Scottish Government to make that decision, which shows a lack of understanding of the recession's disproportionate impact on poor communities and individuals.

It is time for the Scottish Government to confront the consequences of its decisions. Its budget has increased in real terms by £600 million, but it is devolving responsibility to local level, with a reduced budget. As a consequence, there are cuts in local government budgets. Local government's capacity to find resources is restricted because of the impact of the council tax freeze. The Scottish Government must accept that the funding problems that voluntary sector organisations and local volunteers are experiencing are its responsibility.

The Scottish Government should take a lesson from volunteers and the volunteering spirit. It should take responsibility and recognise that warm words mean nothing without action to make the commitment real. Having created huge problems for voluntary organisations and volunteering, the minister adds insult to injury by walking by on the other side. I urge him to reconsider his position on ProjectScotland and to listen to and engage honestly with all those in the voluntary sector who wish to volunteer but who tell us that there are significant problems at local level. That will give us confidence that volunteers and the voluntary sector can survive and thrive again.

I move,

That the Parliament recognises and celebrates the role of the voluntary sector and volunteers across Scotland in supporting individuals, families and communities and in shaping and delivering services locally; notes the excellent work of volunteering organisations in encouraging volunteering through offering training and volunteering placements and particularly in reaching out to those who might not otherwise have the chance to volunteer; agrees, given the opportunity that volunteering provides to develop skills and build confidence, that, in this economic recession, volunteering organisations should be given adequate resources to allow them to do that important work, and further agrees that innovative organisations that create structured volunteering placements for young people, such as ProjectScotland, should be recognised and supported by the Scottish Government.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

It is highly appropriate that we should debate the voluntary sector in the context of the challenges facing Scotland. The Liberal Democrat amendment focuses on the situation of young people in the tsunami that has been wrought by the economic and financial crisis. Young people are our future and our greatest pool of talent and potential. In the 1980s and 1990s, we saw the damage that can be done to the hopes and ambitions of a whole generation for whom there are no jobs and little opportunity. Now, again, the generation coming out of school, college and university, full of possibility and desperate to make their way in the world, find no jobs available to them and vastly narrowed opportunities from those that were available only a year or two ago. Almost one in six under-25s is out of work, with youth unemployment in September the highest since records began. Those young people are at risk of becoming another lost generation and, with every day that passes, their hopes fade a little more. The Parliament and the country will pay a heavy price if we cannot meet the threat as a society.

The challenge is also an opportunity, because the underused talent of our young people is a major resource of enthusiasm, fresh air, manpower and, I have to say in Johann Lamont's presence, womanpower for voluntary sector organisations. Many organisations routinely draw in young people as volunteers, but much more can be done through what I describe as interns or placements—young people who come not for an evening, but on a daily basis for months or longer. They can be trained to fulfil a role in the organisation, expand its capacity and, in the process, find fulfilment in doing something worth while for the community and build their self-confidence.

That was the role and inspiration that was taken up by ProjectScotland. I say to the minister that it should be a significant embarrassment for the Government that it withdrew funding from ProjectScotland without proper examination of its role or potential and at the very time when its contribution was most needed. ProjectScotland is not the only model. We have the Scottish higher education employability network—SHEEN—student placements project and various other projects. However, one of ProjectScotland's undersung contributions was to provide structured resources to build the capacity of the organisations in which its volunteers were placed. For example, the Scouts at their Fordell Firs headquarters and outdoor centre took on ProjectScotland volunteers, who added enormously to the staff base, to say nothing of the opportunities in youth work that were opened up to those young people.

The voluntary sector is more needed than ever during times of hardship. The citizens advice movement makes a massive contribution in most parts of Scotland. It was funded by the previous Scottish Government specifically to carry out debt advice work that arises from legislation that we introduced. That funding comes to an end shortly, but it must be extended and not lost by becoming merely a part of the local government settlement. Citizens Advice Scotland receives significant funding from the UK Government because of its role in financial and welfare benefits advice. That presents a major opportunity for gearing up with the support of local authorities and the Scottish Government. I am not so interested in the mechanics but, as Johann Lamont rightly said, the Scottish Government has a responsibility to ensure that the national advice service is funded effectively to meet the current expanded needs.

What applies to the citizens advice bureaux applies to many other voluntary sector organisations that can and need to play not only their current role, but an enhanced role in providing flexible services with a human face. Those services are often of a kind that cannot be supplied by the statutory services. I ask the minister to tell the Parliament what weapons he will use to ensure that those organisations can access properly structured and sustained funding that builds their capacity in these difficult times. I genuinely welcome the recent announcement of a resilience fund of £1.7 million but, as a deputy minister in the previous Government—a mere minion—I put more than that into the youth work strategy alone. Modest crisis funding is no substitute for sustained and structured support of the sector.

In April last year, Parliament debated the voluntary sector, which was perhaps the most recent time that the issue was debated in the round. At my instigation, we passed an amendment that called on the Scottish Government to review the operation of the concordat with local government to provide more stable funding for the voluntary sector and to revitalise the local government compacts with the sector. We have heard little if anything about that recently. Not for the first time, the Government has ignored the will of Parliament. The interests of the voluntary sector are similarly ignored in outcome agreements. Meanwhile, the fairer Scotland fund has followed other funding in being rolled up into the local government settlement. What a contrast that is with the substantial package of voluntary sector support and reforms under the previous Government. That approach genuinely expanded the sector's capacity, supported national infrastructure organisations and tried to deal with the admittedly difficult task of the sector's relationship with local government and other funding bodies.

I know that the minister's expertise is in enterprise, rather more than in the voluntary sector, but I hope that he will tell us what policy levers he retains to ensure that stable and sufficient funds flow into the voluntary sector. We have an opportunity to turn difficulty into hope, instead of aspiration into ashes. We must not again witness the bleakness of another lost generation of young people. The Scottish Government has a crucial part to play in the discussion, debate and, I hope, action.

I move amendment S3M-4985.1, to insert at end:

"considers that young people are a huge pool of untapped talent and potential who are at risk of becoming a lost generation as a result of the current economic downturn; notes that engaging young people in the voluntary sector would provide a valuable resource for the organisations concerned; recognises the pressures put on the voluntary sector by the local government concordat and single outcome agreements, as well as local authorities' tight financial settlement, and believes that, with proper, structured and sustainable funding from central and local government, the current economic downturn presents an opportunity for a strong and active voluntary sector to play an enhanced role in the delivery of frontline services."

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The debate is timely and is on a subject about which all members are passionate, and rightly so, because that is the only seemly response to the passion, focus and commitment of volunteers throughout Scotland. Unbidden, they work with others to benefit their community. They are predisposed to altruism and they understand the need for their services, the good that they do, the satisfaction that volunteering can produce and its potential to produce a chain reaction of positive results. They are vital to the success of Scotland; indeed, in many ways, they are Scotland—they are totally representative of the country, with some estimates suggesting that more than a million people take part in volunteering activities. Many of them will not see themselves as volunteers, although they are active in what they do, whereas others see themselves very much as volunteers with clearly focused volunteering organisations.

We will accept and support the Labour motion, recognising that Johann Lamont has sought to engage positively and effectively on the issue and that her strategic direction as a minister was similar to the cohesive approach that we seek to engender, albeit that her rhetoric today has perhaps been skewed by partisan spin. It does not describe the new reality and the new beginning that is taking place, which is the opportunity for the voluntary sector to be at the heart of the community planning partnership decision-making process and to make real progress.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Does the minister regard it as cohesion when he has outsourced to local authorities £350,000 of support for the CVS senior volunteers programme and failed to agree to the transitional funding that was demanded in the debate last year, with the result that only four as opposed to nine development officers now support an increasing number of people who want to volunteer? The programme is under massive threat from his lack of cohesion.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I note the member's scaremongering tone. I believe that we are seeing a new beginning that brings people together to work cohesively. We are seeing that even in the case of ProjectScotland, which is evolving with Government support to aid transition of £1.4 million in 2008-09, which has helped the project to get European Union match funding. It made a successful application to the third sector enterprise fund that has enabled it to recruit a business development manager to assist in its evolutionary process. It is increasingly clear that ProjectScotland can do more now that it is in the fold as a mainstream service provider. It is in close talks with Skills Development Scotland about creating a pilot study and it is building a positive network of mentors throughout the country.

We will reject the Liberal Democrat amendment.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Just before the minister leaves the subject of ProjectScotland, does he accept that a great many voluntary groups throughout the country do excellent work that has relied on ProjectScotland volunteers and that the consequence of the cut in funding by his Administration is that the work of many of those groups has been seriously hampered? Will he reconsider the level of Government support for ProjectScotland?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Considering the expense of the ProjectScotland model, I am surprised and disappointed by that intervention from a party that prides itself on efficiency and effectiveness.

I am also disappointed that, in their amendment, the Liberal Democrats see bleak negativity in the local government concordat and single outcome agreements. That is an affront to the many decent people who are pulling together to take advantage of already increased funding and the new levels of collaboration that have been achieved and can be further improved. However, we can build on Robert Brown's final comment about difficulty turning into hope.

The atmosphere of blame, negativity and pessimism among Opposition members is not what I recognise out there in the field. Perhaps that atmosphere is designed to trigger defensiveness, fear and disconnection, but it is not what we are about. We reject that, as do the millions of volunteers who choose to connect and find better ways of doing so. In response to Johann Lamont at question time last week, I made a commitment to do that, and I will honour that commitment. We will make connections. We will happily try to broker arrangements and ensure better outcomes, which is very much what we have been doing of late.

In Glasgow last week, the Scottish Government ran a seminar under Chatham house rules, bringing together 35 key figures from throughout Scotland to think through what is needed to support active communities. That group tabled a wide and rich variety of ideas. It will now produce a framework to trigger a further conversation in Scotland about what needs to be done by whom and what resource will be needed. These are early days, but we feel that we are working on the right track and we are listening.

The key feature of this morning's debate was the huge range of ideas, which will be melded in with our approach. Volunteering has no boundaries; motivated people will constantly find new ways of helping others. It is our job through the interfaces, CPPs and single outcome agreements to ensure that that happens. More and more volunteers will come forward. We are now seeing that our work with Volunteer Development Scotland, in which we are investing £11.5 million in the current period, is having a big effect. That represents only 5 per cent of volunteers, so many more volunteers will come forward.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I apologise to Johann Lamont for missing the opening remarks of her speech.

This is a tricky speech to make. After all, this week sees the climax of the UK party conference season and long-standing tradition dictates our conduct. Last week, Labour said lots of nasty things about the Conservatives; this week, we in turn illustrate dramatically all that is wrong with the failing Labour Government. A fortnight ago, we both shared a universally arrived at national judgment on the Liberal Democrats, but the less said about them the better. On that sentiment, even though I appreciated Robert Brown's speech this morning, I find the Liberal Democrat amendment unhelpful, which will contribute to the outcome at decision time.

However, the motion requires us to rise above the demands of the season, because it touches directly on an unjust sleight of policy executed by this minority Government against ProjectScotland and the wishes of all the other parties in the Parliament. No great issue of principle was at stake; no great financial burden was relieved for the nation. What was achieved, with all the appearance of first ministerial spite, was the emasculation of an organisation that was created by the current incumbent's predecessor, seemingly principally for that reason.

I will return to ProjectScotland later, for the motion invites us to recognise and celebrate the extraordinary culture of volunteering bequeathed by generations of Scots past and embedded in the daily practice of modern Scotland. Some 45,000 structured voluntary organisations, managing £9 billion of assets and marshalling 1.3 million adult volunteers from every sector of Scottish life, work to make Scotland and the wider world a better place. That is a characteristic of modern Scotland that I do not doubt every member of the Parliament welcomes, celebrates and is regularly inspired by.

We have probably all volunteered at some point; it can be an important balance in life. My family volunteers and there is nothing remarkable about it. Like many younger people at school, my sons have come to volunteering through the Duke of Edinburgh award scheme. My wife volunteers with the lifeboats—on the fundraising side of things, I hasten to add. I mention that in passing because all who volunteer would wish the debate to acknowledge the one general irritation felt by all, which is regulation, however well intentioned, whose consequence is to obstruct the work of volunteers and demoralise many who volunteer. We need to deal with that problem if volunteering is not to suffer, but it is the stuff of a different debate than ours today.

Volunteering will prosper irrespective of the fortunes of ProjectScotland. However, what is at stake is the potential loss of an organisation that affords access to volunteering to sections of our young people who are regularly bypassed. As I observed when we debated ProjectScotland nearly two years ago, ProjectScotland addresses volunteering access inequality, which makes the actions of a Government pledged to address inequality all the more bewildering. In the two years since that debate, has something else turned up? Rather like what happened with the Scottish Futures Trust, we were invited back in 2007 to swoon before freshly invigorated ministers breathily promising something better. But something better is there not. To be fair to the minister, he has at least been emollient, at least until a moment ago when, in one breath, he praised ProjectScotland and, in the next, he attacked Murdo Fraser for asking him to back up that praise with practical action.

The First Minister has been less emollient. On 24 June at First Minister's questions, oblivious to the 50 or so ProjectScotland volunteer champions watching from the public gallery, he descended into a diatribe of ill-informed and ill-judged abuse of ProjectScotland, its volunteer organisers and volunteer successes. At a certificate award ceremony afterwards, there was a heady mix of bewilderment and fury from a new generation of Scots—and model Scots at that—receiving awards for the sheer excellence of their commitment to volunteering on behalf of their country.

Although many voluntary organisations seek out young people in search of life-changing opportunities, and the Government supports many of them in many ways, I remain genuinely perplexed by its indifference to the future of ProjectScotland, which is an organisation supported not just by several of its back benchers—prior to being told to think otherwise by their front-bench peers—but by an extraordinary range of not-for-profit organisations that address volunteering access inequalities in every region and community of Scotland.

Those who emerge through organisations such as ProjectScotland are just the sort of young people whom responsible businesses long to recruit. Businesses recognise that they have journeyed through ProjectScotland from potentially difficult circumstances. Responsible business wants to play its part in giving those young people, who have shown such courage, application and resolve, a permanent and hopeful future. Eight out of 10 progress to a positive outcome. Some 40 per cent of those young people come from the 20 per cent most deprived areas in Scotland. Through ProjectScotland, more than 3,000 young people have contributed more than 2.2 million hours of new voluntary work, saved the state some £3.16 million in welfare benefits and, through their talent, increased confidence and application, significantly increased the capacity and quality of the service that is provided by not-for-profit organisations. Never has volunteering had a more important role to play. Harnessed successfully, volunteering will give hope, life skills and work to many and will prepare them for the employment opportunities that will surely come. We should learn from past experience, not repeat it.

Structured volunteering placements of the kind offered to young people through innovative organisations such as ProjectScotland deserve recognition and practical support from the Government in these times. Today we set aside, however reluctantly, the tribal rites of this crucial party conference season to join Labour by supporting the motion in Johann Lamont's name. It is for the Scottish Government to do likewise, not just with warm words but with practical action.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

The voluntary sector plays an extremely important part in the day-to-day lives of tens of thousands of our constituents, so I am particularly pleased that the motion makes specific mention of ProjectScotland, which was launched by Jack McConnell in the spring of 2005 and was based on the AmeriCorps model, which was pioneered by President Clinton in the 1990s. Members will be aware of my long-standing support for ProjectScotland. I thank all those members who signed my two motions on the charity during this diet of Parliament.

Since its inception, ProjectScotland has set about transforming and redefining the image of youth volunteering by creating effective partnerships with hundreds of public and voluntary sector organisations, delivering more than 3,000 placements and facilitating more than 2.2 million hours of volunteering.

Why has ProjectScotland been so successful? Put simply, it delivers what young people want: choice, support and the chance of a better future. It is unique in that its participants receive a subsistence allowance that allows them to take up a variety of opportunities and a wide range of placements. To date, more than 3,000 young people have taken part.

However, change is not confined to the participants. ProjectScotland delivers a unique double benefit: as volunteers change their lives, they help to improve the lives of those around them by increasing the capacity of voluntary sector partners and making a difference to the communities that they serve. ProjectScotland has changed the lives of tens of thousands of Scots.

Unhappily, in December 2007, the Scottish Government decided to withdraw the funding for ProjectScotland—a decision that has resulted in a drastic reduction in the number of placements made available to our young people and, by extension, a cut in the capacity of partner organisations.

In 2007-08, ProjectScotland provided 1,370 placements. Following the Government's withdrawal of support, that number fell during 2008-09 to 426. Placements were halved in Glasgow and South Ayrshire, cut by more than two thirds in Fife and Perth and Kinross and cut by almost 85 per cent here in Edinburgh. Those statistics make grim reading against the backdrop of the current economic climate.

One can seldom open a newspaper without reading another article about how the recession threatens to leave us with a lost generation of young people devoid of opportunity, optimism and hope, yet no analysis was carried out when the decision was made to stop supporting ProjectScotland and no research into the social return on the investment made was conducted or presented by the Government.

There is a strong economic and social case to be made for directly supporting ProjectScotland. Its activities have resulted in a saving in welfare benefits of £3.16 million to date. More than 90 per cent of its volunteers move on to positive outcomes: employment, education, training, further volunteering or business start-ups. In 2008-09 alone, 40 per cent went on to employment, 29 per cent went on to training or education and 11 per cent went on to further volunteering or business start-ups.

Given those figures, I, and many others in the Parliament, have been part of a campaign to support that excellent organisation. I salute the efforts of colleagues such as Robin Harper, Robert Brown, Jackson Carlaw, Murdo Fraser and Margo MacDonald for their commitment to this very good cause. Like me, they have witnessed the undoubted benefits of the organisation's work in their constituencies and they can testify to the quality and commitment of the young people involved.

Please do not just take my word for it. Ask Kimby Tosh, a young woman from Perthshire whose life was turned around by her involvement in ProjectScotland—so much so that next month she will appear before the Public Petitions Committee to call on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Government to demonstrate how it supports national youth volunteering opportunities that deliver skills development for all young people in Scotland and to commit to a national youth volunteering policy for Scotland.

In 2004, a relatively unknown senator, Barack Obama, spoke of the "audacity of hope". Five years late, as President of the United States, he turned that aspiration into action by signing into law the Edward M Kennedy Serve America Act of 2009, which will quadruple the number of AmeriCorps volunteers to 250,000. The Scottish cousin of AmeriCorps, ProjectScotland, has similar potential. The Scottish Government should support ProjectScotland. The answer from the Government has to be, "Yes we should. Yes we will. Yes we can."

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I am pleased to take part in the debate; I am just sorry that it seems to be turning into a debate about ProjectScotland. There are many voluntary opportunities out there other than just ProjectScotland.

As others have said, there are many ways to volunteer, from being involved in organisations to working for the local community. Those are the two areas on which I want to concentrate.

The briefing that we received from the SCVO states:

"Volunteering should form part of a broader strategy of civic engagement and community empowerment ... We need to ensure that volunteering is supported as a way of gaining and retaining skills."

Those aims are commendable but, as I said before, that is not the only way that people choose to volunteer. Last night, I attended the Glasgow community champion awards ceremony in Glasgow city chambers. People who were nominated for the awards, which are sponsored by the Evening Times and others, included people from voluntary organisations but also many individuals who work tirelessly for their communities—individuals, not organisations. They included Hugh and Margaret Tavendale, who have served their community for more than 30 years; Glasgow Old People's Welfare Association, which works tirelessly for older people in Glasgow and which has more than 1,000 volunteers who give of their time; a 21-year-old trainee doctor from the west end who volunteers in his community in his spare time; and the Ruchill Youth Project, through which young people volunteer in their community.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Does Sandra White agree that those volunteers need support, training and often counselling to fulfil their function in the most effective way, for their benefit and for the benefit of those for whom they volunteer? Does she agree that the Government must therefore ensure that such support is available?

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I started by saying that there are many ways to volunteer and that people choose to volunteer in different ways. People choose whether they want to volunteer; we cannot force them to receive training or counselling. People such as Hugh and Margaret Tavendale chose to volunteer. They have never asked for training to be volunteers—volunteering came from their heart. Volunteering comes in many shapes and forms; it is not all orchestrated.

I was disappointed by the contributions from Robert Brown and Jackson Carlaw. Volunteering should not be seen as a way to take over jobs or training. People choose to volunteer. It would be disingenuous to say to young people that volunteering is the only way that they can get into a job. It is rather sad that the speeches that I have heard so far appear to say that young people must volunteer and a job will follow. These kids should be getting real jobs, real training and real apprenticeships. The voluntary sector should not be used to take people off the unemployment list and send them on to a job. We have to remember that volunteering is about choice.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Will the member give way?

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I am sorry, but I have less than 60 seconds left.

Everyone seems to be mentioning ProjectScotland. We should be congratulating Kate Mavor on her new job with the National Trust for Scotland—I am sure that she will do very well there.

We have to be honest and look at the figures for ProjectScotland, which show a cost of £8,934 per volunteering opportunity. I remind members of the previous Executive that they said that ProjectScotland should start to look to secure funding from the private sector. It has not done that yet. Please do not lecture anyone else on ProjectScotland.

There are many other volunteering organisations out there. People need a choice; they should not be forced into volunteering. It is about time that members listened to that. The people whom I mentioned chose to volunteer. They did not volunteer because they were told to; they chose from their hearts to help their communities, which is what volunteering is all about.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

I am not surprised that, at the start of her speech, Sandra White said that she did not want to talk about ProjectScotland, but it was bizarre that, at the end, she launched into an outright attack on the organisation with her ill-judged and ill-informed comments. Far be it from me to leap to the defence of either Robert Brown or—God help me—Jackson Carlaw, but Sandra White completely and utterly distorted what they said. It was grossly unfair and was unhelpful in the context of the debate. On the one hand, it showed that she did not fully understand what was being discussed and, on the other, it showed contempt for all those who volunteer in many capacities that go beyond the very narrow one that Sandra White sought to define.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Does the member deny that the figures that I quoted came from the previous Executive? Further, is he saying that people who volunteer from their heart to help their communities are any less worthy than people who belong to a voluntary organisation?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

I often wonder what people mean when they talk about a dialogue with the deaf. I think that I am beginning to experience a bit of that today, because Sandra White is clearly incapable of understanding what is being said. I do not intend to go into the figures around ProjectScotland. I merely point out that she launched into an ill-judged attack.

Johann Lamont was right to point out that, regrettably, there are organisations throughout Scotland—several MSPs, including me, have experience of this—that are profoundly worried about impacts on their budgets, particularly for helping with volunteer activity. Regrettably and tragically, they are scared to speak out. What kind of Scotland are we trying to build when we intimidate those who try to help others, and make them fear that their funding is under threat if they say anything?

I want to put on record the positive aspects of what volunteering can do. In my area, there are a number of projects that provide a fantastic range of services, from the small level of volunteering in the Renfrewshire Law Centre to the larger activities at the citizens advice bureaux, helping people with problems relating to benefits, debt and so on. I also have two WRVS projects in my constituency. One of those, the WRVS at the Royal Alexandra hospital in Paisley, is long established and renowned throughout the west of Scotland. Its volunteers service the cafeteria, the gift shop and the newsagent. It also provides more than 100 volunteers for befriending and lunch clubs. Through the volunteers' efforts, particularly in the cafeteria and gift shop, phenomenal amounts of money are raised to provide valuable and essential services in the hospital. Indeed, Sandra Robertson, the area manager, cannot speak too highly of the service that the volunteers provide. The WRVS also runs a cafeteria in Causewayside Street in Paisley that not only is a fantastic drop-in facility for the public but helps people to volunteer.

I say to Sandra White that people manage to get back into work through such volunteering. They started out to help through the volunteering ethos, and helped themselves back into work in the process. They did not volunteer in order to get back into work, but they developed their talent, skills and confidence through their volunteering activities.

Last, but not least, I pay tribute to the Renfrewshire Carers Centre and its volunteering project, which provides a range of services, such as one-to-one volunteering and befriending. What is probably most significant is that it helps young people to do volunteering work and supports young carers. It is a truly outstanding service. Our gratitude goes to all those volunteers in the Renfrewshire Carers Centre and elsewhere who do such a magnificent job for the wider community.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Central Fife)

It is a pleasure to be able to speak in the debate, because it gives me an opportunity to pay tribute to the many volunteers in my constituency who give their time, expertise and energy to assist their communities and the people within those communities.

Talking about ill-judged speeches, though, I think that we just heard one from Hugh Henry. He talked of fear and intimidation in the voluntary sector, but he obviously did not live in Fife for the 40 or 50 years in which Labour held thrall. However, I cannot see any way in which local organisations in Fife are not speaking up about threats to their funding or otherwise.

I spent part of the summer recess visiting projects in my constituency to find out more about their work and to give them my support. There are too many organisations to mention in this short speech, but my thanks go to all of them for the time that they spent with me. I want to concentrate on and highlight the work that is done by organisations that are volunteer led and supported, rather than refer to the voluntary sector that is supported by Government, council or health board funding, because there is a difference.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Will the member take an intervention?

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Central Fife)

No.

I will mention first the Leven community cinema project, which was set up by the community council following a survey of the people of the town that showed that the overwhelming majority wanted a cinema. The first film was shown in December 2008. Led by Frank Walker, Alan Briggs, Pam MacDonald and Leven community council, the cinema project is going from strength to strength, and is now looking to acquire its own premises. The project was awarded £6,000 from the awards for all scheme. I was delighted to welcome my friend Michael Russell, the Minister for Culture, External Affairs and the Constitution, to present the project with its award.

The Leven community cinema project has managed to attract young people from schools to help with something in which they are interested. So inspired was I by the work of the Leven cinema project that I got together with David Nelson, who is the chair of Auchmuty tenants and residents association and Kingdom FM radio's volunteer of the year, and, following a public meeting in Glenrothes, set up a community cinema group there, which is driven by a new volunteer called Gavin Howe. The first show is likely to be in late November or early December in the Rothes halls.

I want to highlight, too, Auchmuty tenants and residents association, which now has its own community flat, providing a welcoming environment and a place where people can go for support and advice. David, Maureen, Jan, Kenny and a host of other volunteers have worked tirelessly over 25 years, with no reward apart from knowing that they have made their community a better place in which to live. Their garden and the work of the Pitteuchar garden project so inspired the judges in the Britain in bloom contest that Glenrothes was awarded a silver gilt medal.

Among other projects that I want to mention is St Ninian's charity shop and community café, which is a haven that offers home-made food at a reasonable price and a welcome to all. The project, which is now looking to extend the premises, donates its profits to other worthy organisations in the town. There is also Home-Start in Glenrothes, which supports vulnerable families and picks up on work that social work cannot do. If I had more time, I would mention many other organisations.

The test of a voluntary organisation or, indeed, any other organisation is what it delivers, who it assists and whether it makes a real difference to its community. The voluntary sector is many things, including people who volunteer and voluntary sector organisations that are supported by central and local Government and health boards. However, the test of the voluntary sector is the one that I laid out; it is not, and cannot be, about simply providing jobs for people within the voluntary sector. They must demonstrate what they can do and assist their communities. That is the test, now and in the future, for any voluntary organisation.

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

Like others, I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate, because it is about an important issue for people in our local communities. Indeed, as we know, volunteers are the backbone of many community organisations and services. We should recognise and value their efforts. Everybody has examples of inspirational volunteers in their areas, and my area is no exception in that regard. There are people such as grandmother Brenda Emmerson, who recently won the Bighearted Scotland carer of the year award and who volunteers as well as taking up her caring responsibilities. There is Pearl Barton in Maybole, who, although she is a pensioner herself, runs a range of activities for older people and organises a charity shop to help others. There is also young art student Karly Burns, who, despite having cystic fibrosis, has sustained a volunteering commitment to the charity Momentum while completing her master's degree.

There are too many people to list and many examples, young and old; what they have in common is that they are willing to give their time for the benefit of the community. However, that does not mean that they should not be supported and that there should not be structure and training when it is necessary. The briefings for the debate from umbrella organisations such as Citizens Advice Scotland, WRVS and Community Service Volunteers highlight the importance of putting in place the infrastructure to support volunteering. As Johann Lamont highlighted, we might expect the Scottish Government to take account of that and to put such support in place. As the voluntary action fund briefing points out, although that support does not need to be expensive or overengineered, it needs to be there. I agree.

I agree, too, with members who called for support for volunteering to be offered to those in the most disadvantaged communities. I say gently to Sandra White—because I thought that she might have picked up on this—that for someone who lives in a disadvantaged area and does not have a lot of cash or support, it can be difficult to make the time and to get to a place where they can use their good will to volunteer in the community. That is exactly why organisations such as ProjectScotland, which was designed to be Scotland's national youth volunteering scheme, were so important in areas such as mine.

Bill Butler has been a great advocate of ProjectScotland, as have Johann Lamont, Hugh Henry and other members who have spoken today. I want to add a couple of words about why it was so important in my area, where young people had the opportunity to participate in volunteering programmes with the Forestry Commission. Many young people in some of the most disadvantaged parts of my constituency, such as the Doon valley, Auchinleck and Kincaidston in Ayr, had the chance to learn new skills and meet new people. Importantly, they were part of an organisation that was not simply set up for poorer or disadvantaged young people. They met others from different areas and faced new challenges. For many of them, for the first time in their lives they succeeded at something and gained the respect of the community. So why has that scheme not continued?

The argument that it is for ProjectScotland to negotiate with local authorities shows exactly what is wrong with the Scottish Government's approach. I worked in the voluntary sector at the time of local government reorganisation and I know how much more difficult it was to deal with 32 individual local authorities than with the small number of former regional councils. As the director of a charity, I moved from directly supporting work with young people to filling in forms and constantly seeking funding. Every year, I worried whether I would have to make staff redundant. Sadly, we seem to be returning to that rather than moving forward.

I am glad that ProjectScotland is in the process of implementing work in South Ayrshire with the Forestry Commission, funded through the Department for Work and Pensions future jobs fund. The work will be based on the previous successful volunteering projects and will allow young people to take up six-month jobs with the Forestry Commission. That is welcome, but it would be even more welcome if the Scottish Government would reverse the damage that it has done by slashing ProjectScotland's budget, ensure that that funding is restored and give every young person in Scotland who wants it the opportunity to participate in that programme.

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

The debate is about tackling disadvantage by means of volunteering, and Johann Lamont outlined it very meaningfully. She was the first to touch on the funding problems. Robert Brown's amendment focuses on young people. Despite what Jim Mather and Jackson Carlaw say, ours is a positive amendment because, as Robert Brown said, young people are our future.

Robert Brown made an interesting point about the role of interns and placements. As a member of the Scottish Parliament and as someone who has been in business in the past, I have long felt that we do not do enough to encourage that. If the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism feels unable to comment on that when he sums up, he might want to consider it.

The minister talked about the commitment of volunteers and made the interesting observation that not all volunteers see themselves as volunteers. There is a great deal of truth in that, and we might all want to reflect on it. I can think of many people in my constituency who are doing tremendous work but who would be the last to call themselves volunteers. I wonder why that is. It is something that we might learn from.

I look forward to hearing what the minister says; many points have been raised that he must address. Jackson Carlaw—perhaps on orders from further south—challenged the Labour Party then turned his tanks through 90° and laid into the Scottish Government. We can see why he did that, but he observed the niceties of responding to the order to attack Labour at all times.

However, like other members such as Cathy Jamieson and Bill Butler, Jackson Carlaw correctly focused on the loss of funding for ProjectScotland. I view the issue perhaps from the perspective of being far away from the areas that are most directly involved with the organisation. However, when Cathy Jamieson speaks of youngsters getting involved in forestry, I know exactly what she means. In the past few days, I have visited the Forestry Commission and have seen the difference that it makes to young lives. I was told by a forester that it gives the young people a reason to get out of bed in the morning, and one youngster said:

"Because it's been a hard day out there, I sleep so much better."

What Cathy Jamieson said was music to my ears.

I pay tribute to Volunteering Highland in my constituency; it has put in place a system, which is duplicated throughout Scotland, for the recognition of volunteering. When volunteers stand up and receive a certificate or an award for what they have done, that is particularly valuable. It introduces not only the element of pride, but the idea of community thanks for what they do. I applaud Volunteering Highland for its endeavours on that front. A 90-year-old lady in John Farquhar Munro's constituency still helps to run the village hall—she stacks up the chairs at the end of the day. She probably does not think of herself as a volunteer, but my goodness me she makes a contribution.

In my constituency, there is the Caithness science festival. As the minister knows, although enterprise money goes into it, the festival could not be as big or successful as it is on the limited funding available if it was not for the element of volunteers. I pay tribute to the employers who give their employees time off work to contribute to the festival, and who see it as a form of professional advancement. The idea of volunteering within paid employment as a form of professional advancement, which can advance not just society but people's careers, is sound.

I beg members to support Robert Brown's entirely reasonable and positive amendment.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank Labour for bringing such an important subject to Parliament. My only regret is that just over an hour is not enough time to do justice to the subject. In the short time available to me, I shall concentrate my remarks, as others such as Bill Butler and Cathy Jamieson did, on ProjectScotland and its life-changing work—I use that phrase advisedly—for a great many young people. It is simply a mistake for the Scottish National Party Government to cut the funding for such an excellent volunteer programme.

I confess that when ProjectScotland was set up by the previous Executive, I was initially sceptical. Why should the taxpayer fund volunteers? If they were genuinely volunteering, why did they need payment? My views on that changed as a result of my local engagement with ProjectScotland volunteers. More than 130 young people in Perth and Kinross have benefited from ProjectScotland placements.

As other members, including Jackson Carlaw, have mentioned, staff and volunteers from the Strathmore Centre for Youth Development in Blairgowrie—known as SCYD—came to the Parliament in June, with young people from elsewhere in Scotland, to tell MSPs about ProjectScotland's work with voluntary projects such as SCYD. At SCYD, there is a young woman called Kimby Tosh, who Bill Butler referred to, who has been a trainee youth worker at the centre since the end of 2008. Kimby lives in the same town as me, Alyth, and I knew about the difference that ProjectScotland has made to her life. When Kimby came here in June, she explained to MSPs the huge difference that ProjectScotland and SCYD have made.

At the age of 13, Kimby started drinking alcohol on a daily basis. She was getting into trouble and was eventually expelled from school. At that point, she got involved with the local youth centre, where staff worked with her and were so impressed with her progress that they encouraged her to become a ProjectScotland volunteer. Kimby explained to MSPs and other volunteers that the ProjectScotland placement had helped her to grow in confidence and ability. She now delivers local community-based projects for young people in Blairgowrie and across eastern Perthshire. She is a role model for many youngsters in the area.

When she came to the Parliament in support of ProjectScotland, Kimby said of its work:

"Their support enabled me to volunteer at SCYD and I'm really pleased that I can do something for them in return. If it hadn't been for my placement I'd probably still be drinking and my life would be going nowhere."

Not only that but, as Bill Butler said, Kimby Tosh is now a leading light in the campaign for ProjectScotland. She has lodged a petition that calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to keep youth volunteering high up the political agenda and to develop and implement a national youth volunteering policy for Scotland.

Kimby Tosh is an inspiration, and her example proves why volunteering is so important. Here is someone who wanted to turn her life around; volunteering has allowed that transformation to take place. As a result of the SNP Government's cut in funding for ProjectScotland, only 13 young people were able to complete volunteer placements in Perth and Kinross in 2008-09, compared with 67 in the previous year. Organisations such as the YMCA in Perth, which has had a number of excellent volunteers through the programme, are missing out on that opportunity. That also means that young people in Perthshire are missing out on the opportunity to gain experience. The situation is duplicated across Scotland.

We need more young people like Kimby Tosh in Scotland today, but that will happen only if the Government is prepared to restore funding to ProjectScotland. I was dismayed by the minister's dismissive and negative comments about ProjectScotland in response to my earlier intervention. I appeal to him, either in his closing remarks or in quiet reflection afterwards, to accept that the SNP has simply got this one wrong. There is still time for ministers to do the right thing; I will applaud them if they do.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

This has been a genuinely important debate, because volunteering is about community helping community. That is why I will accentuate the constructive aspects of the debate—Robert Brown's comment about turning difficulty into hope and Johann Lamont's comment about joining together to face the challenges. It is clear that the third sector can and will play a role in lifting us to new levels of social cohesion, as well as in lifting us out of recession and giving us a more robust economy in the long term.

There is a great deal of evidence that the pathway back to work is often eased by the stepping stone of volunteering. A volunteering placement can restore self-esteem, reinstate the routine of daily activity, which is often lost through unemployment, and retain, revive and develop skills. It is good that various organisations across Scotland have been awarded contracts for return to work, which are often associated with pathways that take in volunteering. Members will note that the DWP has awarded £120 million to the Wise Group in Glasgow for its return-to-work programme. More and more people and organisations are working together in common cause. At the other end of the spectrum, the DWP has awarded a contract to Volunteer Development Scotland and its fellow consortium members to use the skills of volunteer centres to bring young people into work.

The new integrated approach to solutions is best delivered at local level. Each area of Scotland is affected in a different way by the consequences of recession, so solutions must play to local strengths and reflect local differences. Our proposals to bring the third sector into community planning partnerships are central to ensuring that CPPs have access to the third sector's knowledge and experience. The new interfaces should be essential to planning the outcomes that CPPs will pursue and devising programmes that will deliver them. That is a key role for the third sector. It is vital that its voice is heard and that it is at the heart of decision making. Ten interfaces with CPPs have already been agreed, and more are emerging each week. When volunteer centres were separate entities, their role in promoting the interests of volunteering was important. Now the ambition is that volunteers will be considered at the centre of CPPs.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I am glad that the minister has agreed to meet local CVSs, which are concerned about the situation. If at that meeting they say that they feel that they are being forced into merger, through threats around funding, will the minister do something about that, reassure them and ensure that all mergers are voluntary, not forced?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I certainly will. We are ensuring that we address the issue in a mature way and produce valid information that all of us can understand and on which all of us can agree, to enable us to make informed choices. We will monitor vigilantly the effectiveness of what we decide to implement. That is the issue that we are facing today.

Sandra White made a good point about the narrowness of today's debate and the width and scope of volunteering. We have focused heavily on ProjectScotland. I am happy to pay tribute to ProjectScotland for the work that it has done, but it was a niche product, only for full-time volunteers, and today it is a different animal. Cathy Jamieson, other members and I have spoken about the liaison with the DWP, the Forestry Commission, Skills Development Scotland and others that is taking ProjectScotland to a different place. When the previous Administration allocated £17 million to ProjectScotland, many other volunteering organisations lost out in the search for resources. The agency connected volunteers to opportunities, but those opportunities were provided by other volunteering organisations.

We give credit to ProjectScotland for what it has done to adapt. It now has an opportunity to focus on those in real need—unlike previously, when 80 per cent of volunteers were not in that category. In the future, we will be able to make better, more informed choices, but that requires us to come together now. We know that volunteers need support and strongly believe that they are essential to delivery of the benefits to each member of the community that single outcome agreements set out.

Two weeks ago, we were proud to be associated with a statement by the third sector task force that set out how the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers, the Scottish Government and the third sector will work together. Volunteering is a central part of our activity; it is important that we harvest this active citizenry and get it working in a more cohesive way. That will happen. As a result of the interfaces that will be created in CPPs, we will have great success stories that can be broadcast and which will allow people to learn from the work that is being done elsewhere.

Today's debate is evidence of the fact that members from all parties are firmly behind volunteering. We welcome that. Equally, we remain committed to go further. We believe that volunteering is essential to delivering a successful, sustainable economy in Scotland and will continue to work to that end. I look forward to having Johann Lamont attend our meeting with CVSs.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

The debate has been interesting, because it has captured three elements of the SNP's approach since it came into government. First, there has been further evidence of its willingness to ignore the will of Parliament. Parliament has spoken before on the issue of ProjectScotland, but the SNP has chosen to ignore its voice. Secondly, we have heard warm words that are a million miles away from delivery or any sense of responsibility for what is happening. Thirdly, there has been absolute silence from Government back benchers, who are unwilling to suggest that anything that ministers are doing may not be absolutely correct.

I was chided by an SNP back bencher when I mentioned their craven compliance. She told me that I did not like the fact that SNP members are united. My problem is that I do not like unity that is at the expense of voluntary organisations and others that need members to speak up for them. The great test of the maturity of the SNP Government is whether its back benchers are allowed and have the confidence to raise even a squeak about the problems that our local communities face.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Central Fife)

Given my record over the past few weeks, when I spoke here opposing the Government on an issue in my constituency, I object strongly to the member's suggestion that I would not criticise ministers. However, I will not criticise them on this occasion, because on this occasion they are right.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

The member is to be congratulated on having the confidence to oppose the Government once; whether that is followed through in voting is a different matter. The point has been made, and the member may want to reflect on it.

I have referred to the Government's warm words. Is the minister seriously saying that there are no concerns in voluntary organisations and among volunteers, and that they do not think that there is a problem? He said that all the pessimism is here in the chamber, rather than in the outside world. What does he think the hearse that was brought to the Parliament was about? Why does he think that Unite, Unison and the SCVO came together to express their concerns? Why, does he imagine, are people talking about the cuts at local level? Are they just making it up, as Tricia Marwick seemed to suggest? I found her comments that the voluntary sector has to be about more than just jobs for those who work in it absolutely insulting to those who have raised issues of concern; she may wish to reflect on that.

In relation to Mr Mather's warm words and the issue of ProjectScotland, I do not think that the whole debate is actually about ProjectScotland. ProjectScotland captures an approach. I would like somebody in the SNP to explain to me why its members have such a problem with ProjectScotland. They are supporting a motion that welcomes

"organisations that create structured volunteering placements for young people, such as ProjectScotland",

and they agree that such organisations

"should be recognised and supported by the Scottish Government."

Are SNP members seriously saying that support does not involve funding, and that it involves only warm words? If so, they need to reflect on that, too.

We are told that there is a value-for-money test for ProjectScotland. As we have said, 87 per cent of the moneys will go into the pockets of young people in the poorest of our communities. Perhaps the minister would have more credibility on the argument around the value-for-money test if he was not promoting a Scottish Futures Trust that is spending £23 million to deliver absolutely nothing.

The minister has spoken about passion. We all have passion about the voluntary sector. However, passion does not deliver services, and it does not in itself make a difference in our communities. The interesting thing about people who volunteer—and about the voluntary sector—is that they have passion in partnership with a hard-headed approach. If volunteers say that they are in dire straits, we should listen to them, rather than dismiss them in the way that has been suggested in the debate.

The Government makes great play of the resilience fund. Apparently, it is wonderful and it will help the voluntary sector when it is under the cosh. Actually, that captures a lack of responsibility. The Scottish Government creates the crisis, cutting funding to local government despite its increased budget; it imposes a council tax freeze; and it uses a single outcome agreement model and the concordat without properly funding it, which is the major problem, rather than the model itself, as is suggested in Robert Brown's amendment. Then, when people say that there is a problem, the Government creates a resilience fund of £1.7 million for one year only—from old, previously announced money—which is a sticking plaster, and then trumpets that as a great success and evidence of its willingness to address the problem.

The minister talks about how the SCVO, COSLA and the Scottish Government have produced a joint statement. That joint statement, on glossy paper, leaves unspoken some of the key issues that voluntary organisations, voluntary sector representatives and volunteers themselves have been addressing, including the difficult issue of full cost recovery.

The minister started by saying that he wanted to accentuate the positive. The problem with that approach, which captures the language of a cheesy song from a cheesy musical, is that the minister is entirely distancing himself from the consequence of his Government's actions. He is creating the impression that being nice about things will make a difference. As I have said, however, the voluntary sector is a tough place, doing tough things, and it deserves a better approach than that.

The minister talked about ProjectScotland as a niche product. As that one phrase shows, could there be a bigger gap between our vision, across the Parliament, of what ProjectScotland is and the minister's view of it? It is a project that has changed lives. The minister says that the Government wants to focus on people who are really difficult to reach, rather than on people who do not deserve it. The figures about the reduction in placements across Scotland show that those reductions are coming about in the poorest of our communities, not in better-off communities. Where ProjectScotland was reaching out to youngsters in deprived communities, it is now less able to do so.

I urge the minister, SNP back benchers and the Scottish Government to treat volunteering and voluntary organisations with respect. There is a surfeit of warm words wherever we talk about volunteering, but the test must be whether the SNP is willing to recognise that this is not a trumped-up debate by the Opposition but a reflection of serious concerns across Scotland about the way in which Government decisions and actions are hampering organisations' capacity to do what they do best.

When meeting representatives of voluntary sector organisations, I urge the minister to deal with the issue of intimidation and to meet them as genuine partners. We will judge the capacity and effectiveness of such meetings by whether there is a shift in his and his Government's policy.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — General Questions

Andrew Welsh (Scottish National Party, Angus)

To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to promote alcohol awareness week. (S3O-8114)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

Alcohol awareness week is a key initiative from the Scottish Government's alcohol industry partnership, which brings together Government, industry, health professionals and the voluntary sector to promote joined-up messages about responsible drinking. We work together to promote those messages through a wide range of channels, including press articles, events and advertising.

Andrew Welsh (Scottish National Party, Angus)

Is the minister aware of reports from Sweden this week that show that restrictions on the price and availability of alcohol there have reduced alcohol consumption by as much as 30 per cent, which contrasts with Finland, where one year of lower alcohol taxation has increased hospital admissions by 10 per cent? In alcohol awareness week, does the minister agree that a minimum pricing policy, as a means of saving lives and of reducing alcohol-based hospital admissions, the incidence of crime and lost working days, is increasingly supported by the evidence base?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

Yes, I am very much aware of the Swedish evidence, which is very interesting. It follows on from the in-depth report from the University of Sheffield, which showed the benefits of minimum pricing for saving lives and reducing crime, as well as the economic benefits that can flow from rebalancing our relationship with alcohol. I hope that members across the Parliament will reflect on all the evidence and that we can reach a consensus on the way forward.

Jim Tolson (Liberal Democrat, Dunfermline West)

Is the minister aware that, as part of alcohol awareness week, many members were asked to take part and to visit stores in their constituency? I visited a David Sands store in Crossford in my constituency this week, and I met the chief executive of the company. He says that, throughout his stores, he carries out his own test purchasing checks and ensures that anyone who looks under 25 is asked for proof of age. Does the minister feel that that is a good example, which should be adopted throughout the country?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

All those things can be considered under the alcohol bill that the Scottish Government is introducing before the end of the year. As I have always said, and as the Government has said, there is no one single solution; we need a package of measures. However, in that package of measures there must be something that goes to the heart of reducing alcohol misuse in Scotland. The evidence tells us that that something is minimum pricing, given the clear links between price and consumption. I hope that the member and his party will reflect on that.

Dave Thompson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

At a time of increasing alcohol problems in society, the proposed closure of the award-winning designated place at Beechwood house in Inverness is extremely worrying. Does the minister agree that Highland Council, Highland NHS Board and the Northern Constabulary must do all that they can to maintain at least a minimum service at the designated place, so that its unique benefits are not lost completely to the Highlands?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

I know that Beechwood does a lot of very important work, and it will of course continue to provide rehabilitation services under the contract with the council. As I understand it, the reformed partnership—the Highland drug and alcohol action team—is actively reviewing its service provision, including for drunk and incapable people. I encourage the member to continue to hold discussions with those various partners, as I know he has been doing actively. We need to ensure that a range of services are provided to meet the requirements of the whole of the Highland area. I am happy to keep in contact with the member in that regard.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank the minister for her replies so far and, although I welcome the fact that the Government has now published the Scottish end of the University of Sheffield evidence, the figures are based on 2003 data on alcohol problems, whereas the latest figures are from 2008. That is a major criticism from the industry, which is attacking the Sheffield report as not providing a firm basis for minimum pricing. Will she say how minimum pricing will help, given that the additional profits that would result from the policy would go back to retailers rather than into alcohol treatment?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

If anything, the figures in the University of Sheffield report are an underestimation of the extent of alcohol misuse in Scotland. I do not think that any member will challenge the evidence that we have a major problem—I certainly hope not. The question is what we do about that major problem.

Not just the Sheffield report but all the international evidence demonstrates a clear link between price and consumption. The question is whether the Parliament will be bold enough to take the critical action that is required to tackle the biggest public health challenge that faces our nation. The Scottish Parliament has a good track record of being bold—we were on smoking. Minimum pricing is the bold measure that needs to be taken to address alcohol misuse, and I hope that members on the Labour benches will join us in supporting that measure. I know that Richard Simpson is sympathetic to proposals on minimum pricing, and I look forward to continuing to discuss the issue with him.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether any pupils will be taught in schools announced as being in the initial phase of its school rebuilding programme in the current parliamentary term. (S3O-8149)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

This Government has already lifted 100,000 pupils out of poor-condition schools by supporting £2 billion of investment in the school estate the length and breadth of Scotland in our initial phase of school building. We expect more than 250 school projects to be completed during the lifetime of this parliamentary session. More than 200 have already been completed.

In addition, I set out to the Parliament on 17 June that I expect the first primary school to be funded by the new, additional £1.25 billion school building programme to be open by 2011. That will help to lift even more pupils out of poor-condition schools.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

I think that it is possible to take that answer as a no.

In the false prospectus that the Scottish National Party put forward as its election manifesto, the SNP made a commitment that it would match Labour's school building programme "brick for brick". Does the cabinet secretary genuinely believe that the parents and pupils of Scotland will be fooled by her Government's disingenuous attempts to assert that its pledge is being achieved, in the face of a programme that will deliver only 14 schools by 2013 and the fact that some local authorities might perhaps build some schools by 2011?

In this morning's debate, SNP speaker after SNP speaker rubbished public-private partnership schools, but the cabinet secretary claims those PPP schools. Does she agree that claiming Labour's schools "brick for brick" is not the same as matching Labour's achievements brick for brick?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I say politely to Michael McMahon that his party lost the election in 2007 because people were fed up with a semi-feudal, one-party state in which the Labour Party claimed everything as its own. These are Scotland's schools, not Labour, Lib Dem or SNP schools—[ Interruption. ]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I remind the member that this morning I announced that we have completed 236 schools since 2007, which certainly matches the previous Administration's plans brick for brick. Not only that, but we are funding schools. The previous Administration left a black hole of £60 million per year in the PPP programme. Next year alone we must find £40 million to plug that hole. We are funding and building schools.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it has undertaken research to determine what losses may be experienced by the food and drink industries if a GM contamination event affects Scottish produce. (S3O-8098)

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

I expect that the member's question was provoked by the discovery of unauthorised genetically modified linseed in Canadian imports to the European Union.

Scottish produce benefits from a natural image among consumers. Although the commercial impact of any illegal presence of GM material in Scottish produce would depend on the nature of the material and on which sector or sectors were concerned, the Government's view is that any impact would be negative.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Given the loss of markets and profits for North American growers when there was contamination from GM rice in 2006, and given the on-going contamination from Canadian GM flax, there is evidence that GM crops cannot be contained in the open environment. Will the minister confirm that the best policy for the future of Scotland's food and drink industries is to maintain a ban on the trialling and growing of GM crops in the open environment in Scotland?

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

That is absolutely the Government's position and there is no intention whatever to change it. A great deal of debate is going on in the EU on how GM organisms are handled, and a consultation on the socioeconomic issues that are related to GMOs, into which the Government hopes to make an input, will be finalised in January. It is extremely important that we assess socioeconomic criteria in relation to unauthorised GMO releases and that we continue our important work to ensure that Scotland's produce can continue to be sold into a high-quality, premium market.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

To ask the Scottish Government what assistance it provides to local authorities to meet its recycling targets and how it will encourage the local authorities that are failing to meet these targets. (S3O-8115)

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

The Scottish Government provided local government in Scotland with record levels of funding—£23 billion in the period 2008 to 2010. To help local authorities to deliver on recycling targets, the Scottish Government has allocated an additional £42 million from the zero waste fund in the period 2008 to 2010 and intends to allocate further funding for 2010-11.

In addition, delivery organisations that are funded by Scottish Government, including the Waste and Resources Action Programme, Waste Aware Scotland and Remade Scotland, provide advice and support to local authorities throughout Scotland, to help them to improve recycling performance.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I thank the minister for her comprehensive reply. She will be aware that Glasgow City Council has the worst recycling rate in Scotland and is projected to spend £30 million of council tax payers' money on landfill tax this year alone. Does she agree that Glasgow must address the issue before the impact of increasing landfill tax becomes "catastrophic", as is acknowledged in the council's corporate risk management report?

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

I am aware that there has been considerable newspaper coverage of the situation in Glasgow. Glasgow City Council faces a challenging few years, but I understand that in its single outcome agreement it committed to increasing its municipal waste recycling capacity to 31 per cent by 2010. I know that the council is having difficulty, and I understand that a review is being carried out by Glasgow Caledonian University, which will suggest ways forward. I hope that the council will be able to improve its performance in the coming months and years.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

I agree that much more needs to be done in Glasgow to increase recycling. However, does the minister fully appreciate that in parts of Glasgow there is a real challenge in that recycling is made difficult by the volume of tenement properties? The proportion is 70 per cent in my constituency, Kelvin, and it is high throughout Glasgow.

Given that much more needs to be done, including the upgrading of the plant at Polmadie, what assistance will the Government give to Glasgow to ensure that practical issues to do with recycling are dealt with? Are discussions going on with Glasgow City Council about the modernisation of the plant at Polmadie?

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

I am aware that Glasgow City Council faces difficulties in managing waste collection at tenemental properties, but Glasgow is not the only part of Scotland that has to deal with that issue, and other councils have to deal with different issues in waste collection.

Discussions go on all the time in respect of local authority finance on the basis of the concordat that the Government agreed with local authorities. In making funding available to local authorities, the Government fully takes on board the challenges in each and every case. I do not expect that that will change in future.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

To ask the Scottish Executive for what reason Barrhead high school has not been included in the list of schools granted funding under the new school estate strategy. (S3O-8148)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

On 28 September I announced the first 14 secondary schools to benefit from the new £1.25 billion school building programme. Those schools were identified using the following criteria, which were agreed by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities: the distribution of needs throughout Scotland; the best available information about schools' condition and unsuitability to deliver the curriculum for excellence; additionality; and authorities' own plans, priorities and readiness to proceed.

The Labour-led coalition in East Renfrewshire Council indicated that Eastwood high school was its top priority for secondary school replacement. Other schools in East Renfrewshire, including Barrhead high school, will, like those in every other local authority, be eligible for consideration in subsequent phases of the programme.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

The minister should not pretend that it was the local authority that decided that Eastwood high school was the priority: it wants to rebuild Barrhead high school.

The current estates review lasts for the next nine years. Does the minister think that it is acceptable for the pupils of Barrhead high school to wait until 2018 before they are even considered under a new funding system? If not, what does she intend to do about it?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The problems with Barrhead high school have not suddenly appeared in the past two years. I visited the school in August 2008. It has consistently shown in recent core facts publications that it is a category B school. There are issues of unsuitability. I do not want to prejudice the position of other schools in Scotland, but Barrhead high school—if supported by the Labour-led coalition that, in the first instance, put Eastwood high school as its top priority—would be in a legitimate position to apply and be considered for subsequent phases of the programme.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Executive what recent discussions it has had with NHS Tayside regarding the provision of health services in highland Perthshire. (S3O-8118)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

There are on-going discussions with all national health service boards—including NHS Tayside—which are aimed at constantly developing and improving health care services in Scotland.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I know that the cabinet secretary met campaigners from Kinloch Rannoch who are fighting for the restoration of out-of-hours general practitioner cover in that remote and rural area. If NHS Tayside is not prepared to take action to right the wrong that it has perpetrated against that community, will the cabinet secretary be prepared to use her powers of ministerial intervention to force it to do so?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

As Murdo Fraser well knows, the service is a matter for NHS Tayside. He is right that I met people from Kinloch Rannoch a couple of weeks ago when I chaired NHS Tayside's annual review. Their MSP, John Swinney, regularly communicates their concerns to me, so I fully understand the concerns that some people in the community have. That is why I have asked NHS Tayside to remain in dialogue with them to seek to address their concerns.

However—to give an important reassuring message to people who live in Kinloch Rannoch—it is important to understand that all out-of-hours services in Scotland are required to meet standards that are developed by NHS Quality Improvement Scotland to ensure a safe, quality service for patients. It is also important to point out that the arrangements covering Kinloch Rannoch that NHS Tayside has put in place meet those standards, and I hope that Murdo Fraser will take care to communicate that to people as he discusses the issue.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it shares the Prime Minister's vision of supervised homes for poor, young unmarried mothers. (S3O-8071)

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I understand that the intention behind the Prime Minister's announcement is to improve support for 16 and 17-year-olds, including teenage parents, who cannot stay with their families and who are provided with housing at public expense. The United Kingdom Government has explained to officials in the Scottish Government that there is no intention to compel pregnant teenagers into supervised accommodation as some reports have suggested.

We have no plans to introduce identical measures in Scotland, but we certainly want all vulnerable young people to receive the housing and any other support that they need. We are working with a range of national and local partners to achieve those goals.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

I am relieved to hear that the Scottish Government is not thinking of punishment blocks or gulags for bad girls. Will the minister impress on his colleagues that the programme that is aimed at preventing pregnancies among young teenagers has fallen behind the reality and that there should be a Government programme for it?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I and my colleagues are very much aware of the importance of the campaign on avoiding the problems that young females, in particular, get into. More widely, I recognise that there is a need to examine the provision throughout Scotland of supported accommodation and related services for young single mothers and single people of all ages so that we can deal with the problems that are associated with homelessness, which I think lay behind the member's original question.

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-1935)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

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

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

This week, I have supported the suggestion that the highest salaried public servants should have their pay frozen in 2010-11. I think that the salaries of MSPs and ministers should be frozen next year so that we can lead by example. Does the First Minister agree?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

As we know, ministerial salaries have been frozen this year. We did not wait for Iain Gray's advice—we have done it already. MSPs' salaries are a matter for the Parliament. I did not detect too much enthusiasm from Labour members when we made the announcement about ministerial salaries earlier this year.

In all seriousness, I support the view that in tough economic times, those on the higher bands of pay scales should bear the heaviest burden. That is an entirely reasonable point of view. If Iain Gray read his newspapers this week, he will know that that was strongly indicated by the Scottish Government.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

Indeed, it was strongly indicated, but it is good to hear it from the First Minister's own mouth.

Three years ago, Alex Salmond did more than strongly indicate—he pledged—that if he was First Minister, he would pay council tax on his first ministerial residence. To fail to do so was to set a bad example. Well, Alex Salmond is First Minister, but he is not paying council tax on Bute house. Why not?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Because when I asked the permanent secretary for advice, which I received on 4 June 2007, he confirmed that for the independent assessor to amend his treatment of Bute house, which had been set in December 2006, there would have to be no business use at all of Bute house, which would have been a bit of a problem for Cabinet meetings; there would have to be physical separation between the accommodation and business areas, which, in a listed building, would have required consent from the National Trust for Scotland; and the Parliament would have to change current legislation just for the property of Bute house. On those grounds, I decided to continue with the practice of paying business rates to City of Edinburgh Council of £22,601, which is some 10 times the amount that would have been paid in council tax, rather than engage in what some members might have described as tax avoidance.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

But none of that has changed since the Deputy First Minister described the practice as outrageous. The fact is that the taxpayer pays £22,000 in business rates for Bute house and the occupant pays none of what he promised to. The only tax avoidance that is going on here is the avoidance by the First Minister of paying the tax that he promised to pay. I know that Alex Salmond told voters that he would abolish council tax. Is he doing it one person at a time, starting with himself? [ Laughter. ]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Not only does the practice have the happy result of City of Edinburgh Council receiving in business rates 10 times the amount that it would receive in council tax, it has the happy result that no claim is made on the Parliament for accommodation allowance to refund the council tax, which many Labour members do. The position that we have taken is entirely reasonable, given the advice that was given two years ago. Would Iain Gray have stopped holding Cabinet meetings in Bute house, would he have built a dividing wall between the accommodation and the area for business use or would he have sponsored a bill in this Parliament to change the assessor's designation of Bute house?

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

There may be no claim on the parliamentary allowance scheme, but there is a claim of £22,000 on the Scottish consolidated fund. The Prime Minister and the chancellor managed to make that division so that they pay council tax, so I do not understand why the First Minister cannot do so. The rest of Scotland is facing up to the realities of the recession: they are tightening their belts and paying their way. How does the First Minister think they feel when they read that he has dodged the promise that he made on council tax?

The week before, they read that they—taxpayers—paid for the First Minister's London hotel suites when he already had a London flat, paid for by the taxpayer, too. The newspapers call that hypocrisy, but is it not just contempt for the Scots who are worrying about their jobs, their pay, their mortgages and paying their way?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The Scots who are worried about Labour's recession, their jobs and their mortgages would have expected the Labour Party leader to start engaging in a discussion about unemployment and the recession.

It was a pretty bad idea to introduce the chancellor and Prime Minister into the discussion, because, if I remember correctly, they have claimed additional costs allowance ever since they came into office, despite the fact that they get grace-and-favour residences in London.

I know that this is plan B from Iain Gray, because I agreed with his first question about restraining salaries and pointed out that ministerial salaries are frozen. I did not, because I am modest about these matters, point out that every penny of my MSP salary goes to a charitable trust in the north-east of Scotland. One day Iain Gray or anybody else on the Labour front bench might decide to follow suit.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

It is up to Iain Gray to ask the questions. A very short supplementary, Mr Gray.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

First Minister, let us start the debate about the economy and our vision for Scotland. On St Andrew's day, I will debate with you. Why not?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Because we debate every Thursday in this Parliament. It is not my fault if Iain Gray cannot think of the right questions—five questions are no better than four questions if he cannot think of the right questions. I look forward to debating with Iain Gray every Thursday in this Parliament, as I have debated with the two previous incumbents of his office. I am on my third Labour leader. The way that Iain Gray is going, I might soon be on my fourth.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S3F-1936)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I have no plans to meet the Prime Minister in the near future.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

We were all devastated by the tragic news that two teenage girls from the Good Shepherd Centre in Bishopton took their own lives earlier this week. For me, the tragedy was particularly poignant because Bishopton is my home and I am a former member of the board of management for the centre.

The centre takes in young girls who have a range of hugely complex needs and come from the most challenging backgrounds imaginable. For those girls, the centre is a source of structure, reassurance, education and stability. The staff and the girls at the centre are now having to cope with their grief and shock on top of the immense challenges which for them are an everyday fact of life. The First Minister has said that there will be inquiries. Will he assure me that they will be carried out in a sensitive and compassionate manner, so that the traumatised community of the Good Shepherd Centre is not further upset and the excellent work that it does is not further disrupted?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Yes, I can give that assurance. I thank Annabel Goldie for the way in which she raised the question and I acknowledge her local knowledge of the circumstances as a local member.

Presiding Officer, with your permission, I wish to say that, like the rest of this Parliament, I have been shocked and saddened by the deaths of young Neve Lafferty and Georgia Rowe at the Erskine bridge on Sunday. The death of any young person is a real tragedy, and our thoughts are with the girls' families and friends at this sad time, as well as with the staff at the school, who—as Annabel Goldie said—do such a demanding and important job.

The incident underlines the acute needs and risks presented by a very small number of young people in Scotland. That is why the Scottish Government works with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, care providers and other partners to ensure that support and provision is in place for them.

It would be inappropriate to speculate on the circumstances of the case, as that would pre-empt the investigations that are already being undertaken by the centre, the local authority, Strathclyde Police and the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care. However, members can be reassured that ministers will work closely with partners to ensure that any lessons that can be learned from the tragedy are learned and that the inquiries will be conducted in a sensitive way.

It will be for Crown counsel, acting on behalf of the Lord Advocate, to determine whether a fatal accident inquiry is required. That will not be determined until the police investigation is complete and the report has been submitted to the procurator fiscal. However, due to the serious nature of the incident, such a decision will be taken as soon as is legally possible.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I thank the First Minister for that full response. Having spoken to people in Bishopton, I know that there is anxiety that there will be a witch hunt that is more concerned with finding someone to blame than with finding a way forward from the tragedy. A chaplain to the centre said to me in a text:

"We only have 11 residential girls and to lose two means we are a community and family in mourning."

Will the First Minister confirm that he will use his best offices in whatever inquiries are proposed or are taking place—and, indeed, if a fatal accident inquiry is mooted—to influence the overall environment of the inquiries so that they are conducted in a sensitive and compassionate way?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

As Annabel Goldie knows, I cannot influence the conduct of the inquiries directly. The inquiries will be independent, particularly any fatal accident inquiry. However, at a time like this, given the circumstances of the tragedy, I am sure that all those who are involved will face their responsibilities in a proper and sensitive way.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-1937)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

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

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Tonight, the Tories will vote SNP to keep a £23 million quango that will build not one new school in the current four-year parliamentary session. What will the Conservatives get in return for that loyalty?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

People of all political parties should reflect on the fact that, in this session, 100,000 more schoolchildren in Scotland have been taken out of inadequate school accommodation and brought into accommodation of a decent standard. Most people will welcome the fact that, at last, we are addressing the inefficiencies in capital spending that, during the Labour-Liberal years, resulted in overpayments in capital returns to many providers in the public service. The Scottish Futures Trust addresses that issue.

Given the trenchant criticisms that I used to hear at Westminster from the Liberal Democrat benches about public-private partnerships and private finance initiatives, I wonder why the Liberal Democrats never got out of their arrangement with the Labour Party over those eight long, wasted years.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I guess that the answer is that the Tories will not get very much.

What bothers me—and, more important, what bothers children, parents and teachers throughout Scotland—is the two wasted years in which schools have not been commissioned. The First Minister has imposed two years of paralysis. Now, he is relying on Tory votes. Does he not understand that, in exchange for Tories voting SNP, Scotland will get to keep the £23 million quango this year, double its budget next year and put off building new secondary schools until 2013 or 2018? Why will he not concentrate on building new schools instead of new quangos?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I live in hope of a conversion before decision time, but I take it that Tavish Scott intends to support Rhona Brankin's motion at 5 o'clock. The motion suggests that the schools that have been commissioned are PPP legacy schools. That point was made recently in a debate, so I had a look at the number of non-PPP schools that have been commissioned and for which the contracts have been signed since 2007. There are 62 instances of such accommodation. Given the fact that Tavish Scott now has that valuable information—that list of non-PPP legacy schools that have been commissioned by the SNP Government and for which the contracts have been signed—and given the fact that the Liberal Democrats always pay close attention to the facts and, unlike the rest of us, are not affected by political prejudice, will Tavish Scott relent and vote for the SNP amendment and for common sense in Scottish school building?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I will take a constituency question.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Much has been said about the tragic deaths of the two young girls at the Erskine bridge in my constituency. Like Annabel Goldie, I have a strong connection with the Good Shepherd Centre, as I used to work there. Our thoughts, of course, are with the girls' families and friends and with the staff and residents of the Good Shepherd. I will add my support to a fatal accident inquiry, if that is necessary.

There have been three suicides this month from the bridge—indeed, the bridge has a bad history. I impress upon the First Minister the urgent need to increase the height of the barriers along the bridge's walkways. The barriers are scarily low—believe me; I have walked along there many times. Research shows that suicide barriers are a deterrent. I have written to the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change along those lines. However, I would like a commitment from the First Minister that he will ensure that, if a decision to increase the height of the barriers is taken, it is implemented speedily, so that there is no delay between the decision being made and action being taken to prevent other such tragic deaths.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Any lessons that are to be learned will be acted on quickly and without delay.

I acknowledge the constituency member's concern, and I repeat my appreciation, which I expressed to Annabel Goldie, of the manner in which the subject has been raised. It is worthy of the Parliament that issues concerning this tragedy are raised in a very responsible way.

I shall look at the correspondence and write to or meet the constituency member, as she wishes, to see whether those lessons can be implemented.

As I stated, the Lord Advocate must determine on a fatal accident inquiry. As Trish Godman will know, one of the great advantages of the FAI system that we have in Scotland is that it can roam widely in investigating the circumstances, and the sheriff or whomever conducts it can make specific recommendations across a range of areas.

I will meet Trish Godman and other constituency members to talk about this issue, if they so choose.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Does the First Minister share my concern at the loss of 100 jobs in my constituency as a result of the decision of Johnston Press to print its titles in Sunderland and in the west of Scotland, without creating any additional jobs in those areas? Will he raise concerns with Johnston Press about the betrayal of its loyal Edinburgh workforce, the severing of the historic connection between The Scotsman and Edinburgh, and the folly of printing the Edinburgh Evening News , with its tight deadlines, at the other end of a busy motorway?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The constituency member has made the point, and I will raise those concerns with Johnston Press. We are concerned about any job losses in Scotland in these difficult times.

Nigel Don (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

To ask the First Minister what assessment the Scottish Government has made of the problem of illegal drug use. (S3F-1947)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Two new reports, commissioned and published by the Scottish Government, give us the most complete picture ever of Scotland's drug problem. The reports show that there were an estimated 55,283 problem drug users in 2006, which is around 7 per cent more than there were in 2003. That is the worsening problem that our new drugs strategy, outlined in "The Road to Recovery: A New Approach to Tackling Scotland's Drug Problem", is designed to tackle.

The focus of this Government is on delivery. The early signs are that we are moving in the right direction. Drug seizures by the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency are now at a record level; front-line services are benefiting from an 18 per cent increase in funding since 2006-07; and, for the first time ever, we are developing a national target to improve access to services for problem drug users to help them on their way to recovery.

Nigel Don (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I encourage the Government to put recovery at the heart of the services that it provides.

I am pleased to be able to welcome a drop in the number of those waiting for 26 weeks for treatment in my home city of Aberdeen, which has fallen from 500 to 117 in the last quarter. That is a dramatic improvement.

Can the First Minister confirm the Government's intention to continue to invest in the drugs strategy, both in the health service and, of course, in policing?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Yes, I can, and we should, as a Parliament, acknowledge that there have been significant improvements in a number of areas in Scotland, not least in the city of Aberdeen.

In June 2009, 117 people had waited more than 26 weeks for an assessment. That is still a high number, but we can compare it with the 622 people who did so in 2007. We welcome that progress, but there is still some way to go in Aberdeen and other parts of Scotland, and we must continue to drive down waiting times if we are to tackle drug abuse effectively.

We have tried—Fergus Ewing has, as Minister for Community Safety, made the most strenuous efforts—to get an all-party consensus on the issue. It was not particularly helpful for Richard Baker to say—on the front page of The Sun, as it happened—that the serious report that was published was an indication of the Government's lack of action, given that the report was for 2006. That was one of the most foolish pieces of politicking on the issue that I have ever seen.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

Given the 4 per cent increase in drugs offences last year and the 3 per cent increase in the number of drug misusers in 2008, does the First Minister agree that ministers should give Parliament a further opportunity to debate the drugs strategy? That should include a debate on action on tackling drug offences, in which I am afraid the most recent statistics show that the Scottish Government is not succeeding.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Yes, I think that Parliament should have further opportunities to debate the drugs strategy, but I understand that we may require a wee bit of flexibility and fancy footwork from Richard Baker. I would still like to know why, when a serious report is published that indicates the depth of the problem and gives us the first examination of it, and which is dated 2006, the Labour spokesman holds it up as an indication of Government failure, when it is actually reporting his Government's failure in 2006. The question that people in the Parliament and outside are asking is, "Did Richard Baker realise the date on

the report, or does he just do rent-a-quote on every issue, regardless of the subject?"

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh South)

The enormous financial and social cost of drug abuse to Scotland, which has risen to around 55,000 problem drug users and is costing nearly £3.5 billion a year, will not decrease without access to treatment and support services. Is the First Minister aware that beds are lying empty at Castle Craig hospital in Peeblesshire, which is a world-class rehabilitation facility? Does he agree that that is a hugely unsatisfactory use of resources? Will he agree to take action to address the situation?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I will examine the specific situation and write to the constituency member. I certainly agree that the significant improvements that are taking place throughout the country in reducing the waiting times for assessment are important, and I hope that no local decisions will interfere with that process.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

As the First Minister will know, a report this week from the University of Glasgow showed that the NHS Ayrshire and Arran area has the second highest rate of injecting drug use of all the Scottish health board areas, with only NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde experiencing a worse problem. He will also know that there were 40 drug deaths in Ayrshire and Arran last year—the highest number during the past decade. What further steps does the Government propose to take to crack down on those who deal in drugs, in particular the organised criminals who profit so massively from pushing illegal substances?