Scottish Parliament

Thursday 12 June 2008

[THE PRESIDING OFFICER opened the meeting at 09:15]

Education Cuts

The Presiding Officer (Alex Fergusson): Good morning. The first item of business is a Labour Party debate on motion S3M-2120, in the name of Rhona Brankin, on education cuts.

I remind members that all speeches should be made through the chair, by which I mean that members should refer to other members by their preferred name or title.

09:15

Rhona Brankin (Midlothian) (Lab): The Scottish National Party has been in power for just over a year and already its education policy is in complete disarray. We are still no closer to knowing where the First Minister stands on his promise to reduce class sizes. On 5 September 2007, he told Parliament that class sizes would be reduced to 18 for primary 1 to 3 by 2011, yet we now know that civil servants are advising that the pledge would take eight to 10 years to deliver. I challenge the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning: will she either repeat the First Minister's assertion or show some courtesy to members by admitting that the First Minister misled Parliament when he gave that answer? Can we believe anything that the First Minister tells Parliament? Will the cabinet secretary confirm that the SNP has absolutely no intention of delivering its class size promise by 2011?

The SNP has been rumbled and now refuses to give timescales or costings for the class size commitment. The SNP promised the earth, with not even the vaguest notion of how it would deliver it or pay for it—not one extra penny has been given to councils to deliver the class size commitment—and now it is not big enough to admit that the promise is simply being ditched.

Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD): Does the member share my concern about Brora primary school, which is about to lose one teacher, which will result in class sizes rising from below 20 to the mid-20s? It is a matter of funding, and the council should make representations to the Scottish Government accordingly.

Rhona Brankin: Yes. That is appalling, and it is being repeated throughout Scotland. In fact, according to a council official in SNP-led

Renfrewshire, class sizes in secondary 1 and 2 maths and English are being put up in order to reduce class sizes in primary 1 to 3.

The SNP has also been rumbled on its physical education promise. The hapless Minister for Schools and Skills inadvertently told the truth on the abandonment of the policy of two hours of quality PE being delivered by PE specialists, resulting in an undignified scramble by the cabinet secretary to get on to "Good Morning Scotland" to insist that the target still stands. Quite how the PE target will be delivered is something of a mystery, given that the SNP's chums in the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities do not agree with it.

If we look back on the first year of SNP education policy, what do we see? We see a catalogue of broken promises and local government underfunding, resulting in school closures, an increase in class sizes and cuts to staffing levels, pupil support and the curriculum. The SNP promises are being quietly ditched and cuts made because the cabinet secretary secured an appalling deal for education in the spending review. Education and lifelong learning received a cash increase of 7.2 per cent in the review—the lowest increase of any department. Even the First Minister's office received double the education increase—enough to keep even Alex Salmond in takeaways for a few years; yet the SNP claims that education is one of its top priorities.

The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning (Fiona Hyslop): Will the member take an intervention?

Rhona Brankin: No. I would like the cabinet secretary to listen to what I am saying. The teachers at Gleniffer high school in Paisley do not believe that education is one of her top priorities.

Fiona Hyslop: Will the member give way now?

Rhona Brankin: No, thank you.

The teachers have written to Renfrewshire's SNP council, unanimously condemning the budget cuts, which

"make it impossible to offer the same level and depth of curriculum, pupil support and quality of teaching and learning."

Try telling parents at Flora Stevenson primary school in Edinburgh that the SNP prioritises education, when children from within the catchment area are being turned away, and when class sizes further up the school may increase due to a cut in staffing.

In Aberdeen, a £7.8 million package of cuts includes slashing funding for nursery education and disabled children and a plan to reduce the opening hours of all 12 of the city's secondary schools. Aberdeen grammar school's parent

council is so concerned by the cuts, which could result in the school losing 11 teachers next academic year, that it has written to every parent outlining the major effects that the cuts will have on their children.

What will the education secretary say about that? The schools are all under councils where the SNP is in power or shares power.

Can Fiona Hyslop in all honesty tell heartbroken newly qualified primary teachers that education is a priority for the SNP Government when in many authorities hundreds of talented and committed new teachers are chasing a tiny number of posts?

Fiona Hyslop: Will Rhona Brankin give way?

Rhona Brankin: No, I will not.

The general secretary of the Headteachers Association of Scotland has said:

"The bad news is that pupils will see one probationary teacher after another, year after year.

The profession will lose enthusiastic teachers and the quality of teaching and learning will suffer."

I fully expect to hear a familiar refrain from the cabinet secretary, saying that this is all Labour scaremongering and that everything in the SNP's school garden is rosy. She might even wave a rather battered concordat. Only yesterday, COSLA and the SNP had another love-in. They are a pair of lovebird ostriches with their heads in the sand, unable to see the scale of council cuts across Scotland—cuts that the SNP and COSLA would have us believe do not exist. However, cracks are appearing in the relationship: will the cabinet secretary tell me whether class size reductions were included in the original agreement between COSLA and the SNP Government and whether it is true that they were taken out of yesterday's joint statement at the councils' request?

"In its year in power the SNP has already been embarrassed by its education policy .... If the First Minister is to avoid education becoming his administration's Achilles heel, he needs to get a grip of this emerging crisis in Scotland's schools, and fast."

Those are not my words, but the words of the editorial in last weekend's Scotland on Sunday. The message from Scotland is clear. It is not scaremongering from me or the Labour Party; there is a clear story of cuts and crisis in our schools. It comes from teachers, who are the educators of the Scots men and women of the future; parents, who are the guardians of the Scots of the future; and school pupils, who are the Scots of the future. The message is that the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning is failing Scottish education and the Scots of the future. There is no future for education with the SNP and I fear that, with its shambles of an education policy reduced to rubble in a mere 12

months, there is no future for Scotland.

I urge members to support the motion.

I move,

That the Parliament recognises the lack of confidence expressed by parents, teachers, primary and secondary heads, and directors of education in the SNP government's handling of Scottish education; notes with concern the cuts in education provision across Scotland; calls on the First Minister to clarify the cost and timescale for delivery of his class-sizes pledge, made on 5 September 2007, when he promised the Parliament that his class-sizes pledge on primaries 1 to 3 would be met in the lifetime of this parliament; recognises the growing number of teachers coming to the end of their probationary year who are either unable to find a teaching post or who are forced into taking part-time or temporary employment; worries that if this trend is allowed to continue unchecked, it will undermine the internationally recognised success of the teacher induction scheme, and calls for immediate action from Scottish Ministers to address the impending jobs crisis.

09:23

The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning (Fiona Hyslop): The merchants of despair and disaster and the soothsayers of scaremongering are at it again. The harbingers of doom who long for Scotland to fail have found their champion in Rhona Brankin, who vindictively misquotes directors of education, milks the Educational Institute of Scotland's shot-across-the-bows motion—its third motion on industrial action in four years—and fails to recognise that the problems in Aberdeen, Glasgow and Edinburgh have their roots not in the fair local government settlement from this Government, but in Labour management at both national and local level in the past and, in Glasgow's situation, today.

I will set out the details of the local government finance settlement again. There is overall funding of £34.9 billion over the next three years. For 2008-09, there is an increase of 5 per cent; in 2009-10, there will be an increase of 4.1 per cent and, in 2010-11, an increase of 3.4 per cent. That is all in the context of a tight Government departmental spending limit, which is growing by 0.5 per cent this year, 1.6 per cent in 2009-10 and 2.3 per cent in 2010-11.

With the settlement we have not only halted the decline in local government's share of total expenditure but have also provided an annual increase. Education is well placed, given that it accounts for almost 50 per cent of all local government expenditure.

Jamie Stone: Will the member give way?

Fiona Hyslop: No, I will not.

Labour's views on cuts in provision are not universally shared. John Stodter, the general secretary of the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland—the very association that

Wendy Alexander misquoted at First Minister's question time last week—has said:

"Councils have been given an increased budget settlement this year."

Bruce Robertson, the director of education in Aberdeenshire, stated:

"The budget settlement was certainly tight but there have been no cuts at all and there has been some growth".

East Lothian Council's education budget increased by 2.9 per cent to £74 million and Falkirk Council's education spending increased by 11 per cent. In Fife, there is an increase of £41 million, including £9.6 million to support a reduction in class sizes. East Ayrshire's education budget increased by 6.9 percent in 2008-09 and North Lanarkshire's education budget increased by 5.5 per cent.

Ken Macintosh (Eastwood) (Lab): Will the cabinet secretary give way?

Fiona Hyslop: Sorry, but Labour's front bencher did not take an intervention.

Dundee publicly characterised the education budget as being fair with opportunities for growth. South Lanarkshire is employing teachers to reduce primary class sizes in deprived areas and West Lothian's education budget has increased by 4.1 per cent.

Of course, we recognise that one or two councils face particular challenges, in particular Aberdeen City Council. That is not a direct result of this settlement, as it was caused by a legacy of funding issues: a £50 million overspend under administrations of Labour, Tory and Lib Dem hue. Surely the responsible thing is for all parties to pull together to support Aberdeen. We are working with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to do so.

Councillor Gordon Matheson, executive member for education in Glasgow City Council, said on 27 May:

"education's budget in Glasgow, in real terms, will be higher next year than it is this year".

What a pity that the council does not choose to invest that increased budget in maintaining teacher numbers, as it is resourced to do, and cutting class sizes. However, Labour does not believe in smaller class sizes. Let us tell that to the parents of Glasgow as they see class sizes come down elsewhere in Scotland while Labour stands in the way in Glasgow.

Wendy Alexander said in her famous hungry caterpillar speech that our request for 2 per cent efficiency savings was not ambitious enough and that she wanted the figure to be 3 per cent. Labour's position was to take all those savings out of local government.

The councils that are seeking efficiency savings from schools—and it is by no means all councils—are, like Renfrewshire, putting those savings back into education.

Let us talk about Renfrewshire. I quote from the headteacher at Gleniffer, who stated about the said letter:

"I wish to express my concerns as to its creation and contents. I am concerned that staff may have added their names to a document without checking its accuracy."

This is not the first time that Labour has come to the chamber to speak about Renfrewshire without checking the accuracy of its comments. The two local members of the Scottish Parliament were asked to comment on the draft budget and failed to do so. Believe it or not, despite raising the issue in the Parliament and broadcasting a blatantly misinformed letter from teachers at one school, which the headteacher rightly corrected, the two local MSPs—Wendy Alexander and Hugh Henry—have not even offered their local council a meeting or bothered to ask for one.

Hugh Henry (Paisley South) (Lab): Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Fiona Hyslop: No. I am sure that Mr Henry will get his chance to comment.

Hugh Henry: On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Is it not within the normal rules of engagement and debate in the chamber that when members are specifically mentioned by name, they should be given the opportunity to comment?

The Presiding Officer: It does not come under standing orders, Mr Henry. I am afraid that it is entirely up to the member who is speaking whether they take an intervention.

Fiona Hyslop: It is expected that around 6,000 teachers will leave the profession this year—most of them are retiring—and 3,500 probationer teachers are coming into the system. There is plenty of opportunity for councils to maintain teacher numbers at a time of falling school rolls to reduce class sizes throughout the country. The local government settlement provides for that.

In its desperation to find isolated examples of local authorities making changes to how they provide their education services, Labour continues to miss the point. The concordat unfetters local government to allow local authorities to make the choices that they consider most appropriate for their areas. We will continue to work with local government on that task.

More important, this Government will not use children's education for political posturing or to score cheap points. If Labour maliciously fosters discontent, as it is doing, without firm foundation,

parents will find its position on education unforgivable.

I move amendment S3M-2120.3, to leave out from first "recognises" to end and insert:

"welcomes the potential for educational improvement for Scottish pupils offered by the local government settlement which delivered record levels of funding for local authorities and which Labour members voted for; recognises that the Concordat between local and national government is giving local authorities greater scope to improve educational outcomes by freeing them up from unnecessary bureaucracy, as well as giving them greater local accountability, and notes that the new single outcome agreements, which will be finalised shortly, will include specific local and national outcomes which, over time, will deliver real benefits for pupils in every local authority area in Scotland."

09:30

Murdo Fraser (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con): I welcome the opportunity provided by the Labour Party to discuss education cuts. Despite what we have heard from Fiona Hyslop, undoubtedly we are seeing cuts in educational provision across Scotland. I accept that some responsibility for that rests with local authorities, but some of it comes back directly to Government policy.

We have heard from all over Scotland about people having problems with accessing advanced higher courses. We have seen the axing of the schools of ambition programme that delivers many benefits to schools across Scotland, particularly to schools in deprived areas. On the Government's flagship policy of reducing class sizes, at least one council—SNP-controlled Renfrewshire Council—has increased class sizes in S1 and S2 English and maths. There is no doubt that there is widespread concern across Scotland about where education is headed.

All that we have heard from the Government—and we can see it in the SNP amendment and we heard it from the minister—is the same old response: "It wisnae me. It's nothing to do with us. It is all up to the local authorities. Under the concordat, they deliver educational services, and therefore all the blame attaches to them, not us."

I have no difficulty with the general proposition that we should have greater devolution of power to local authorities. The problem is that the SNP does not apply that approach even-handedly. Many of the problems faced by education today are a direct result of the Government's misguided policy on reducing class sizes in primary 1 to 3, and making that a priority above all others in education, despite the lack of hard and convincing evidence that it should be the top priority for education.

We feel that extra resources should be concentrated in many other areas of education,

but the SNP is hamstrung by its manifesto commitment, which it is struggling to fulfil. It is all right for the SNP Government to claim credit for the things that it thinks are going its way in education, such as the class size reductions, but when it comes to all the bad things that are happening, such as cuts, it seeks to pass the buck to local authorities. It simply will not wash.

I turn to the Conservative amendment. I recognise that there are widespread concerns about the current situation in education and I agree with much of the Labour motion. However, that does not excuse the EIS's irresponsible decision, taken at its conference last week, to ballot its members on industrial action.

I well remember—as I was a school pupil at the time—the damage that was done to Scottish education as a result of the last teachers' strike. The teaching profession has done well since then, with the McCrone settlement delivering enhanced status for the profession and substantially enhanced terms and conditions. Whatever concerns the EIS might have, strike action is simply not the answer and is unacceptable

Those who suffer from any strike are those who cannot defend themselves—namely, Scotland's school pupils. The damage that might be done to the education and career prospects of our young people, particularly those who are at a critical point, facing standard grade or higher exams, could be irreparable. Parliament must condemn the EIS's decision to ballot for strike action and I urge the EIS to show restraint. It does not have public sympathy on the issue, and any residual sympathy it might have will be lost if it calls its members out on strike.

Yesterday, a leading academic, James Stanfield of Newcastle University, made direct criticism of Scottish education. According to him, we have fallen behind our counterparts in England and are still living on our historical reputation. The SNP Government's approach to education is failing, and it refuses to take any responsibility for what is happening in Scotland's classrooms. We cannot afford to see our education system made worse by the first teachers' strike in a generation and the harm that would be done to the life chances of today's youngsters.

I move amendment S3M-2120.1, to insert at end:

"but condemns the decision of the Educational Institute of Scotland at its recent conference to ballot its members on industrial action, and believes that any strike action by teachers will be immensely damaging to educational provision in Scotland and to Scotland's school pupils."

09:34

Jeremy Purvis (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD): Time after time, we hear the

SNP Government saying that it is delivering on its promises. According to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, every council has more than enough to deliver on them. There is enough money not only to deliver all the Government's education policies but to provide tax cuts—a council tax freeze and a reduction in business taxation—to the tune of more than £1.25 billion. When parents ask why there are education cuts in their local areas, the SNP is clear that the fault lies with the councils, as the First Minister has said and as the cabinet secretary repeated today. Alternatively, we have not had enough money from London, as SNP back benchers say every day.

Today, however, there has been a shift. There is no longer a new relationship with local government per se but a new relationship only with local authorities that agree with the Government. Only councils that have signed up to all the Government's policies without question have been commented on by the cabinet secretary today; those councils that have dared to make their own locally democratic and locally accountable decisions are in the wrong. That is what we heard from the First Minister last week and from the cabinet secretary this morning. Out of the window has gone the new relationship with local government.

Parents and teachers are not stupid; they have seen the contortions of spin from SNP ministers over recent weeks. A few weeks ago, Chris Harvie talked admiringly about what he called small, acrobatic European nations, but their acrobatics are no match for those of the SNP on the crystal-clear promises that it made in the election. The promised reductions in class sizes turned into "year-on-year progress" and then to focusing on deprived areas. The Government now says that the promise will be delivered only for those people who are fortunate enough to live in an area with a falling school roll. In my constituency, where school rolls are increasing, there is no hope of that. The Government had promised access to a fully qualified nursery teacher for every nursery child in Scotland but, one year on, the SNP still refuses to define what it means by "access". The Government had promised to match the Opposition's school building programme brick for brick, but its policy has materialised as simply finishing off the schemes that we started. Not one new school building scheme has been commissioned under the new Government. The SNP had promised to double the number of schools nurses, but that promise is now simply to become part of a review of community nursing services.

If the Government had been up front, had held up its hands and had told parents that its policies were uncosted and undeliverable, of course it

would have been attacked, but at least it would have had a modicum of respect. Instead, we have had only spin and contortion since last May.

The Government has now been joined by COSLA, which yesterday issued a briefing to researchers—not MSPs—that states:

"COSLA does not believe that we should be focussing on input measures".

That is a curious position for a negotiating body to have, even one that drafted in Proust to write the historic concordat. I cannot wait to hear whether, when it gets round the table for negotiations on next year's settlement, it will begin by proudly stating, "Government, simply tell us how much you want to give us and we will accept it."

On the school building programme, Fiona Hyslop was perfectly clear last year when she said:

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

One year on, they are still waiting. Although COSLA welcomes the fact that there is no longer ring fencing, the cabinet secretary knows that discussions took place just last week on reintroducing revenue support grant. Without central Government support such as revenue support grant, local authorities know that they cannot deliver schools.

On class sizes, the First Minister was perfectly clear on 5 September and Maureen Watt was perfectly clear on 13 September. When asked by my colleague Robert Brown whether the Government's education team had estimated the cost of delivering the SNP's promise on class sizes, Maureen Watt stated:

"Of course we have made a bid to meet those commitments."—[Official Report, 13 September 2007; c 1757.]

The reference was to a bid to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth to meet the Government's education commitments. Either she misled the Parliament deliberately or the Government has the figures and is unwilling to tell us. The Government must tell not only Parliament but parents, teachers and pupils throughout Scotland. That is why the Government, rather than the Opposition, is losing respect.

I move amendment S3M-2120.2, to insert at end:

"welcomes the assessment from the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland that implementation of the SNP policy to cut class sizes to 18 in P1-P3 requires £360 million of capital for additional classrooms and £62

million of recurring revenue funding, and therefore calls on the First Minister to confirm to the Parliament whether his government believes that this is an accurate estimate and why."

The Presiding Officer: We come to the open debate. Speeches should be of around four minutes.

09:39

Mary Mulligan (Linlithgow) (Lab): Today's debate comes at a critical time for Scottish education. Just over 12 months ago, prior to the Scottish elections, many promises were made by each of the parties on how they would improve Scottish education.

The SNP has been given the opportunity to fulfil its promises. However, if a week is a long time in politics, 12 months is an age. The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning must be wondering how it is all going so wrong. Parents who are concerned and angry at budget cuts in education services have been writing to MSPs and councillors. Directors of education—who have not been misquoted—have told the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee that local authorities do not have the money to deliver class size reductions. Teachers have supported a motion that calls for industrial action. Ms Hyslop said that that has happened before, but the difference this time is that leaders of teachers are calling for it. However, the SNP still has the temerity to move an amendment extolling the virtues of the historic concordat.

Let us look at a few facts. The local government settlement provided local authorities with more money than they had had before, but demand for services is increasing. The suggestion that local authorities should also pick up the tab for SNP promises adds to that financial burden. It is not surprising that some local authorities have had to make cuts in their education spending. Apart from the public cuts in Aberdeen, subject choice has been curtailed in Renfrewshire, departmental budgets have been slashed in Glasgow and school kitchens have been closed in Edinburgh, despite the commitment to provide healthy meals in schools. The squeeze on education spending means that the promised reductions in class sizes to 18 are unlikely to happen; they will definitely not happen over the spending review period, as the First Minister promised last September.

Fiona Hyslop: Can Mary Mulligan bring herself to recognise that West Lothian Council, which serves an area of growing population, will reduce class sizes in 14 primary schools this year? She told the people and parents of Armadale that Armadale academy would not be built if Labour were to lose and the SNP were to win the election 12 months ago. Will she recognise that it is being

built and will be opened under an SNP council and Government?

Mary Mulligan: Let us consider the 14 schools to which the minister refers. Parents are already complaining that they cannot get their children into the Catholic school in Blackburn, although the next-nearest Catholic school is 3 miles away. Westfield primary school was a real challenge—there are only 23 pupils in the whole school, so no wonder class sizes of 18 can be achieved. The Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee heard evidence that the benefits of smaller classes in P1 to P3 may be negated in one Edinburgh primary school by larger classes further up, but the cabinet secretary is happy for that to happen.

The probationary teachers scheme has been hailed as groundbreaking across the political spectrum and beyond Scotland's borders, but it is clear for all to see that cuts to education budgets and the failure to achieve class size reductions place it at risk.

Yesterday, an academic claimed in The Times that the Scottish education system was failing our children. I do not accept his accusation, but it is telling that a Scottish Government spokesperson responded to it. Were the cabinet secretary and her ministers not prepared to defend their policies? Ministers' inability to answer questions on their headline policies is worrying. To be fair, I believe that the cabinet secretary wants to deliver those policies, but if she cannot provide the answers to today's Labour motion, she and her ministers may need to reflect on whether, if there were an examination on being a cabinet secretary and delivering policies, they would pass the test.

09:44

Rob Gibson (Highlands and Islands) (SNP): This debate is about confidence or gloom—I suggest that it should be about confidence. Local authority budgets have been increased by 12.9 per cent, to £34.9 billion, by 2011. In contrast, local government's share of Scottish Executive expenditure fell by 4 per cent between 2002-03 and 2007-08. That makes a big difference to the way in which we put the argument.

In its briefing for the debate, COSLA recognises:

"The outcomes approach provides a huge opportunity for local government and all of the public sector agencies in an area to focus their resources on a small number of agreed national outcomes and the contribution that they are able to make to them locally."

I wish to highlight some examples from Highland, the local authority area where I live. There has already been mention in the debate of one of the schools there. We should start off with the class size issue. In Highland, where there is a

falling school roll, 100 of the 183 primary schools have already met the target, and a phased programme is in hand, which includes team teaching and other changes. There will always be changes in how local authorities deploy their resources, because they must constantly meet the changing needs of society, and that will happen no matter whether there is a change in Government.

Rhona Brankin: Will the member take an intervention?

Rob Gibson: Yes, just the one.

Rhona Brankin: Does the member accept that there have been cuts in the services for children with autistic spectrum disorder in Highland? Does he believe that that shows that the SNP holds those children's education as a priority?

Rob Gibson: If members isolate any figure, they can possibly make an argument about it. In Rhona Brankin's case, I do not know the facts around the issue, and she would have to provide them before we could argue over the matter. It was an assertion on Rhona Brankin's part.

It has been suggested that, because of changes in society, Brora primary school will lose a teacher. What was the previous Liberal and Labour Administration doing to build up the population in Brora to ensure that it was possible to keep the numbers up?

Jamie Stone: Will the member give way on that point?

Rob Gibson: All that those parties are doing now is moaning because they are in opposition and picking up on a small point that is nothing to do with the administration of Highland Council.

Jamie Stone: I do think that the member should give way on that point.

Rob Gibson: Siddown.

As far as we are concerned, we are moving into a situation where efficiencies must be made. Let us consider the public-private partnership situation that we have inherited. In Highland Council, about £25 million a year extra is paid because of the cost of PPP. Less maintenance is required for new schools, but the money still has to be paid up front because of that inheritance, so there is no room for flexibility for Highland Council, and school transport, energy and administration now have to be targeted, rather than using a wider palette for making efficiencies.

What else has been going on? The party that brought in PPP is now complaining that schools such as Wick high school have not reached the top of the list. The Scottish futures trust can provide a way forward, in a way that PPP did not. Under the previous Administration, that school got worse and worse. That is the sort of inheritance

that we have to deal with, and that is why I suggest that the confidence that we can bring is much better than the gloom that is being brought to the debate by members of other parties. On numeracy, they claim figures that they cannot prove, because they cannae count. On literacy, they cannot even read COSLA's arguments. Labour's motion is beyond remedial help.

09:48

Hugh Henry (Paisley South) (Lab): I do not intend to engage in the personalisation of the debate that Fiona Hyslop started, but I would be happy to meet her to consider my correspondence to Renfrewshire Council on education and the feeble replies that I have received from that council.

Today, cabinet secretary, I want you to rise above the party politics of this subject. I want you to set aside some of the to-ing and fro-ing and tit for tat that often goes on, and I want you to listen to—

The Presiding Officer: Could you speak through the chair, Mr Henry?

Hugh Henry: Sorry, Presiding Officer.

I want the cabinet secretary to listen to and respond to the voices of ordinary people in Renfrewshire. Will she answer Mrs June Ramsay, who is dismayed that, due to budget cuts, her daughter is in the dark as to whether Gleniffer high school, or any school in Renfrewshire, will be providing advanced higher art? She wants to know what sort of message it sends to snatch away the opportunity to study art from a young person who wishes to stay on at school, and who has been able to study art until now.

The Minister for Schools and Skills (Maureen Watt): Will the member give way on that point?

Hugh Henry: No, thank you.

I want the cabinet secretary to answer Jacqueline Masterson and Ruth Walsh, parents of children at Gleniffer high school, who are concerned about the impact that the withdrawal of supported study and homework club services will have on pupils at the school, particularly those from areas of high deprivation.

I want the cabinet secretary to answer not me but Fiona Wilkie, who is worried about the impact of the removal of all sciences at advanced higher level on her daughter's opportunity to study medicine at university. I want the cabinet secretary to answer Mary Hill, Lorraine Knotts, Moira McKillop and Gillian Hill, parents of pupils at Gleniffer high school, who are concerned about the budget cuts and who are wondering what the point is of building a brand new school if the

resources are not going to be available to run it properly.

I want the cabinet secretary to answer Christopher Voysey, a school pupil who organised a petition that was signed by more than 100 senior pupils from throughout Renfrewshire. The petition was ignored by her SNP colleagues on Renfrewshire Council, who, at the last point of checking, have not even had the decency to reply to Christopher's letter, which was sent along with the petition.

I want the cabinet secretary to answer Erica Wishart, who is not only a parent who is concerned about the impact that budget cuts will have on her child's education but a network teacher who fears for her job in a specialism that is under threat from the cuts.

I want the cabinet secretary to answer the EIS members at St Benedict's high school, who believe that

"with a reduction in teaching staff, increased class sizes, a reduced curriculum, cuts in teaching, learning support and behaviour support, the quality of educational provision in St. Benedict's will be severely compromised".

I also want her to answer properly the EIS members at Gleniffer high school, whom I believe she has misquoted. They have said that the cuts in funding

"make it impossible to offer the same level and depth of curriculum".

I want the cabinet secretary to answer the 80 members of staff at Paisley grammar school, who are concerned about the impact of budget cuts in their school.

The cuts are happening on the cabinet secretary's watch. The parents, pupils and teachers in Renfrewshire are looking to the cabinet secretary for leadership. They want her to use her influence with her SNP colleagues in Renfrewshire. They want her to use the status of her post to protect education. I am asking the cabinet secretary to act for ordinary Scots who are worried. Will she ask Renfrewshire Council to think again? Will she dip into her Administration's budgets to protect education? Will she do the right thing?

09:52

Christina McKelvie (Central Scotland) (SNP): The chamber has been privileged to bear witness to the hungry caterpillar speech. Here, too, the major Opposition party failed to vote for a budget that had been amended as it wanted. Stunning events. Thankfully, they were overshadowed by the implementation of a historic concordat—I repeat, a historic concordat—which is an agreement between the national Government of

Scotland and Scotland's local government to work together. Some of us—I am one—find it incredible that we have had to wait so long for central Government to sit down with local authorities and work out a strategy to improve the governance of Scotland. No wonder that Labour councils are saying, "Thank God for the SNP Government."

At the beginning of last month, Wendy Alexander and her staff were running around Renfrewshire, trying to stir up a story about exam choices that proved to be untrue. Scaremongering is bad enough in any circumstance, but when school pupils and their futures are at stake, it is nothing short of a disgrace. At the end of the same month, Wendy Alexander's staff were again peddling lies, putting words into the innocent mouth of COSLA and alleging a shortfall of £400 million—

The Presiding Officer: Excuse me, Ms McKelvie. You cannot accuse other members of lying in the chamber. I ask you to revisit that sentence.

Christina McKelvie: Let me revisit that. I said that Wendy Alexander's staff, not members in the chamber, were peddling lies.

The Presiding Officer: I find that terminology unacceptable, Ms McKelvie. I ask you to apologise and move on.

Christina McKelvie: Okay. Wendy Alexander's staff were peddling untruths. They alleged a shortfall of £400 million and that councils were clamouring for a return to ring fencing.

The Presiding Officer: I am sorry to keep interrupting, Ms McKelvie, but I have asked you to apologise for that terminology. I would be grateful if you would do so.

Christina McKelvie: I apologise to the chamber, Presiding Officer.

COSLA, of course, knew nothing about that fabrication and dismissed the allegation. It was revealed later that the figures that had been used were nothing more nor less than an invention on the part of Labour staffers. It has been reported that none other than the chief Labour number cruncher, Arthur Midwinter, came up with them. Fakery, indecision and falsehood—Labour's lines on education funding are about as certain as Labour's referendum policy. Labour's credibility on Scottish education is about as solid as Alistair Darling's credibility on income tax, Harriet Harman's credibility on leadership donations and—after last night—Gordon Brown's credibility. Believing Labour's figures on education would be like believing that it did not do too badly in Crewe and Nantwich.

Not only do we have the unedifying sight of Labour members lumbering into this chamber to

churn out inaccuracies, supposition and invention in support of the decidedly dodgy dossier on education, they add to that disgraceful performance by refusing to apologise for the smears when they are challenged.

Labour's numbers on education simply do not add up. They have never stacked up, and they never will stack up, as long as its attention is focused on pouring vitriol on the SNP Government rather than on contributing positively to the debate. If last month's nonsense was an indication of the state of Labour's research, it is no wonder that the country was in such a mess when the SNP Government took over last year.

It is a long, hard road to restore Scottish education, but the Scottish Government has started out on it. The concordat—yes, the historic one—between the SNP Government and Scotland's councils has freed up local authority funds for education, and councils the length and breadth of this country are taking advantage of that to improve education services.

It is a pity that Labour members do not put as much trust in their councillors as the SNP Government does. Perhaps they should pay attention to the joint statement that was signed yesterday by the First Minister, on behalf of the Scottish Government, and Councillor Pat Watters, the president of COSLA, which said:

"These changes give power back to local people, better able to judge for themselves, on a consistent basis right across Scotland, the quality and value of their local services."

Government in Scotland is no longer focused on the whinges of the past, but focused on how we can build a better future. Perhaps Labour members will want to learn that lesson while they still have a chance to recover some semblance of relevance as a party.

09:56

Cathy Jamieson (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab): I start at the point at which Christina McKelvie ended, on the so-called historic concordat:

"These changes give power back to local people, better able to judge for themselves, on a consistent basis right across Scotland, the quality and value of their local services."

In one of the local authority areas that I represent—South Ayrshire—the cuts that are taking place are affecting some of the youngest and most vulnerable school pupils. South Ayrshire Council has decided to scrap free school bus travel for a number of school pupils who currently receive it. I can tell the chamber that the parents, pupils and teachers who have contacted me and other local representatives about the matter are

judging the concordat and finding it wanting in several ways. I might be about to sound critical of the Tory leader of South Ayrshire Council, but I think that he is a decent person and I hope that he will forgive me if I sound overly critical; my comments are not meant to be personal. However, he has made it clear that further unpalatable decisions—those words have been used recently—will need to be made because of the cuts and the underfunding of local government.

To get back to the parents, I questioned the Minister for Schools and Skills on their comments and she kindly sent me a written answer in which she made it clear that the Government did not expect that changes would be made in relation to the travelling distances for school transport. The decision was taken in South Ayrshire without consulting parents, it flies in the face of what is deemed to be good practice and it has caused real concern. Concern has also been caused by the fact that some of those who took the decision—I refer to both Conservative and SNP councillors—have gone to ground and seem unwilling to meet parents to justify their decision or even to consider the constructive options that parents have suggested to solve the problem.

I appreciate that difficult decisions have to be made—of course they do. Anyone in a Government position has to make them—I had to do so—but I hope that they would be prepared, at the very least, to meet parents rather than, as one response to parents said—[Interruption.] The cabinet secretary is making comments that I cannot make out, but I hope that she will answer this point in her summing up. The response said that parents would be better to

"get together to form 'walking buses' ... one or two will walk all their neighbours' weans to school. I am told this works well in some other districts ... and is a better use of campaigners' time than harassing councillors."

Is that the kind of local democracy that the cabinet secretary supports? Will she intervene, as Hugh Henry has asked her to do, and at least secure a fair hearing for the parents before an irreversible decision is taken?

I asked East Ayrshire Council, which is the other local authority in my constituency, for an assurance that its single outcome agreement would contain a commitment to reduce class sizes to 18 over time. In its response, the council said:

"The SOA has focused on largely strategic matters and may therefore not make specific reference to this operational recommendation. For example, this recommendation would be considered as an input which may impact on the strategic outcome of raising attainment across the authority."

Will the cabinet secretary tell the parents, teachers, pupils and local authority officers of East

Ayrshire whether they must reduce class sizes to 18 by 2011? Will that happen or not?

10:01

Stuart McMillan (West of Scotland) (SNP): I noted with interest the Labour Party's decision to bring this debate to the Parliament and I anticipated that Labour would take its usual attacking approach to Scottish National Party strategy. It is sad that I have been proven correct.

The broken record from the Labour benches on class sizes and teaching strikes is beginning to be boring. However, time and again Labour members fail to mention their failure on class sizes. They are no strangers to U-turns: the previous Executive set a target of a maximum of 20 pupils in mathematics and English classes; before last year's election it changed the target to an average of 20 pupils; and it then abandoned the plan altogether. The EIS has campaigned for small class sizes since the Parliament opened, and was understandably furious at Labour's decision to ditch its plans. The EIS voted last week for a strike ballot on class size reduction, but it should be noted that under the previous Labour-Lib Dem Executive the EIS voted twice—in 2004 and in 2006—for industrial action over class sizes.

Rhona Brankin rose—

Stuart McMillan: To add to Labour's disappointment, COSLA said that at no point had the EIS ever raised its concerns on education budgets with COSLA. It is time that Labour stopped harping on about an issue on which it failed to deliver. It should consider that COSLA also said:

"in this debate we also need to be clear that nothing stays the same for ever."

Under the SNP, local authority budgets will increase by 12.9 per cent, of which around half will be spent on education. The Renfrewshire Council education budget is £146.7 million this year, compared with £139 million last year. I allay any lingering fears on the part of Labour members by saying that £958,000 of the budget has been invested in reducing class sizes.

We must appreciate the importance of understanding the local authority role in deciding education budgets. In that context, I mention the position of Labour members of Renfrewshire Council, who wanted to make an estimated £800,000 of cuts or efficiency savings—or whatever terminology members want to use—from the reduction in school rolls. The actual cut or efficiency saving was £430,000—almost half what was hoped for. How does a Labour proposal for such a huge cut or efficiency saving take into consideration the wellbeing of young people in Renfrewshire? It does not do so, and neither do

the majority of Labour suggestions. COSLA said:

"Put simply, we should be concentrating on the difference we make to children's health, well-being and attainment rather than individual lines of spend and every input they resource."

The Greenock Telegraph this week carried a story about Wendy Alexander, who was complaining—nothing new there—about the apparent lack of new schools in Inverclyde. Perhaps she should have done some research about the pitiful two new schools that were built in Inverclyde under Labour between 1999 and 2003. In the article, she is quoted as saying that when people leave school they should be allowed to go on to college. I agree, but she should also have said that she and her colleagues voted to maintain the graduate endowment, which placed an extra burden of debt on students.

I am pleased that COSLA does not think that the Labour motion is worth signing. I agree, and I ask members to reject the time-wasting motion. Let us get on with the job of delivering a better, well-educated Scotland, with local authorities delivering for Scotland's schoolchildren.

The Presiding Officer: We come to the closing speeches.

10:04

Hugh O'Donnell (Central Scotland) (LD): The debate has been interesting. A range of facts and figures, some of them debatable, have been bandied across the chamber. I see no great value in reciting a further litany of the damage that this SNP Government is doing to the education system in Scotland by inflicting a death by a thousand cuts on education services across the country. However, in and through this debate, we must continue to highlight the negative impact that its imposition of uncosted policy decisions is having on services in our local communities.

The level of complacency on the part of both the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning and the Minister for Schools and Skills is completely breathtaking. It is simply not acceptable for them to pass the buck to Westminster or to browbeat councils into taking responsibility for delivering Government policies without them having the resources to do so. Frankly, those two make Pontius Pilate look decisive.

Time and time again—indeed, almost always—the Government's response to legitimate and reasoned questions on costs, buildings and other issues is that it is someone else's fault or responsibility. On almost every question that I have asked the Government on schools, teachers or class sizes, the response has been, "It's nae us, it's the cooncils." Indeed, such is the concern at

local government level that even SNP councillors, in private meetings, are asking searching questions about the cabinet secretary and the whole management of the education department under her stewardship. I am told that such is the panic at the heart of the SNP Government and its education department that guidelines have been issued to local authorities to use the fully funded places scheme to try to meet the class size commitment.

Every member has heard accounts of probationers being told that there is no permanent job for them and being offered supply work and stories of staff being shuffled, reallocated and repositioned. Regardless of how it is done, and no matter how it is defined, if a cut is made in the level of support services to children with special needs, it is a cut. If teachers are redeployed so that they have larger numbers of pupils, the level of support will be nothing like it was beforehand.

Let us look at the success of the flagship policy of cutting class sizes, through the example of two councils: North Lanarkshire Council and Clackmannanshire Council. In North Lanarkshire, a mere 49 schools will, perhaps, have a primary 1 class size of 18 or under. The average class size across the council will be 20.5 pupils, with composite classes averaging 21.4. In Clackmannanshire, the numbers in 10 P1 classes will exceed 20 and the numbers in a further 11 composite classes could be as high as 24. On hearing those figures and others that we have heard in the debate, the SNP Government cannot continue to believe that it is delivering its class size commitments—it is not. The Government needs to be held to account at every opportunity for making promises that it is clearly failing to deliver.

10:08

Elizabeth Smith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con): This time last year, I was writing my last set of school reports. I could not help but be struck by the change in style that had taken place since I began my teaching career. Gone were the days of bluntly telling a parent that their little treasure had failed an exam and in were the days of saying that they had met the grade-related criteria in question 1, but done not so well in questions 2 to 10. As Rob Gibson said, in education these days, the way in which things are said seems to matter more than what is said. Frankly, this is where the Government has got itself into what the French would describe as "une débâcle totale"—I am practising for the French baccalaureate that we hear we are getting—otherwise known as a complete mess.

Let us take class sizes. I am sure that the Scottish Government is well intentioned in seeking

to reduce the numbers in primaries 1 to 3 to a maximum of 18. However, ministers have completely failed to realise that the directors of education in our local authorities are telling them that, in many cases, setting specific targets is not the right way to do things. The Government insists on doing that, but authorities are telling it that delivering on class sizes simply cannot happen without spending an additional £420 million on more teachers and classrooms. That is many times the sum that the SNP originally estimated—so much for a Government that prides itself on numeracy and literacy.

Take the example that Jamie Stone mentioned of Brora primary school in the Highlands, which is being forced to lose a member of staff simply because its school roll has dropped from 97 to 96 pupils and because the local council says that it must adhere to a mathematical formula, never mind the local circumstances. There is also the instance of Renfrewshire Council, which, as Rhona Brankin said, is scrapping current class size limits in English and maths in S1 and S2 to pay for the new ones in P1 to P3. Those are two very blunt messages, but the Government is not listening.

In addition, the Government has got into a complete mess on flexibility. It insists that it wants more flexibility for local authorities and headteachers, so why did it persist with scrapping the successful schools of ambition programme, which acknowledges that schools know their situation much better than the Government ever could and allows them the freedom to decide how best to spend their money?

Fiona Hyslop: Will the member at least admit that the Government is spending more on schools of ambition in this parliamentary session than the previous Government spent on the programme?

Elizabeth Smith: If that is true, why is the Government scrapping the programme?

Many people are upset because the inflexibility can only create problems elsewhere. We know that advanced higher courses are being cut, as Murdo Fraser set out. We also know that, on PE and outdoor education—or, in SNP language, walking to school and healthy living—schools are struggling to come up with enough resources to find the specialist teachers. Ironically, that is at a time when many probationary teachers cannot find a job. I am pleased that the SNP is taking our policy proposals on some of those matters seriously, and I am grateful for the support of other parties, too, but I will be much happier, as will the teaching profession and parents throughout Scotland, when we have real devolution in our schools at local level, so that we can ensure that those activities happen.

The final report card is not looking too good for the Government. There are too many lapses of concentration; problems with sums; not enough exercise; and maybe even problems with the bullies in the playground, who this time are not Labour members but EIS members, whom I believe are seriously endangering the lives and educational futures of our children through the action that they have taken. Let me say unequivocally that we do not support the EIS in any way on strike action, because that puts into jeopardy the whole situation. We support the EIS in some of the complaints that it is making, but not on strike action. The Government must do better. Just for once, can we put educational needs rather than targets at the top of the agenda?

10:13

The Minister for Children and Early Years (Adam Ingram): Unlike Hugh O'Donnell, I am hard pushed to think of a more mean-spirited debate in the Parliament than the one that we have had this morning. Indeed, "debate" is far too dignified a word to describe the whining performance of the Opposition parties. It has been scaremongering, factually inaccurate, sour and carping. That is the tone of the contribution that we have come to expect not only from Rhona Brankin, but from the Labour approach to opposition, which is encapsulated in the motion.

Let me do a little deconstruction.

Jeremy Purvis: Will the minister take an intervention?

Adam Ingram: No, I will not. Sit down, please.

According to Labour members, there is a lack of confidence in the Scottish Government—they wish. On the contrary, I see and hear enthusiasm for the Government's agenda up and down and across the country as I undertake my ministerial duties. The most oft-heard description of our approach is that it is a breath of fresh air. There is a great deal of support for our focus on the early years and widespread anticipation of the policy framework that we are developing. In primary schools, I find a huge welcome for and willingness to engage with the curriculum for excellence. To be sure, there may be more sceptics in the secondary sector, but many teachers there have less than fond memories of the higher still reforms. Their concerns are about not policy principles or intentions, but implementation, and we are working hard to address those concerns.

Jeremy Purvis: Will the minister give way?

Adam Ingram: No, I will not.

As for directors of education, Wendy Alexander brazenly misrepresented their view at First Minister's question time last week. Like Bruce

Robertson—the immediate past president of ADES—most directors of education acknowledge the reality. Mr Robertson said:

"The budget settlement was tight but there have been no cuts at all and there has been some growth."

In her speech, the cabinet secretary ran through a list of education budget increases across the country. Facts are chiels that winna ding, and they give the lie to Labour's absurd claims. Even Gordon Matheson, Glasgow's education convener, has had to admit that the education budget in Glasgow will be higher next year than this year in real terms.

As for efficiency savings, Labour members will remember their leader's hungry caterpillar speech, in which she berated this Government's efficiency targets as being not ambitious enough and demanded a 3 per cent figure. Members should remember that, under the SNP, local authorities get to keep the efficiency savings that they make to reinvest in services, whereas Labour clawed back the savings to the centre. Now those were cuts.

Rhona Brankin: Will the minister take an intervention on that point?

Adam Ingram: No. Sit down, please.

Let me turn to class sizes. Again, Labour doublespeak is to the fore, with condemnation for our historic concordat, which commits local government to show year-on-year progress towards delivery of our policy of reducing class sizes to 18 in P1 to P3. Apparently, that cannot deliver quickly enough. But wait a minute—Labour does not even believe in the policy. According to Wendy Alexander, class sizes are not a good measure of what matters. Steven Purcell gave the game away completely this week when he claimed that reducing class sizes was not a productive way of improving education. We beg to differ—and what is more, the Scottish public agree with us. The research evidence backs that up.

Finally, there is the rubbish about probationary teachers. According to the General Teaching Council for Scotland, 92.7 per cent of last year's probationers are teaching—a 5 per cent rise on last year. At a time when more teachers are being trained than ever before—20,000 in the next three years—that is a brilliant result. Okay, some are working part time, and some are in supply, which is not ideal, but they will get permanent full-time jobs as 6,000 teachers retire year on year for the next few years.

Can Ken Macintosh tell us what other group of graduates have better prospects of pursuing their preferred career? I contend there are not any—especially now that the wheels have come off Gordon Brown's much-vaunted economic policies.

I commend the SNP's amendment to a motion that is as crass and incompetent as any that has ever appeared in this chamber.

10:18

Ken Macintosh (Eastwood) (Lab): I thank Mr Ingram for raising the tone of the debate above the "carping" that we heard earlier.

This week saw the publication of some very worrying UK figures that will have confirmed to all of us the extent of the challenge that faces us in eradicating poverty in this paradoxically wealthy country of ours. The figures will have dismayed those of us who are in politics to try to tackle and reduce inequalities of wealth and opportunity. However, what made me even more depressed was the response of SNP ministers. They did not roll up their sleeves and get on with the task in hand; their response was to blame Westminster and to call for separation. Motions then followed from the back benchers calling for control of our benefits and taxation systems. The motions did not say what the SNP would do with those systems; they simply called for control.

It was depressing that none of the SNP's press releases spoke about what we could do here in the Scottish Parliament to tackle poverty, using the range of powers and controls at our disposal. Arguably one of the biggest and most important weapons in tackling child poverty is education. Education is key to improving the life chances of our children, no matter the circumstances in which they are born, yet the SNP Government is cutting funding to vulnerable two-year-olds.

Education is crucial to our success in tackling poverty, yet the ministerial budget for education received the lowest settlement of all ministerial budgets. The SNP talks long and hard about how control over our affairs is the solution to all our ills, yet when it is given total control over education policy, it fails to deliver on any of its promises or commitments across the board.

The SNP promised to build schools. However, not only has it failed to commission a single school, but it has introduced a funding mechanism in the form of the Scottish futures trust that has attracted scorn and derision and has more to do with a dramatic obsession with PPP than with the practical reality of building schools. The SNP promised smaller class sizes throughout the country, but it seems happy to sit back while its colleagues in SNP-led councils close schools, lose teaching posts and, in Renfrewshire, apparently reverse the class size cuts in secondaries that Labour introduced.

On the one hand, the SNP is quick to blame Westminster for all the evils under the sun, but, on the other hand, as Murdo Fraser, Jeremy Purvis,

Rhona Brankin and others in the chamber pointed out, the SNP is setting up local government to be the fall guy for its broken promises. The cabinet secretary's sole argument seemed to be to decry those who complain, such as the 75 teachers at Gleniffer high school, and to accuse the Opposition parties of scaremongering. She was unable to point to a single success or achievement of her Administration. However, she intervened later to try to claim success in West Lothian, until my colleague Mary Mulligan pointed out that the SNP had achieved the class size target in a school with a total roll of 23.

Even though the cabinet secretary and her team are expected to show leadership on teacher recruitment and workforce planning, they are happy to entice hundreds of bright young graduates into the teaching profession while presiding over local authority cuts, which will mean that posts are lost and that there are no jobs for those probationers. Mr Ingram dismissed that issue as "rubbish".

Fiona Hyslop: Does the member acknowledge that the bulk of the education budget is in the local government settlement, which went up under this Administration after years of going down under Labour?

Ken Macintosh: Such rewriting of history by the SNP is incredible. We had real-terms increases in education budgets every year under Labour and class sizes came down—we delivered lower class sizes. However, the cabinet secretary just says, "It's not our fault; it's all up to local government."

I would be surprised if any constituency MSP had not received a letter from a probationer teacher. However, in case some have not had a letter, I refer them, and the minister, to the website of The Times Educational Supplement, which lists the experiences of probationer teachers; I will quote a few examples. One probationer said:

"there are two posts advertised for the school I currently work in and I found out last week that there were almost 300 applicants for those 2 posts".

Another said:

"I researched the job situation before doing the PGDE but I didn't think it would be quite as desperate as it is".

A third probationer said:

"if all else fails I hear they're looking for teachers in Dubai".

Dubai is not a country that the SNP normally quotes as being in the crescent of success—or whatever it is called.

Last week in answer to a parliamentary question that I had asked, the minister suggested that she was taking action at last and said that Joe Di Paola would be heading up a working group. However, she is yet to tell Parliament when that

group will meet, who is on it, whether it will be accountable to Parliament and, more important, what timescale she has set for it to make recommendations—in other words, what she will do to ensure that the jobs are there. I am delighted that the minister is taking action to talk about the problem, but I suggest that teachers are looking for a little more in the way of delivery.

My problem could be that I still regard the promises that the SNP made to the electorate as commitments that the SNP might wish to keep. The truth appears to be that the SNP has no real intention of delivering on its pledge on class sizes. It is difficult to see how anyone can trust the Administration when ministers refuse to say how much implementation of the pledge will cost and the First Minister and his cabinet secretary contradict each other directly on when it will happen.

The SNP has failed to express any vision for education. It borrows the language of social democracy when it suits it, but it fails to deliver on the funding or the policy decisions to back that up. Anxiety and frustration are mounting among people from directors of education to deputy heads and from experienced teachers to trainees.

The Parliament has sent a simple message to the SNP Administration this morning: it should face up to its ministerial responsibilities and deliver on its promises.

Bus Transport

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Alasdair Morgan): The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-2121, in the name of Des McNulty, on bus transport.

10:24

Des McNulty (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab): The key theme that I want to develop is the need for Parliament, and ministers in particular, to focus their attention on bus travel, asking constructively what can be done to improve affordability, accessibility, comfort and journey times.

If we are to address climate change, buses are vital. We can reduce the use of private vehicles only if people have alternative and convenient means of getting about. For most people in Scotland, the main alternative to the private car is likely to be the bus.

The previous Administration made significant strides in increasing bus patronage. The most important single measure was the introduction of free concessionary travel, first through local schemes and then the national scheme. Although some might argue for the smoking ban as the single most popular measure to be introduced by the devolved Parliament, most people would agree that free bus travel for the elderly is the measure that has made the most difference to people's lives. In my constituency, and I am sure in those of other members, the freedom that older people now have to pursue their interests, to meet their friends and to get to and from the shops without having to count the cost of each journey has been a huge benefit—and one that has been enthusiastically taken up.

Increased bus patronage is not attributable solely to concessionary travel, and passenger numbers have increased throughout Scotland, in rural areas as well as in conurbations. Increased patronage is a consequence of joint work among local councils, bus operators and regional transport partnerships. They have worked together to introduce bus priority measures, invest in new vehicles with improved accessibility and lower emissions, and initiate schemes such as the streamline corridors on the busiest routes in the Glasgow conurbation, where operators will be expected to meet higher standards.

However, progress is not universal. There are concerns about infrequent services in some areas of Scotland, especially in the evenings and at weekends, and about uncollected litter and a lack of cleanliness on some vehicles. There are concerns about the number of substandard vehicles still in use and about slow journey times

caused by bus congestion, as well as other forms of congestion on some of our city streets. There are also worries about passenger and driver safety from attack or vandalism. It is time to look again at partnership working and at existing regulatory arrangements and enforcement mechanisms to see what improvements are needed to make bus travel a positive choice for everyone, including those who currently opt to drive instead.

I do not think that anyone would claim that the current statutory arrangements are working as intended. There have been no quality contracts, and quality partnerships have tended to be informal rather than formal agreements ratified by ministers. The fact that the main players are working round the legislation raises questions about whether the framework functions properly. It is clear from the work that was undertaken to arrive at the bus action plan in 2006 that there are deficiencies in the implementation of the current regulatory system and in the effectiveness of transport planning. Those matters need to be addressed.

The Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change (Stewart Stevenson): Does the member share my delight at the stronger enforcement action that was taken by the traffic commissioner for Scotland, which has resulted in five companies being taken off the road in Scotland? Does he agree that we should all encourage further strong action on lower standard operators?

Des McNulty: I agree absolutely. That is one aspect of the work that we want to be done, but it is not sufficient on its own—other matters need to be addressed.

Since 2006, two additional factors have come into play. One of those factors is the end to ring fencing and the introduction of single outcome agreements, which I believe will place transport investment and the funding of regional transport partnerships at risk. Councils are likely to be reluctant to allocate resources outside their own boundaries, even when it might be logical in transport terms for them to do so.

The second factor is the massive increase in the cost of fuel, which presents both a threat and an opportunity to the bus operators. The opportunity for operators is that increased fuel prices will be a spur for people to reduce their use of private vehicles. The threat is that the fare increases that were announced recently, which are double the level of inflation, will have the reverse impact.

I am a realist—I accept that fares needed to rise to take account of increased operator costs, the largest element in which is the rising price of fuel, which is driven by pressures in the global oil market. However, in the context of everything that

has been said about climate change, congestion and changing people's use of transport, how is it sensible for the Scottish Government to withhold the uprating of the bus service operators grant to offset increases in fuel duty, leaving operators in Scotland with the highest costs in the United Kingdom?

Stewart Stevenson: Will the member give way?

Des McNulty: No, I will carry on.

In its ruling last month, which was the trigger for fare increases well above inflation, the Competition Commission highlighted the actions of the Scottish Government as the justification for the removal of the cap on fares in Glasgow and Edinburgh, which previously held fares at inflation plus 1 per cent. The Government needs to rethink quickly its position on the BSOG. I am sympathetic to efforts to change the basis of payment to promote environmental objectives, but operators in Scotland cannot be left financially unsupported when their counterparts in England are receiving rebates.

Ministers need to shift their stance on concessionary fares. They have frozen reimbursement for the next three years at a level that will not meet the expected increase in patronage, so what gives? Will we have new restrictions on benefits that elderly and disabled people enjoy or higher fares for paying passengers, or are bus operators supposed to pick up the tab? I do not object to ministers driving a hard bargain, but Parliament needs reassurance that the scheme will continue and that anomalies such as that which affects people who receive the lower rate of disability allowance will be resolved.

On his website, Alex Neil says:

"the eligibility criteria"

for free travel

"should be extended to include those"

disabled people

"who receive the lower rate mobility component".

I agree. Members of all parties have signed motions in the names of Angela Constance, Charlie Gordon and—most recently—Jackie Baillie that declared that it is wrong that some disabled people are ineligible for concessionary travel.

Tonight, members will have the opportunity to vote for a motion that would establish the principle that the people who are affected—many of whom have severe learning difficulties and who previously qualified for free travel under local schemes but have been excluded under the current eligibility rules—should be given free travel. The motion calls on ministers to effect that change urgently.

I believe that the Parliament is at one in wanting further growth in passenger numbers. To achieve that, affordable fares and continuous improvement in service quality are vital. Passengers need to feel safe on buses. If we want people not to pick up the car keys, we need a service frequency that minimises any inconvenience of planning travel via scheduled services.

The debate needs to continue. I expect us to conclude that some aspects of the regulatory regime should be updated or modified. In his amendment, Patrick Harvie makes the important point that we can learn from how regulation works elsewhere.

We need to have better—not more—regulation, partnership working that involves employee and passenger representatives and the determination to ensure that bus travel is a positive choice rather than a last resort.

I move,

That the Parliament believes more effective implementation of regulatory arrangements is needed to improve the quality, affordability and accessibility of bus travel; considers that resources are needed by local authorities and regional transport partnerships to permit them to complete the action points in the Bus Action Plan, vital if more people are to be encouraged to use buses rather than cars; expresses concern about the sharp increase in fares throughout Scotland caused by increasing fuel prices and the SNP government's decision not to increase the Bus Service Operators Grant in line with the rebate provided by the UK Government to bus operators in England and Wales; calls on ministers to promote through-ticketing, to seek a review of the Competition Commission's stance on the level of communication that can occur between public transport operators on issues such as timetabling which would assist greater integration with other forms of public transport and to review penalty clauses in rail and ferry contracts which inhibit multi-modal travel; determines in principle, in the interests of inclusion and social justice, to extend eligibility for concessionary travel to people with learning disabilities and other disabled people in receipt of the lower rate of disability living allowance, and calls on Scottish Ministers not to defer this change until the completion of the three-year review of the National Concessionary Travel Scheme.

10:32

Alex Johnstone (North East Scotland) (Con): Des McNulty is famous for the length of some of his motions and amendments. Today, I can claim to have superseded his record, as I have produced an amendment that is longer than his motion. I was tempted simply to read out the amendment, but as I have only six minutes for my speech, I do not have time to do that.

The Conservative amendment would retain the Labour motion's opening line. We would do so because we share the industry's concern that more needs to be done to deal with the so-called rogue elements in it, which are most obvious in the west of Scotland. The standards that we expect

from our operators must be enforced throughout the industry and anyone who fails to comply should be punished.

I do not accept the reference in the Labour motion to the bus action plan. I strongly support the plan and I agree that local authorities need to invest in services in pursuit of it, but I detect in the motion the suggestion that money should be ring fenced. My party believes that local authorities can be trusted to deliver on bus services, and we encourage them to do so, but Labour's heavy-handed approach is not the way forward.

Despite accepting the Labour motion's opening line, I confess to being slightly uncomfortable with its tone, which implies—albeit subtly—that if we want better bus services, we need more regulation. Some Labour politicians—notably Pauline McNeill in her members' business debate in September 2006—have explicitly called for that.

Stewart Stevenson: Does the mayor of London, Boris Johnson, intend to deregulate bus services in London?

Alex Johnstone: I am tempted to answer by saying, "Who knows what Boris Johnson will do?" I am sure that David Cameron holds a similar concern.

I am saddened that the Labour motion found no place to celebrate the success of bus deregulation, which the previous Conservative Government implemented. Even a cross-party report of the previous Local Government and Transport Committee, which former Labour stalwart Bristow Muldoon chaired, admitted:

"In many areas, the de-regulated market has provided benefits in the form of increased frequency of service, reduced fares, better vehicles and improved infrastructure."

I was especially disappointed that Labour felt unable to mention in the debate companies such as Stagecoach and FirstGroup—two global giants of the bus industry, whose contribution to the Scottish economy has been immense. In addition to those companies, my amendment mentions Lothian Buses, whose first-rate services are known to many of us; as my amendment states, Lothian Buses is officially

"the best bus company in the United Kingdom".

Some people like to argue that because Lothian Buses is a council-owned company, its success is a reason for reregulation. That could not be further from the truth, as our much-missed former colleague Tommy Sheridan discovered when he questioned the chief executive of Lothian Buses, Mr Neil Renilson, during the Local Government and Transport Committee's inquiry into the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001. Mr Renilson proved to be one of the most passionate advocates against further regulation of our bus

services, noting that Lothian Buses is wholly deregulated, thanks to the Transport (Scotland) Act 1989, which required local authorities to establish their municipal bus funds as arm's-length companies.

Speaking of the quality contract approach, Mr Renilson stated:

"Such a contract would take control of the bus network and design of the services and timetables away from the people who run the buses."—[Official Report, Local Government and Transport Committee, 5 October 2004; c 1183.]

The Scottish Conservatives welcome the new money that the Scottish Government has already allocated to the bus service operators grant as a result of pressure that we brought to bear on the Government at the time of the budget. It is a bit rich for the Labour Party to raise the issue when Labour at Westminster has presided over sky-high levels of fuel duty and is therefore at least partly responsible for the terrible state in which many bus operators find themselves. As a result of the massive increase in fuel costs, even since the budget, there is now a strong case for reviewing the entire scheme, with a view to making it much more effective rather than more restrictive.

Tavish Scott (Shetland) (LD): On the bus service operators grant, the Confederation of Passenger Transport's briefing said:

"To spin this £4 million as an increase to protect fares and services is a complete misrepresentation."

Does the member agree with the CPT on that point?

Alex Johnstone: I accept the member's point, which is why I wish the scheme to be reviewed still further.

I am disappointed that the Labour Party continues to play politics with the extension of the national concessionary travel scheme to those on lower-rate allowances. It has a brass neck for bringing the issue before Parliament again. There is a case for extending the scheme, and we support the review, but the Labour Party excluded such people from the scheme while it was in Government. A little more humility would be welcome from Labour members who speak on the issue with such moral indignation.

I direct the minister to the Scottish Conservatives' contribution to the bus inquiry that was conducted by the previous Executive. He will find many more useful suggestions there for improving bus services in Scotland.

I move amendment S3M-2121.1, to leave out from "considers" to end and insert:

"notes that statutory quality partnerships and quality contracts introduced by the previous administration have failed to produce any meaningful results; notes in contrast

that voluntary partnerships between bus operators and local authorities are flourishing and delivering an excellent service to passengers across Scotland; congratulates Perth-based Stagecoach and Aberdeen-based First Group on their unparalleled global success, achieved in the de-regulated bus environment; further congratulates Lothian Buses on being named the best bus company in the United Kingdom for 2007 and notes the success that this company has achieved since the de-regulation of municipal bus companies under the provisions of the Transport (Scotland) Act 1989; expresses concern about the sharp increase in fares throughout Scotland caused by increasing fuel prices and therefore calls on the Scottish Government to review the operation and funding of the Bus Service Operators Grant in consultation with the industry; calls on ministers to seek a review of the Competition Commission's stance on the level of communication that can occur between public transport operators on issues such as timetabling which would assist greater integration with other forms of public transport and to review penalty clauses in rail and ferry contracts that inhibit multi-modal travel; notes that Labour and Liberal Democrat ministers in the previous administration chose not to grant eligibility to people with learning disabilities and other disabled people in receipt of the lower rate of disability allowance when they created the National Concessionary Travel Scheme, and supports the review that may lead to improvements in the scheme as drawn up by Labour and Liberal Democrat ministers."

10:38

The Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change (Stewart Stevenson): As members have said, the recent substantial increases in fuel costs present us with challenges, but they are also an opportunity to highlight bus travel—particularly to current non-bus users—as an efficient and effective alternative to many car journeys. I am encouraged by the work that is being undertaken by a number of local authorities in conjunction with bus operators. In particular, the recently publicised work by Glasgow City Council to move towards a statutory quality partnership is an encouraging example of what can be done.

On the subject of the regulated environment, I note the success of London Buses in its heavily regulated environment. I am confident that the successful companies in Scotland would have been equally successful operating in that regime. That is what they are good at.

I and my ministerial colleagues are considering the future levels of bus service operators grant. The budget for BSOG is around £61 million in 2008-09—£4 million more than was allocated in the strategic spending review. We are working with the industry to restructure the grant so that it becomes more environmentally focused and we are making good progress. In passing, I observe that Labour in Wales has followed exactly the same path as we have in Scotland.

We are working with the Office of Fair Trading to develop guidance on bus competition. It has given us to understand that bus companies can discuss subjects of joint interest, but not prices, when such

discussions are carried out under the oversight of a third party, such as the local transport authority. In due course, we will write to the CPT and the bus companies to apprise them of the results of our discussions.

We are also working with the traffic commissioner for Scotland to ensure that the regulatory regime operates efficiently and effectively for bus users. As part of that activity, joint working arrangements have been developed across Government specifically to target non-compliant bus operators. The police, the commissioner and other parties are also involved, and Strathclyde Partnership for Transport has also played a valuable part by providing staff resources to gather evidence of non-compliance and punctuality failings. I encourage other local transport authorities to consider whether they can provide similar support.

In line with commitments that the previous Administration made, we will start the major review of the Scotland-wide free bus travel scheme for older and disabled people next week. It will review eligibility criteria, delivery arrangements, funding and legislation. I take the opportunity to correct the motion: subsection (v) of section B of part 4 of the form for applying for a pass concerns mental health issues; the form to which that subsection refers—the certificate of eligibility, which can be signed by a wide range of people—clearly covers learning disability, so it is clear that learning disabled people are already inside the scheme. As we go forward, we will consult stakeholders. We have already written to a wide range of equality groups to invite their views on the current operation of the scheme.

The Scottish Government recognises the essential contribution that the bus industry makes and has provided £280 million this year for buses. We have also provided local government in Scotland with record levels of funding and increased its share of Government funding. To encourage more people to consider using buses, we need to drive up quality; we will support efforts that do that. Buses are an important part of the transport solutions that we need to deliver on our climate change agenda, and the Scottish Government will continue to support them.

I move amendment S3M-2121.1.1, to insert at end:

"notes that increasing fuel costs present a significant opportunity for bus transport to demonstrate that it is an efficient and effective alternative for many car journeys, and condemns the failure of the Westminster government to respond to the sudden increases in the price of crude oil which are bringing uncertainty to a wide range of businesses and domestic users of oil and putting at risk the positive developments in the bus industry in recent years."

10:42

Alison McInnes (North East Scotland) (LD): I thank the Labour Party for allocating this time to a debate on bus transport. At a time when everyone is struggling with the impact of spiralling fuel prices, people must have access to effective alternatives to car travel. Seventy per cent of public transport journeys are made by bus, so let us ensure that the people who already use buses not only continue to do so, but are rewarded by better, faster and more reliable journeys and that more people are attracted to using them for some of their journeys.

In recent years, the most effective and lasting improvements to the bus network have come from partnership working between the industry, local authorities, RTPs and Government. The Labour motion acknowledges that policy levers exist to help bring about that partnership working, but they need to be implemented more effectively. The climate of co-operation and close working must continue to be actively fostered. RTPs in particular can be pivotal in improving bus networks.

Providing first-class bus services involves a package of measures and is as much about what happens off the bus as on it. Improvements that are rightly expected from the industry—such as modern buses, value-for-money fares, consistency and reliability—must be supported by public investment in infrastructure, whether measures to ensure that buses do not get caught up in congestion or schemes such as park and ride. Congestion causes operators to use 10 per cent more buses than should be needed to maintain timetables, which is an unnecessary cost.

Rural areas rely heavily on bus services but are more susceptible to cuts in services as costs rise. Therefore, it is important that established community transport and demand-responsive transport schemes throughout the country be supported and protected. I agree that the concessionary fares scheme should be extended to claimants of the lower rate of disability living allowance, but it is also unfair that its full benefits are not felt in rural areas because community transport services are not currently eligible to take part in it.

Stewart Stevenson: The member may recall that I secured a members' business debate on that subject in the previous session of Parliament, so she will know of my interest in it. I take the opportunity to assure her that we will include the matter in our consideration of the scheme.

Alison McInnes: I welcome that statement, because the issue needs to be resolved. Extending eligibility will cost more, which is why it is important to flag it up now, ahead of the review,

to ensure that next year's budget is constructed to support the changes.

The Government said that it would work with the industry to take forward the bus action plan and some of the minister's comments in his speech were supportive of the industry, but he has failed to grasp opportunities to make a real difference. Significantly, at a time when the industry is struggling with the high cost of fuel, the Government chose not to pass on the Westminster-funded fuel duty rebate. Therefore, £7.5 million that should have gone directly to operators to help keep bus fares down was siphoned off to pay for other SNP promises. As a result, bus passengers across the network have had to cough up for higher fares. The minister's hypocrisy is breathtaking. He condemns the failure of the Westminster Government to respond to the increase in the price of oil while his own Government has refused to deliver a rebate from which bus passengers in England benefit.

The Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change told Parliament this morning that he is working with the industry to create a more environmentally focused grant. Although he is moving on with that, would it not have been fairer to keep the original scheme in place until he had developed his ideas? Is not the reality that the minister needed to raid this budget and did not care to consider the consequences?

Let us be ambitious for bus and coach travel. We have world class home-grown bus operators in FirstBus, Stagecoach and Lothian Buses, besides many good local independent operators. There are exciting developments around, such as FirstBus's ftr, Stagecoach's bio-bus in Kilmarnock and wi-fi on the Fife to Edinburgh corridor.

Innovation and investment from bus companies must be matched by vision and investment from Government.

I move amendment S3M-2121.3, to insert at end:

"recognises that, in rural areas, buses are often the only alternative to car use and that rural areas therefore suffer disproportionately from bus fare increases or reduced bus services; considers that the review of the National Concessionary Travel Scheme should extend eligibility to older and disabled people using community transport in rural areas, and believes that the provision of efficient and affordable bus services must be supported with the necessary infrastructure on both local and trunk roads, including expanded park-and-ride schemes, bus passenger priority measures and accurate and accessible timetable information."

10:46

Patrick Harvie (Glasgow) (Green): I welcome the opportunity to debate bus transport and I am glad that the issue has been raised. As has been

said, Des McNulty's motion is more of an essay, although I can support some of the issues that it mentions, such as the need to cut fares, through-ticketing and better integration. Most of us would raise no objections to any of that, but Des McNulty is essentially arguing for better application of the current regulatory regime. I would like not only the Labour Party but others to go further than that.

The Local Transport Bill at Westminster takes some steps in the direction of regulation, but Labour peer Lord Berkeley goes beyond the Government's proposals with his amendment on so-called "tendered network zones", which would give real power to local authorities to designate an area in which it will design the services that are to operate.

The Labour Party's elected members could have gone in the direction of their colleague Huw Lewis in the National Assembly for Wales. His proposed provision of bus and coach services legislative competence order—the assembly's jargon is even better than ours—would reintroduce a public service ethos to public transport provision and require local authorities to ensure that communities are well served by a regular, modern and safe bus service. That public service ethos and direction towards some form of regulation is something that the Labour Party's elected members in other parts of the UK are working on; I hope that we will see something more in that direction than merely applying the current regulatory regime.

As for the Conservative amendment, the response to Des McNulty's essay is a dissertation from Alex Johnstone, who speaks of an

"excellent service to passengers across Scotland".

I am not sure whether the Conservatives live in the same Scotland as I do. I am not surprised that they extol the virtues of competition, but the reality—I hope that they can accept this—is that the impacts of competition are mixed. There is little doubt that in some areas competition has been beneficial, but there is equally little doubt that in many other areas competition has failed bus passengers and is still failing them.

The Conservative amendment places an emphasis on companies that are enjoying "unparalleled global success". I have no objection to Scottish companies enjoying success, but in this case the amendment seems to imply that the success of those companies should be an objective of transport policy—it should not. Good quality bus services at an affordable price should be the objective. I suspect that political thought in this area still owes something to the misguided words of Margaret Thatcher, who apparently said that any man who finds himself on a bus at the age of 30 can consider himself to be a failure. Too

many still see buses as the option of last resort for those who cannot afford anything else.

I am advised that the Liberal Democrats' position of welcoming Labour's reregulation proposal is a federal position, but apparently it does not hold throughout the federal structure. It is possible that federalism is working about as well inside the Liberal Democrat Party as it would if it were applied to the whole country. Alistair Carmichael said:

"David Cameron's Tories are now totally isolated on this issue",

but perhaps he should have said that David Cameron's Tories and the Scottish Liberal Democrats are now totally isolated on the issue.

The SNP's position is interesting. In opposition, it supported reregulation. Kenny MacAskill's proposed member's bill received support from Kenneth Gibson, Linda Fabiani, Nicola Sturgeon and others. I hope that the SNP will revisit and revise its position on reregulation in the interests of bus passengers, not in the interests of bus operating companies.

I move amendment S3M-2121.2, to insert at end:

"recognises the need, beyond the short term, to consider the most appropriate regulatory environment for bus services to operate within, given the mixed impacts of competition in the industry and the positive results that have been achieved in countries and cities which use stronger forms of bus regulation, and calls on the Scottish Government to consult on the full range of options for the future of bus services."

10:51

Cathy Peattie (Falkirk East) (Lab): Public transport is one of the most persistent and widespread sources of dissatisfaction among my constituents. With the possible exception of our larger cities, I suspect that that is a common experience among MSPs.

I wish that First ScotRail would give my constituents a better deal. Fares from Falkirk and Polmont to Edinburgh and Glasgow are more per mile than most. A passenger station in Grangemouth would also be exceedingly welcome.

Rail might be expensive and serve too few places, but bus travel is undoubtedly the biggest bugbear. If we are serious about tackling climate change and encouraging people to use public transport, we need better buses, more routes and timetables that meet the public's needs. It is too easy to say that there is no demand when the lack of services has forced travellers to use private transport. It is too easy to say that people would rather use their cars and that buses are uncomfortable, inaccessible and expensive. It is

also too easy to say that services are not viable when, if the truth be known, they arrive late, leave early and miss connections, if they appear at all. People need reliable and affordable public transport that is a pleasure to use, not a nightmare. Without it, we will not achieve our targets for modal shift and climate change.

To be fair, some bus companies realise their shortcomings and the better among them attempt to take on board passengers' views, but the bottom line is always profits, not people.

Competition between bus companies is often imperfect, if it exists at all. In such circumstances, we cannot expect companies to provide adequate self-regulation and to achieve proper integration of public transport. We need Scotland-wide regulation. We also need to address the Scottish Government's policies, which have left Scotland's bus operators with higher costs than those in other parts of the United Kingdom and have led to massive fare increases for bus passengers throughout Scotland. We have seen a secret deal to extend the rail franchise and higher-than-inflation increases in rail fares. There has also been outrage among users of ferry services on the Clyde, in the northern isles and on most routes in Argyll because of discrimination in ferry fares between islands.

In particular, we should strive for better provision for older and disabled travellers, and young families with prams and small children. Bus timetables should include information about low-loader and accessible buses. I still hear stories about disabled people waiting an hour or more for an accessible bus. That is not good enough.

Free bus passes have been very well received by the people of Scotland. I have yet to hear a good reason for not extending concessionary travel to those who are on the lower rate of the disability allowance. We must also address the need for a concessionary travel scheme for those who depend on community transport, and I welcome what the minister said about that. It is time to stop dithering and to regain the momentum to improve public transport in Scotland.

10:54

Christopher Harvie (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP): I will address themes that are raised in Age Concern's paper on the situation for the elderly, as I suspect that we heroic band of wrinklies have contributed rather more than Mr Johnstone's politicians to the relative rise in the use of bus transport over the past couple of years.

The graph that I am holding up shows that in 1983 there were about 650 million bus journeys a year. Today, that figure has declined to about 480 million journeys a year. That has happened at a

time when the pressures on the oil supply have been demonstrated by the price per barrel of oil, which has increased fourteenfold since 1999. In fact, we may now be at a clinch position such that, within the next 20 years, we shall have to say farewell to our conventional notions of motoring. If that means saying farewell to Jeremy Clarkson, I am all in favour. It is dreadful to think that, instead of Clarkson, we once had the marvellous cultural phenomenon that was—alas no more—the Central Scottish clippie, who could do wonders for fashion with hairpins and dayglo ties and things like that.

Today, the situation in Scotland is that on average we travel about 120 times a year by bus. In Germany, where people do not have concessionary fares, they travel about 240 times a year by bus. The Swiss—not a nation noted for impoverishment—travel anything up to 420 times a year by their enormous and varied forms of public transport. In my town of Tübingen in Germany, our bus patronage increased by 300 per cent between 1995 and 2006, from 6 million passengers to 18 million passengers. If we compare that with the Scottish situation, we realise how well Europe has been doing on bus transport.

How do those countries do that? They have co-ordination and accurate timekeeping. Here, anyone who attempts to take the number 35 bus will have a good saga of what we might call wilfulness on the part of bus routes. There, the buses turn up on time and the driver's cab includes a thing that goes "Ping!" to show the driver which stop he ought to be at. They also have interavailability of tickets.

Alex Johnstone: Does the member recognise the irony in the fact that what most delays Edinburgh's buses at the moment is the construction of the tramlines?

Christopher Harvie: We have a common cause, although I think that even Mr Johnstone supported the trams. When we have a tramway, we will have the natural progress of a rise in bus patronage because buses will have to become more efficient.

An important point is that 80 per cent of German bus passengers travel on season tickets, so buses need to spend seconds, rather than minutes, at each stop. A bus that is paused, like a tram that is paused, is a piece of totally useless metal; buses need to be in circulation all the time. That happens in Germany but not here.

I agree with Help the Aged's programme: we need convenience, effective timetabling and good toilets. Alas, I have reached the Mr Godfrey stage, where that last point is becoming very important.

The skill and dedication of our bus crews are undeniable—anyone who takes an X95 out on the

A7 needs the reflexes of a battle of Britain pilot—but we must have better management. We must also look at competition policy as a way of, if necessary, banging heads together. However, co-ordination can also be achieved in that way.

The bus is our future. If we miss it—thinking in global terms—there will not be another one along ever.

10:59

Elaine Murray (Dumfries) (Lab): Before I start my short speech, I associate myself with Christopher Harvie's views on Jeremy Clarkson, as I agree that the deification of petrol heads as role models for our young people is not good in the current situation. On the issue of intelligent bus stops—those that tell passengers when their bus is expected—I point out that we had hoped to introduce such stops in Dumfries but, unfortunately, they have been delayed by more than a year due to the clawback of a considerable amount of funding from the south-west of Scotland transport partnership. I still need to get to the bottom of why SWESTRANS has lost out on hundreds of thousands of pounds that would have been invested in improving public transport in Dumfries and Galloway.

Some of the most acute transport problems are faced by residents of rural Scotland, where public transport services are much less frequent and where, because of the low population density, a higher proportion of bus routes require subsidy—by passenger transport partnerships such as SWESTRANS—to be viable. The provision of integrated public transport is a significant challenge in rural Scotland, which results in greater reliance on the private car. However, demographic changes in rural areas mean that an increasing number of rural residents are elderly and that the private car may become untenable for financial or health reasons.

The increases in the price of fuel have been mentioned. There are difficult political views on how the issue could be addressed, but I doubt that there is any disagreement about the fact that they have caused a particular problem in rural Scotland, where prices at the pump are generally higher, distances travelled are greater and traveller numbers are lower than in urban areas. In such areas, it is difficult to sustain low fuel prices. The Scottish Government's decision not to pass on the bus service operators grant to compensate for rises in fuel duty will hit rural services harder, as they have higher mileages and lower passenger numbers.

Bus operators in Scotland now have the highest fuel costs in the UK. Unfortunately, there has been a huge percentage increase in fares in Dumfries

and Galloway, where, as in other parts of Scotland, many people are reliant on buses. As fares go up, the attraction of using public transport is reduced, especially to families and larger groups. Recently a lady came to a surgery to complain to me about the cost of bus services from Brydekirk to Annan and from Annan to Carlisle. Sadly, there was not much that I, as a local member, could do about that.

I was encouraged by the minister's response to questions about the national concessionary travel scheme, especially as that may relate to community transport. The capping of the scheme at a time when ticket prices are rising raises concerns that it will not be possible to develop it as many of us hoped, so I am gratified by the minister's response to Alison McInnes. I, too, would like concessionary travel to be extended to community transport schemes, which provide a tremendous service in places such as Dumfries and Galloway.

There is an extremely successful community transport scheme in Annandale. Transport is provided by volunteer drivers, who take elderly people to day centres and general practitioners and on supermarket trips, days out and visits to leisure facilities. Vehicles have been purchased through a variety of capital funding schemes, including the Scottish Executive's rural community transport initiative, but generally revenue costs must be met by users, many of whom are entitled to concessionary travel but are currently unable to use it on community transport buses. The previous Executive committed itself to consider extending the scheme to community transport after the first two years of its operation. I add my voice to those of Cathy Peattie and Alison McInnes and ask the minister to give careful consideration to including voluntary transport schemes such as community transport initiatives in the new concessionary travel scheme, so that those passengers, too, may access the scheme.

11:03

Keith Brown (Ochil) (SNP): I intended to open my speech with the same quotation that Patrick Harvie used a short time ago—Margaret Thatcher's dictum that anyone over the age of 26 who is on a bus can consider themselves a failure. It is a mark of progress that these days most people would indulge in self-reproach if they found themselves not on a bus, but the lone person in a car driving to work.

A few years ago, Scotland's parties recognised the importance of bus travel by coming together to set up the national concessionary travel scheme for older people. Once again, they followed where the innovative and pathfinding SNP council in Clackmannanshire had led. In fact, the national

scheme was a step back for Clackmannanshire. In 1999-2000, when we received a genuinely bad local government settlement, as even the Labour opposition agreed, we introduced a completely free concessionary travel scheme that operated not off-peak but throughout the day—the best scheme in Scotland before or since.

Scotland already recognises and values bus travel more than any other part of these islands. Scotland spends 20 per cent more per head than England on the bus service operators grant and almost double what England spends on concessionary travel. That is real money, and it makes the carping from Labour and the Liberal Democrats look a bit sour. We have heard accusations that the Government treats its time as starting from year zero. That is certainly true of the Liberal Democrats and Labour as far as this debate is concerned. It is as if nothing had gone before; as if the refusal of those parties to make the changes that they are now calling for had never happened.

By contrast, it was a positive development when the Parliament came together on the concessionary travel scheme. People could point to something good coming from the Parliament and see how politicians could work to improve their lives. In an ideal world, we would give free transport to everybody but, as David Hume first observed, when a society is not in a state of total abundance and does not have unlimited resources, it must prioritise.

In government, Labour prioritised not to give the groups concerned free travel. In opposition, Labour members have apparently changed their minds. That is their prerogative, but if they now want the Government instantly to pre-empt its own review to introduce a measure that the previous Administration did not, and which Labour did not propose at the time of the budget, that is at the very least presumptuous.

Charlie Gordon (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab): Will the member take an intervention on that point?

Keith Brown: No, I will not. It is certainly hypocritical of Labour. To be fair, Alison McInnes should consider where the breathtaking hypocrisy in the debate lies.

One of the underlying problems is the cost of fuel, which has been mentioned. We spoke about the effect of that on food prices in a Conservative-led debate a few weeks ago and it is an inseparable part of the issue that we are discussing now. Even with the spending by the United Kingdom Government, bus fares are going up throughout the UK, including in Reading, east Yorkshire, York, Bolton, Eastbourne, Sheffield and Oxford.

The SNP at Westminster has proposed that any increase in VAT revenue derived from rising fuel prices should automatically be spent on a corresponding reduction in fuel duty. That fuel regulator proposal is thoughtful and revenue neutral, and it has the support of just about every industry group going. It would have been nice to have heard some views on the matter from Labour members.

People are obviously concerned about increasing bus fares. I have had correspondence from people in Kinross about the above-inflation increases on the Kinross to Edinburgh route. Perhaps that is another reason for a direct Perth-Kinross-Edinburgh rail link—but I am sure that I will be told that that is a debate for another time. The Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change reopened the rail link in Clackmannanshire just recently and we have undercut the bus journey to Stirling. Together, rail and bus, with a through-ticketing system promoted by the Scottish ministers—which the motion calls for—can help us to address Scotland's needs.

Figures released yesterday from the annual Scottish household survey say that the percentage of people going to work by car increased from 67 to 69 per cent between 2006 and 2007—although I heard on the news last night that there has been a 20 per cent reduction in fuel use for private travel. Better bus transport can help us to reduce the percentage of car commuters, which would contribute to making Scotland wealthier and greener. I would much rather be here debating a range of constructive, and even original, ideas than a motion that is just an anti-Government wish list calling for more money and more central control. I support Stewart Stevenson's amendment to Alex Johnstone's amendment.

11:07

Pauline McNeill (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab): Not so long ago, I led a debate on the 20^th anniversary of bus deregulation, asking whether it had served the country well. We had a good, balanced debate that evening. Although deregulation has brought some clear benefits, communities that have had their services changed or withdrawn or that have no service at all have been disadvantaged. It is extraordinary that neither central Government nor local authorities have powers to challenge that. Instead, the public purse has had to subsidise services that have been reinstated by transport partnerships. That is why Des McNulty is correct to raise the question of funding for transport partnerships, as they are often the safety net for remote or poorer communities whose services have been withdrawn. In some cases, the bus operator that withdrew a service has put in a bid for the same service in order to get a public

subsidy. There are no powers to prevent that, or the cherry picking of the best routes.

We need to consider some powers of direction if we cannot achieve the necessary agreement or partnership with the bus industry. The Conservatives call such an approach heavy handed, but in government they presided over deregulation. Alex Johnstone failed to point out that there is now virtually no regulation at all and no restriction on competition. I feel passionately that we must get the balance right. We must continue to make changes to the current system.

The motion in Des McNulty's name also refers to

"the Competition Commission's stance on the level of communication that can occur between public transport operators on issues such as timetabling".

If we cannot achieve agreement on such issues, we might need stronger powers over the bus industry. The Parliament and ministers must be able to give bus users the services that they need and want, ensuring that bus operators co-operate on timetabling and through-ticketing. Indeed, any issue that gives the public the service that they should have—even if it slightly interferes with competition—must win through.

Stewart Stevenson: It may be helpful if I tell the member that I am absolutely confident that we will be able to create a structure for timetabling co-ordination between competing companies.

Pauline McNeill: I am pleased to hear that. Progress has been too slow, and we all know where we need to be on that.

In fairness, the attention that the Parliament has been giving to the bus industry is beginning to provoke a response from bus operators, largely because they do not want any form of regulation to be introduced. I welcome the discussions that I have had locally with bus operators who have responded to service change and the withdrawal of services. However, we cannot slacken in our determination to see change in the bus service framework, or the bus industry will slacken, too.

Every member has experienced services being withdrawn from their communities and it is a priority for the Parliament to make progress on that. There are some great examples in the Strathclyde partnership for transport area, where the use of compliance officers and the five-point action plan demonstrate that we can achieve things through working in partnership.

The bus subsidy, through the concessionary scheme, gets one third of its funding from public money. That means that bus operators must be accountable to the public in some way and it is up to us to ensure that they are.

The SNP Government must please say whether it will extend the concessionary scheme to those who are on the lower level of incapacity benefit.

11:12

Willie Coffey (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP): If bus travellers today were asked what they want from their bus services, not many would come up with

"effective implementation of regulatory arrangements",

although I am willing to give that a wee try tonight by asking a few passengers on the bus home from Glasgow to Kilmarnock. If anything is needed in the industry, it must surely be stability in costs to operators and improved quality service at an affordable price to the public, which would allow them comfortably to switch from their cars to buses and trains.

The improvements that have been made in bus services in Ayrshire over the past few years have been very impressive, and passenger numbers are on the up. The quality of the buses is first class, and service frequency is responsive to passenger demands. Service improvements are encouraging people on to the buses, so we must try to build on the successes that have been achieved.

One of the biggest threats to the industry is the rise in fuel prices. As has been mentioned, Lothian Buses has estimated that its fuel costs are 83 per cent higher than they were a year ago. We must not forget the rising utility bills that are also faced by the industry. Stagecoach in Ayrshire estimates that its utility bills have risen by 40 per cent year on year. To its credit, Stagecoach has pegged back its price increases to date, but it expects that increases will be required in August, which is when it has its annual fares review. If fuel prices continue to rise, Stagecoach will inevitably have to think about further fare rises during the course of the year. Those are the real factors that are influencing what is happening, and they present significant challenges to Government as it tries to respond effectively. They are the real threats to the gains that have been made over the past few years.

The fuel duty regulator, which has been mentioned by my colleague, is a practical response to the currently increasing fuel prices. The proposal would see extra taxes from higher pump prices being used to cut fuel duties. Why should the Westminster Government rake in £4 billion in additional North Sea oil revenues yet do little to alleviate the damaging effects on the bus industry and the wider transport industry in Scotland?

I turn to some of the points that are made in the motion and the amendments to it. The SNP

Government has invested about £260 million a year in buses and has increased the bus service operator grant by £4 million. Local authority budgets will increase by 13 per cent over the next three years. All those measures will help to drive down costs, encourage new routes and offer the travelling public a real choice.

The congratulations that have been offered to Lothian Buses, First Group and Stagecoach are well made and certainly merited, as are congratulations for the Stagecoach bio-bus in my constituency, which was mentioned by Alison McInnes.

The Labour Party excluded from the concessionary fares scheme people who are on the low-grade disability living allowance. I hope—as do many members—that something can be done in the forthcoming review of the scheme to address that to ensure that people who deserve concessionary travel receive it.

We are living in a time when serious choices have to be made. Those choices are about how we go about our daily business and, in the context of this debate, how we get to work and back. The daily commute that sees hundreds of thousands of motorists heading in one direction in the morning and then in the opposite direction at night every working day is a crazy situation that is not sustainable in the long term.

Perhaps we should reflect on new ideas to encourage motorists out of their cars and onto buses and trains. We have to keep improving the services with more park-and-ride opportunities to make the switch easier for people to make. Perhaps new incentives are required, too. I made the journey from car to bus and train a few years ago and it was a great decision—no more endless traffic jams and frustrations about being late for appointments. Instead, I could look forward to the calm and relaxing atmosphere of the buses and trains, the opportunity to work and to relax and the chance to meet people going about their business. That is the real challenge behind the debate. I have great pleasure in supporting the Government's amendment.

11:16

Patrick Harvie: Des McNulty began by asserting that free bus travel was perhaps the best measure that has been taken by the Scottish Parliament. It is a strong contender for that crown, not least because, unlike the smoking ban that we supported with few exceptions, the policy of free bus travel can be further progressed. That is why it will continue to grow in popularity.

Des McNulty acknowledged that aspects of the policy are not working, but they are not just failures in quality partnerships and contracts; I

argue that they are also failures in competition. I suspect that Des McNulty and many of his colleagues would agree. He talked about the cost of fuel and the changed relationship between central and local government as two new factors. It is right in new circumstances to look again at the regulatory environment, not just to enforce and apply it better, but to change it and truly achieve transformation in our transport system.

Des McNulty also talked about climate change—we all talk very well about that these days. We call for transformation in our energy system, in housing, in industry and in transport. However, we are not seeing the required transformation. We are seeing a wee bit of change in the right direction but sometimes, too, a wee bit of change in the wrong direction. Road traffic levels are still rising, so buses must be seen as more than merely a supplement to the car or a choice for people who do not own cars.

Alex Johnstone emphasised the fact—it is a fact—that competition has brought some improvements, which I accept. Those of us who advocate reregulation accept that. It is true, but it is insufficient because aside from the improvements, too many people are still putting up with expensive, dirty and unreliable services that are not designed to meet their needs. I continue to regard public transport as a public service: therefore even if-as they are in many cases—the services are operated by private companies, they should be designed and configured in the public's interests.

Stewart Stevenson made a general defence of the Government's policy. There is no great surprise in that; it is his job. He acknowledged the essential contribution that bus services make, but I did not get the feeling that he regards them as part of the public service ethos that I am trying to describe. He also said that buses could make a contribution to climate change, but I regret to say that as with almost every announcement on climate change from the SNP Government, there was no specificity about what will be achieved on climate change and how.

As for the minister's amendment, we all know what he is calling for when he says he wants the UK Government to take measures or to make a response to fuel price rises. We know what he means and I cannot support it. I suspect that no one who has an eye on the long-term consequences could support it, either.

Cathy Peattie spoke clearly in favour of reregulation. I suspect that many members in both major parties hold the same view. The number of Scottish National Party members who signed Kenny MacAskill's bill proposal on the matter in the first session of Parliament supports that view. I had hoped that Sandra White would speak in the

debate—perhaps it was decided that no member who had signed the bill proposal should be called. I would be disappointed if that were the case.

Labour and the SNP should be natural supporters of stronger regulation of bus services. Both parties can make progress towards such a position and I hope that they will do so. The amendment in my name invites the Government merely to begin the process that was supported by Kenny MacAskill and others in a previous session of the Parliament.

The Deputy Presiding Officer: Time is tight, so members must stick to their allocated time.

11:20

Tavish Scott (Shetland) (LD): I always say that to myself as I stand up to speak.

I welcome Willie Coffey's remarks about calm and relaxing bus travel, although that is not always how it feels on the number 5 bus in the morning. Indeed, Mr Renilson, whom Alex Johnstone mentioned, was on the receiving end of a sharp e-mail from me yesterday about why the number 5 never seems to run on time, although maybe that is just a personal impression.

I agree with Alex Johnstone that many more of us are using buses. Members of all parties have talked about the reality of rising fuel costs and changing travel patterns: that has been the flavour of the debate. I agree with Patrick Harvie—although we agree on little else—that travel patterns are changing.

Christopher Harvie was most unfair to Jeremy Clarkson. Professor Harvie and Mr Clarkson are two of a kind in many ways: they are both hugely entertaining, and although we might not agree with everything they say, they certainly enliven debate. Professor Harvie and I serve on the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee and no meeting is complete without an illustration of the problems that Professor Harvie has encountered on the morning bus from Melrose. The committee is none the worse for that and it is always useful to hear from Professor Harvie.

I was intrigued when Patrick Harvie rubbished the SNP on climate change—he used a word that I will not try to pronounce—given that I thought that the other day he and Mr Stevenson had made a joint announcement on climate change. Mr Harvie seems to be in a slightly difficult position.

The tenor of Keith Brown's remarks was a little difficult to understand, given that the Government motion mentions the risk to

"the positive developments in the bus industry in recent years."

Mr Brown should perhaps have thought about what he was signing up to before he made his speech.

Yesterday in Parliament Alex Johnstone and I took part in a good old-fashioned ideological debate about tax and spend in relation to business rates. I thought that today's debate would be about regulation versus deregulation—there has been some of that.

I acknowledge what the minister said about the bus service operators grant, but it is important to note what bus companies and the Confederation of Passenger Transport say. I am sure that the minister pays a great deal of attention to the CPT—he would be well advised to do so. In its briefing for members of all parties, the CPT said:

"The £4m allocated to BSOG during the debate will only cover a shortfall in funding that has been apparent since the publication of the Scottish Spending Review. To spin this £4m as an increase to protect fares and services is a complete misrepresentation."

Those are not my words or those of Labour or Conservative members; they are the CPT's words. I am sure that the minister will reflect on them, and that he has ideas on how to improve the situation in the coming years, but he should not tell Parliament that all is well when the industry says clearly that that is not the case.

I understand and sympathise with many members' comments on concessionary fares. It is important to reflect on the budget lines that Parliament considered earlier this year, which cut the budget in real terms by the end of this parliamentary session. The minister might say that he plans to change that, but parliamentarians can go on only what is in the spending review, according to which the budget will reduce from £189.4 million in 2007-08 to £181.4 million in 2008-09. Members who argue for a widening of the concessionary fares scheme, which is a fair and reasonable argument, must also ask the minister why the budget is being cut and how eligibility for the scheme can be widened while the budget is being cut. That seems to be a difficult circle to square. We look forward to hearing from the minister how he will do that.

11:24

Gavin Brown (Lothians) (Con): Clearly, bus travel is extremely important in Scotland today and it will, and should, become even more important in the future. Scottish Conservatives welcome the debate that the Labour Party has brought to the chamber today.

Before I move on to address some issues that have cropped up in the debate, I will dwell for a minute or two on the response that we made to the former Scottish Executive's inquiry into bus

transport in 2005, "Bus Policy: Scotland's National Transport Strategy Consultation". I understand that the Scottish Conservatives were the only parliamentary group to submit a response.

I turn to gaps in provision that have resulted from deregulation. Deregulation has been hugely successful, but I accept that there are gaps and that we need to address them. One idea that we referred to in our response in 2005, but which has not been raised in the debate thus far, is stakeholder boards. That ambitious alternative is based on the model that the Oxford Bus Company has put in place south of the border. Its stakeholder board sits separate from the company board and is tasked with a monitoring and advisory role. Membership of the stakeholder board includes employees, customers, local business and transport user groups. Crucially, although it sits to the side of the company board, it is chaired by the company's managing director. The stakeholder board is not simply a talking shop; it is an integral part of the company's operations. If that model can operate successfully south of the border in Oxford, perhaps something like it can be part of the solution north of the border, too.

It is also worth looking at the fact that voluntary partnerships between bus companies, local authorities and transport groups have been more successful than the statutory partnerships. Des McNulty made the point that no statutory partnerships were set up as a result of the legislation. We have to ask why. Perhaps too much red tape was involved or the costs were too high. By comparison, voluntary partnerships such as the one between Stagecoach and Perth and Kinross Council have been relatively successful. In its evidence in 2005, the former National Federation of Bus Users—now Bus Users UK—stated that bus users are

"best served where there are voluntary partnerships".

If the voluntary approach is deemed to have been more successful that the statutory approach has been, instead of simply harking back to the 1980s and saying that regulation is the answer, we need to learn that lesson.

I was looking forward to hearing what Patrick Harvie would say in the debate on regulation. His amendment is intriguing: it suggests that he was going to tell the chamber about lots of "countries and cities" where regulation is extremely successful. He made two speeches in the debate, but said not a jot on that subject. He simply stated that regulation would be successful, but gave no examples. Certainly, he gave no example of where a country or city has successfully gone from deregulation to regulation. It was a pity that Parliament did not hear about that—perhaps there are no such examples.

We welcome the review of the bus service operators grant, albeit that the process should be speeded up. Of course, the additional £4 million was welcome at the time, but I accept the point that various groups have made that it covered only a shortfall and that it leaves Scottish bus companies at a relative disadvantage to companies south of the border, particularly since the 2p increase came into effect in October 2007.

Scottish Conservatives do not want to turn the clock back; we want to move forward with the ideas that we have proposed. We welcome the concessionary scheme review that is to commence next week. I reiterate the point that we made earlier that we cannot ignore the fact that the former Executive did not open up the scheme to other categories of disability: the Labour Party is wrong in what it said on that. Perhaps in its closing summation, it will address why it did not do that.

11:28

Stewart Stevenson: I am not grossly offended by having remarks that Margaret Thatcher made directed at me in the debate. Two members may have quoted her, but I speak as a minister who has been out and about in Edinburgh this week on the number 1, 22 and 36 bus. Heigh-ho—that is how it goes.

Cathy Peattie made some particularly valuable remarks on disability. Both of us share a strong interest in ensuring that disability is not a barrier to participation in transport and wider society. I know of her long-held position on the subject and I agree that there is a big challenge to be met in respect of all transport modes. I am glad that more and more buses are becoming accessible for wheelchair users. That is one aspect of improvement, but we must do more.

Chris Harvie referred to patronage levels in 1983. Interestingly, patronage levels started to rise—albeit slightly—before the introduction of the concessionary fares scheme, so members have slightly misunderstood the issue. There is a complex mix of factors. The preliminary figures for the past few months suggest that, at least for the time being, car usage is falling for the first time in recent history, which presents a challenge and opportunity for buses and other modes of public transport.

On the more environmentally focused BSOG, we seek to reach a situation in which only 25 per cent of what is paid relates to mileage.

Alison McInnes: Will the minister give a date for when the negotiations on that will come to a conclusion?

Stewart Stevenson: I cannot give a date at this stage. We are having positive discussions on the

issue with the bus companies and the CPT. We want a scheme that helps companies to improve the quality of their fleets and to move up to the Euro 4 and 5 standard buses that are coming. The proposals are geared to promoting that. We are engaged with the companies and we will make the best progress. We have had comments on partnerships and regulation, on which I will say a little more if I have time.

The Labour motion talks about

"more effective implementation of regulatory arrangements".

We are making real progress on getting people working together, including the police, the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency and councils. The motion mentions the need for resources for regional transport partnerships and councils to complete the bus action plan. Those resources are available, in the increased share of public spending for local government.

The motion expresses concern about fare increases. We should all be concerned about that, but the biggest contributor is undoubtedly the additional tax on the rising fuel prices. People know what can be done about that; I hope that members at Westminster will take it on the chin and do what is required.

The Labour motion highlights through-ticketing. Last week, we announced moves on integrated ticketing. With the completion of the roll-out of new equipment in buses and ScotRail, we are moving ahead on the aim to have one ticket that enables people to access multiple modes of transport. I referred to the discussions that we are having with the Competition Commission, in which we are making good progress.

The point in the motion about

"penalty clauses in rail and ferry contracts"

is a total misunderstanding. There are, in the contracts, no constraints that materially inhibit good connections, although there are significant issues for the industry as a result of other players, such as Network Rail and the charges that it imposes for use of train stations. We are working on that, too.

Are high fuel prices a threat or an opportunity? The answer is that they are both. They are an opportunity for public transport to show what it can deliver. It is rising to the challenge effectively, as there is increased patronage and reduced car use. However, high fuel prices are also a threat in that they put pressure on the cost base, which is an issue that we will need to watch carefully. In reviewing the concessionary travel scheme, we are continuing measures that our predecessors put in place. We support the Green amendment, because improved regulation has a role. Mr

Johnstone should note that we have far from bought into the idea that everything that is good in buses stems from the deregulation that the Tories introduced.

11:34

Charlie Gordon (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab): Improving bus services matters a great deal to many ordinary Scots, but one might not think so from reading the Government's amendment, which in effect says that high oil prices are a significant opportunity for the bus industry, but that it cannot take that opportunity because of high oil prices. Yesterday, the Great I Am, also known as the First Minister—that former oil economist who predicts a rosy future for an independent Scotland because of high oil prices—skipped his day job so that he could complain at Westminster about high oil prices. No doubt, we will hear more of that today at First Minister's questions—ad nauseam, if not ad infinitum.

Ordinary Scots mainly want to hear the Scottish Parliament address issues such as the one that is raised in Labour's motion—issues that are within Parliament's competence. Bus services really do matter to the man on the Cathcart omnibus. To be fair, Stewart Stevenson made a substantially constructive contribution to the debate.

The Government's informal coalition partners—the Tories—are Thatcherite about buses. According to them, everything in the garden is rosy thanks to Maggie's Transport Act 1985, which deregulated the bus industry. The reality on our streets is somewhat different. Recently, an academic travelled to Glasgow for a seminar on bus deregulation. He had never been there before. He took a train to Glasgow Central and went to a bus stop on nearby Hope Street, where he asked a Glasgow woman, "How do I get to the university?" "Stick in at yer exams, son," she said. He soon boarded a number 44 for Glasgow University. After 10 minutes, the bus had travelled 200 yards up Hope Street, which is always congested with buses. Agitated at the thought of being late for his seminar, the academic remonstrated with the bus driver: "Can't you go any faster?" "Aye, pal—but Ah'm no allowed tae leave the bus unattended."

That is just one way in which market forces are failing Glasgow bus users, but there are others. High emissions are caused by bus congestion. In March, eight operators were reported to traffic commissioners by Glasgow City Council for 158 breaches, and 10 firms were reported the following month for 108 breaches. The city council seeks agreement to a tough new code of bus standards. In a poll on 9 June, 95.7 per cent of Evening Times readers who replied agreed that bus

companies should be forced to agree to such a code.

Evening Times readers are not the only people who hunger for a better deal on the buses. In its briefing for this debate, Help the Aged puts emphasis on, among other things, better accessibility on vehicles and the need to allow community transport vehicles into the national concessionary scheme.

The Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee's inquiry into ferry services has heard plenty of evidence of poor integration of buses with ferry services. Integrated or through ticketing involving buses is still a rarity.

Of course, plenty examples of good practice exist through voluntary partnerships between bus companies and local authorities—for example, quality bus corridors and real-time information schemes. Bus lanes are being combined with higher-quality bus service inputs.

I want to make a central point: it can be argued that councils that invest in bus infrastructure are gambling with council tax payers' cash because bus companies are under no legal obligation whatever to co-operate in the use of such infrastructure. It seems that provisions for quality bus partnerships and quality bus contracts under the terms of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 act are dead letters, as they have never been used. Perhaps the provisions should be enlivened by having them address some of the issues that have been mentioned in today's debate, such as the co-ordination that Professor Harvie talked about, service integration, through ticketing, fare levels, emissions, vehicle accessibility and community transport. Many issues are reserved powers, but there are ways around that. Another issue to consider is the trade union rights of bus workers.

Despite the mean-spirited points that were made by Alex Johnstone and Gavin Brown, the cost of concessionary travel for the vulnerable groups we are concerned about was already in the Scottish Government's base budget of last year. I ask the Government in all conscience to restore, please, those vulnerable people's travel cards. Let us stop playing politics with vulnerable people.

We note the revelation from the minister that people with learning difficulties are eligible and that the Government will advise them all to reapply. As Patrick Harvie pointed out, legislation on a degree of regulation is being mooted in both England and Wales. At this stage, no one is advocating a return to municipal bus operations or London's bureaucratic and expensive bus franchising system, but we must act on the concerns of bus passengers, which means that leaving them at the mercy of market forces is no longer an option.

Question Time

Scottish Executive

General Questions

11:40

North Lanarkshire (Pupil Attainment)

1. John Wilson (Central Scotland) (SNP): I draw to members' attention my entry in the register of members' interests.

To ask the Scottish Executive what discussions are taking place with North Lanarkshire Council in respect of concerns highlighted in its audit of best value report about pupil attainment levels in secondary 3 to S6. (S3O-3718)

The Minister for Children and Early Years (Adam Ingram): The quality of education in North Lanarkshire is a matter for the council. We expect North Lanarkshire Council to take the necessary action to secure continuous improvement in its schools, and our experience is that that is happening. The education functions of the council remain subject to regular review by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education.

John Wilson: I draw to the minister's attention the Accounts Commission report of May 2008, "The Audit of Best Value and Community Planning: North Lanarkshire Council", which states that the council

"needs to improve some core services, most importantly in S3-S6 secondary educational attainment and pupil attendance".

Does the minister agree that that issue should be looked at? Will he take on board the fact that he might have to discuss S3 to S6 attainment and attendance levels with North Lanarkshire Council?

Adam Ingram: It is important to stress that the best-value report contained no recommendations for ministers to take forward. North Lanarkshire Council has responsibility for addressing the issues that auditors or inspectors bring to its attention. Of course, Government policies such as the early years framework should help to address some of the disadvantages that children in North Lanarkshire face. Implementation of the curriculum for excellence will also bring significant advances.

The council will, no doubt, refer to "included, engaged and involved part 1: attendance in Scottish schools", the national guidance on promoting attendance and managing absenteeism, which the Government produced last December.

Karen Whitefield (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab): Does the minister agree that it is disappointing that Councillor Wilson has chosen to highlight one of the few negative points in the audit of best value, which is on an issue that North Lanarkshire Council raised at the beginning of the audit process? Does he agree that it is important that we acknowledge the many positive points that the best-value audit made about North Lanarkshire Council's education service and that we congratulate the council on the improvements that it has made in attainment in primary education and early years across the authority area and on its widely recognised work on vocational education for pupils in S3 to S6? Perhaps Councillor Wilson should raise the points that he made with the council.

Adam Ingram: I suggest to the member that this is an appropriate place for any member to raise concerns about issues that affect their constituents. That said, I am prepared to endorse her approval of North Lanarkshire Council's education function. I have had the pleasure of visiting North Lanarkshire and have seen the good work that is going on there.

Exam Results

2. Joe FitzPatrick (Dundee West) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Government whether there are any plans to review the presentation of exam results. (S3O-3700)

The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning (Fiona Hyslop): The Scottish Government provides a range of information on exam results through national statistics publications and the Scottish schools online website. Those products have been designed to provide a clear and rounded picture of attainment by placing the results in context. We regularly consult stakeholders on the presentation of statistical information on attainment. That will be particularly important in light of the curriculum for excellence programme.

Joe FitzPatrick: The cabinet secretary will be aware that college suits some pupils better than school. Those pupils begin their qualifications in school and go on to complete them in college. It seems unfair that the school gets no credit in the official statistics for those success stories. In fact, in the way in which the figures are calculated, the school's performance is marked down. Will she agree to examine how the results are presented to ensure that schools are not penalised for supporting students in making the best choice for their individual attainment?

Fiona Hyslop: Exam results are presented in a way that provides the most accurate picture of attainment by an entire cohort. Staying-on rates are also presented alongside exam results to give

an indication of their potential impact on the figures.

We launched a consultation document on national qualifications arrangements on Tuesday. The presentation of exam results will be considered in line with curriculum for excellence developments and national qualifications arrangements resulting from the consultation. We will bear in mind the points made by the member, but I reassure him that the staying-on rates should give some recognition to the fact that some pupils go on to college to take examinations.

Adults Returning to Learning (Support)

3. John Park (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab): To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to provide opportunities, support and empowerment for adults who wish to return to learning. (S3O-3753)

The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning (Fiona Hyslop): Our skills strategy "Skills for Scotland: A Lifelong Skills Strategy", which was published last year, set out our plans and aspirations for a cohesive lifelong learning system. A key ambition is establishing a learning environment with simple structures and supported transitions, making it easier for all Scotland's individuals to access and move through learning.

We are turning that ambition into a reality, and the Government has produced a number of initiatives. We have announced changes to individual learning account Scotland that will specifically direct more funding at harder-to-reach learners—those on low incomes, with lower skill levels or with adult literacy and numeracy needs. We have developed the new higher education £500 part-time grant that will be delivered through ILA Scotland and which will be introduced for the 2008-09 academic session. The grant will give thousands of low-income part-time students fee support for the first time. We are also providing an additional £1 million annually to higher education institutions' discretionary funds to support part-time students' study, travel and child care costs.

Those are examples of how we are realigning our skills infrastructure to ensure that the learning and skills opportunities available to all continue to meet the needs of Scotland's individuals and employers.

John Park: I thank the cabinet secretary for that comprehensive answer. I look forward in particular to seeing how the ILA proposals develop.

The cabinet secretary will be aware that a legal right to time off is being discussed at Westminster, and the United Kingdom Government proposal has support from both the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress. It may

be that that is an educational right rather than an employment right. Where does the Scottish Government stand on that? Will it support the UK Government's view that it is an employment right? If it was an educational right, would the Scottish Government support it for Scottish workers?

Fiona Hyslop: I am well aware of that development and the member's proposed apprenticeship rights (Scotland) bill, which deals with related matters. We will examine closely the on-going question whether the Westminster Government's proposal is for a legal right to time off, which is an employment issue, or a legal right to request time off, which is perhaps an educational issue. We will monitor developments, and I will be pleased to talk to the member further as the consultation on his bill progresses.

Ian McKee (Lothians) (SNP): Is the cabinet secretary concerned that the high cost of community use of some school premises because of private finance initiative contracts could inhibit some adults from returning to learning?

Fiona Hyslop: I recognise that the member has a clear interest in the point. One benefit of ending ring fencing as part of the historic concordat that we signed with local government is that that has given South Lanarkshire Council, for example, the opportunity to remove the costs of many of the lets of its community facilities and schools, enabling greater provision of a variety of activities, including community education.

Class Size Reductions

4. Marlyn Glen (North East Scotland) (Lab): To ask the Scottish Executive how it intends to reduce class sizes in primaries 1 to 3 to a maximum of 18 by 2011, in light of the findings of last month's survey by the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland. (S3O-3732)

The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning (Fiona Hyslop): The concordat states that, as quickly as possible, local authorities will reduce class sizes in P1 to P3 to a maximum of 18. Local government will be expected to show year-on-year progress towards delivery of the class size reduction policy. At the meeting of the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee on 28 May, ADES expressed support for that concordat commitment.

Between 6,000 and 6,500 teachers are projected to leave teaching each year for the next few years. The Scottish Government will deliver more than 20,000 teachers in training by 2011 to support educational needs, including reducing class sizes. There are specific resources in the local government settlement to maintain teacher numbers at 53,000 at a time of falling school rolls,

which will enable the concordat commitment on class sizes to be met.

Marlyn Glen: We know that ADES is concerned about the programme's costs, which are £62 million each year for staffing and £360 million for 900 additional classrooms. I note from the cabinet secretary's answer the promise of year-on-year progress and reductions "as quickly as possible", but the promise was to reduce class sizes by 2011. Will she share with members the details of whether each local authority has included plans for class size reduction in its single outcome agreement? How and when does each authority plan to achieve the promised reductions?

Fiona Hyslop: I refer the member to the variety of written answers that have been supplied on single outcome agreements.

A briefing from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities that members might have received in recent days says:

"We are also aware that there have been ... references in the media and in political circles to the need for £360m to meet the costs of reducing class sizes in P1-P3. This figure emerged in an ADES submission to the Education Committee. The ADES submission makes it clear that this is their estimated cost of implementing this policy with immediate effect. ADES have acknowledged that immediate implementation of the policy"

for everyone all over Scotland

"is not the intention and we are happy to re-emphasise this point."

Ryder Cup (Scottish Representation)

6. Tom McCabe (Hamilton South) (Lab): To ask the Scottish Executive what further action it can take to ensure significant Scottish representation at the 2014 Ryder cup at Gleneagles, in light of recent concerns raised by Scottish professional golfers. (S3O-3743)

The Minister for Communities and Sport (Stewart Maxwell): The Scottish Government fully supports the two major objectives of "Reaching Higher: Building on the Success of Sport 21", the national strategy for sport, which are to widen participation in sport and improve the performances of Scottish athletes on the international sporting stage.

For golf, we are demonstrating our commitment to those objectives by providing a funding package, which is delivered through sportscotland, of £500,000 per year for clubgolf until 2009-10. In addition, golf receives approximately £400,000 annually from Government and lottery funding that sportscotland distributes, which supports governance, development and performance programmes. The most talented golfers also receive significant support from the Scottish

Institute of Sport and the six area institutes of sport.

Tom McCabe: I acknowledge the good work that the previous Administration did on clubgolf, which the current Administration has continued. However, I respectfully suggest that a significant difference exists between encouraging young people to participate in the sport and the transition from significant amateur achievement to significant achievement on the professional stage.

Scotland will be brought to the world's attention in 2014 through the Commonwealth games, the Ryder cup and other events. It would be tragic if, as the world paid attention to the home of golf in 2014, Scotland did not have significant professional representation at Gleneagles. Will the minister acknowledge the significant gap between the good work on clubgolf and the transition between amateurism and professionalism?

Stewart Maxwell: We recognise the importance of golf to Scotland. Scotland is the home of golf. Clubgolf is not just about giving youngsters the opportunity to experience golf; it involves coaching, competition and spotting the talented golfing stars of the future. The focus of clubgolf's strategy will shift from schools to clubs, where retention, progression and sustainability will be a priority.

Sportscotland supports several golfers—approximately 10 golfers a year—who are in the transition from the amateur to the professional game. Each golfer receives up to £5,000 per annum and they can continue to receive support from the governing body's performance programme, the area institutes and the Scottish Institute of Sport when appropriate.

The evaluation of clubgolf is complete. It identifies the programme's many strengths and the challenges in continuing to develop and deliver it. The evaluation's findings will inform the production of the strategy for 2009 to 2014, which I am sure that Tom McCabe and I agree is a critical phase for the development of golf in Scotland.

The Presiding Officer (Alex Fergusson): I should have pointed out earlier that question 5 has been withdrawn.

Ocean Youth Trust Scotland (Fleet Base)

7. Stuart McMillan (West of Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Government what representations have been made about where to base the Ocean Youth Trust Scotland's fleet of three boats. (S3O-3710)

The Minister for Children and Early Years (Adam Ingram): The Scottish Government has received no representations about the base for the Ocean Youth Trust Scotland's fleet. However, we

are aware that the trust is working with the Riverside Inverclyde urban regeneration company to examine the feasibility of creating a permanent new headquarters at Victoria and east India harbour in Greenock. The Scottish Government recently announced a funding package of £19 million over three years to support the URC's work.

Stuart McMillan: As the minister is aware, Inverclyde is undergoing a regeneration programme. By encouraging businesses and organisations such as the OYT, we will greatly aid that work. I ask him to ensure that the work that is under way with the Riverside Inverclyde URC is sped up and that Inverclyde benefits from the OYT relocating there.

Adam Ingram: I support the Ocean Youth Trust and recently attended the launch and naming of the newest addition to its fleet, the Alba Endeavour. I met the young participants and saw for myself the trust's excellent work in helping to make our young people confident individuals, successful learners, responsible citizens and effective contributors. I look forward to hearing the outcome of the feasibility study into locating its headquarters in Greenock, and I hope that that outcome is achieved.

Affordable Rural Housing

8. Rhoda Grant (Highlands and Islands) (Lab): To ask the Scottish Executive how it is supporting the provision of affordable rural housing. (S3O-3734)

The Minister for Communities and Sport (Stewart Maxwell): In addition to investing £114 million in rural areas this year, we are setting up the new rural homes for rent pilot scheme. Further, we have extended the open market shared equity pilot to several rural areas. The housing supply task force is examining the issues that hamper development in rural areas.

Rhoda Grant: This Government has cut funding to Highlands and Islands housing associations by 26 per cent, which shows ignorance of the cost of providing affordable houses in rural areas. Small Highlands and Islands housing associations such as Lochalsh and Skye and Hebridean, which provide high-quality housing in some of the remotest areas of Scotland, are facing real cuts. In some cases, grants are being slashed by more than half. That will mean less affordable housing in areas that are crying out for more. Will the minister review that decision as a matter of urgency and ensure that people in my constituency are not further disadvantaged by funding cuts?

Stewart Maxwell: That is a rather unimpressive attempt to scaremonger about the affordable housing investment programme over the next

three years. We are investing some £1.5 billion in housing over the next three years. Rural Scotland has retained its share of the national programme. Our budget for rural areas is approximately £114 million, which will provide nearly 1,400 affordable homes in rural areas.

There are a number of other programmes, including rural homes for rent and the open market shared equity pilots that I mentioned. We are investing more money and we will build more houses and ensure that people throughout Scotland get the affordable housing investment and homes that they require. Unfortunately, that was not delivered by the previous Administration.

Johann Lamont (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab): At yesterday's meeting of the Local Government and Communities Committee, one of the minister's officials explained to members that to deal with the cuts in housing association grant, housing associations should look to their reserves. Is Argyll Community Housing Association scaremongering when it explains that because it is a debt-funded registered social landlord, it has no free reserves to subsidise HAG? It has said:

"If these proposals are to be implemented, it would appear the association could only get access to HAG by increasing its rents by over £20 a week."

Is that what this Government describes as better housing that is accessible to those in need?

Stewart Maxwell: Week in, week out, Johann Lamont attempts to scaremonger about the meltdown in the community-based housing association movement. That is a despicable way to behave in the chamber. The Scottish Housing Regulator could not have been clearer when it reported that the sector overall is in good financial health. The sector is well placed to develop more new houses. There is no evidence to suggest that transfer associations and others are in need of special treatment.

The Presiding Officer: Before we come to First Minister's question time, I am delighted to say that the diplomatic corps of Caribbean high commissioners has joined us in the Presiding Officer's gallery for First Minister's question time. High commissioners, on behalf of the Scottish Parliament, I warmly welcome you.

First Minister's Question Time

12:00

Engagements

1. Ms Wendy Alexander (Paisley North) (Lab): To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-869)

The First Minister (Alex Salmond): Later today, I will have meetings to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland. Among my engagements, I will present medals to members of the Lancastria Association of Scotland, who are survivors and relatives of those who perished in the sinking of the Lancastria in June 1940, which was the worst single loss of life for British forces during the second world war. I would like to recognise one of those survivors in particular: Charlie Napier of Inverurie, who is with us in the gallery. [Applause.]

Ms Alexander: I add my welcome.

I am sure that the whole Parliament will wish to extend condolences to the family and friends of all the patients who have suffered as a result of contracting Clostridium difficile in hospital. So far this year at the Vale of Leven hospital, there have been 54 cases, in 41 of which the patient acquired the infection in hospital, and 22 people have now died. Does the First Minister agree that an independent inquiry is now essential?

The First Minister: As Wendy Alexander knows, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing has announced robust measures to get control of hospital-acquired infections in Scotland. All members share the regret and mourning for those who have suffered and died in these circumstances. The best thing that we can do is to reinforce the measures that the health secretary has outlined in order to tackle and defeat the scourge of hospital-acquired infection.

Ms Alexander: I draw the First Minister's attention to the fact that lesser outbreaks at Stoke Mandeville hospital and Maidstone hospital have led to external inquiries. Given that the outbreak may be the most severe ever in Scotland in terms of the mortality rate, an inquiry would be valuable and should be seen to be independent of Government. I urge an inquiry on him.

Given that there was an increase in the number of cases above expected numbers in January and February, why was there a delay until May in investigating the incidents? When were ministers first informed that there was a possible problem?

The First Minister: The Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board inquiry took place when it did—incidentally, we know the full extent of the

outbreak because of that investigation—because it was thought that the immediate priority was to take the robust measures that were required to control the rate of infection. I am sure that Wendy Alexander will understand and support that. We now have the information that we have—the appalling detail of the consequences of the hospital-acquired infection—because of the Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board inquiry into the precise circumstances. The health secretary is perfectly willing to consider whether further inquiry is necessary and is doing so at the moment.

Ms Alexander: Many people will be troubled that there was a delay in investigating the incidents until May although there had been a rise in deaths in January and February. That alone deserves to be looked into, but what really troubles many people is that the first outbreak control meeting was called only on Tuesday this week.

I come back to the point about the health secretary's involvement. When was she made aware of the Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board inquiry, when was she made aware that 54 cases were involved and what action did she take? Why have there been no public statements from ministers on the matter so far?

The First Minister: The health secretary was informed throughout of the measures that Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board was taking. The whole range of circumstances came to light because of the investigation of three cases of C difficile as the health board looked back through its records to see the full extent of the infection. All members must accept that the first thing that one does in such circumstances is to put in place robust measures to control the outbreak. We know the full extent of the outbreak because of the investigation. The health secretary has indicated that she is perfectly willing to consider a wider inquiry and she has made statements to the chamber announcing the initiatives that the Government is taking to get hospital-acquired infections under control in Scotland.

I accept that we as a Government face this responsibility. I hope that all members will regard the control of hospital-acquired infections as a responsibility that we should face as a Parliament and not something out of which we should attempt to make political capital.

Ms Alexander: I am happy to pursue outside the chamber some of the questions that I have raised, but let us come to today. A management meeting is currently taking place at the hospital. Given that this is one of the most severe outbreaks ever in Scotland, is any member of the Scottish Government health department present at the meeting? What reassurances can the First

Minister give to patients and their families that action is now being taken to contain the infection?

The First Minister: The health department is in full contact daily with the health board. The need for a robust response on the control of infections is exactly why we have health boards in the structure that we have in Scotland. Given that I think I am right in saying that the Government has increased expenditure on tackling hospital-acquired infection by 10 times, I do not think that even our sternest critic would accuse us of being complacent in facing this scourge, which we must face together.

Given that the health board has had an inquiry and has published the full extent of the awful circumstances, that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing has said that she is perfectly willing to consider a wider inquiry, that the health board is meeting now to ensure that robust procedures are in place and that the Government has increased expenditure on controlling hospital-acquired infection by 10 times, the last thing that we could be accused of is not facing up to the seriousness of this and other hospital-acquired infections.

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

2. Annabel Goldie (West of Scotland) (Con): To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S3F-870)

The First Minister (Alex Salmond): I have no immediate plans for a formal meeting, although yesterday evening I was in close proximity to him in the House of Commons, albeit in a different lobby.

Annabel Goldie: One does not know who to feel sorry for.

It used to be that criminals and their crimes grabbed the headlines; it is now the criminal justice system that is hitting the headlines. This week, we have read about the increasing number of criminals who are not even being prosecuted. Today, we read that the First Minister had to plead with a mother whose son was thumped in an unprovoked street attack not to flee the country because she no longer feels safe in Scotland. I understand that a similar case of another son who was assaulted will hit the headlines tomorrow. Public confidence in our criminal justice system is haemorrhaging and it will be beyond the power of the First Minister to intervene in every case and to plead with every family of every victim. How will the First Minister stem the haemorrhage and restore confidence?

The First Minister: I read some material that the Conservative justice spokesman released this week about the move to summary justice and the reforms which, incidentally, were supported in the

previous session of Parliament by every party in the chamber.

One concern that I have with the first part of Annabel Goldie's question is that the summary justice reforms carried all-party support and were the right thing to do. They are in the hands of the Procurator Fiscal Service, which is the envy of the world because of its independence of mind and the fact that it is not beholden to anyone for the decisions that it makes and the manner of prosecutions. I do not accept Annabel Goldie's analysis. I think that we have a fine prosecution service, which is discharging its functions extremely well.

We share in common with many western societies an increase in unacceptable violence and disorder and, although we have it in full measure, an overcrowded prison system. The Scottish Government is tackling both those issues, first by increasing prison capacity and, secondly, by introducing the reforms that are required to ensure that some of the people in prison who should not be in prison are not in prison, so that we can ensure that those who should be in prison stay there for the appropriate time. Those measures, like the summary justice reforms, should carry the support of all parties in the chamber.

Annabel Goldie: My party does not question the Crown Office's right to allow fiscals to use discretion, but we are certainly entitled to question whether that discretion is being exercised satisfactorily. Our criminal justice system exists to deter, punish and protect, and it is failing on all three counts.

I hope that the First Minister read with concern the letter in today's Herald from the Society of Solicitors in Airdrie, in which the society expressed its alarm about the dumbing down of our criminal justice system, including cases involving

"charges of lewd and libidinous conduct against children, assault to severe injury and permanent impairment, a variety of indecency cases (again involving children)".

That is in just one sheriffdom. It is part of a growing trend and it is clearly just the tip of the iceberg.

People can seek to blame individuals in the criminal justice system, but the bottom line is that we are seeing a damaging consequence of the Scottish National Party's relentless drive to empty our jails. Does the First Minister agree that we need to get back to a criminal justice system that is there to deter, punish and protect? Does he agree that we need to get our criminal justice system out of the dock and get criminals back into the dock?

The First Minister: The summary justice reforms, which are being properly applied by the

Procurator Fiscal Service, were put through the Parliament unanimously in the previous session—that is, with the support of the Conservative party. The Parliament made those reforms because it trusted our Procurator Fiscal Service to discharge its responsibilities, which it does without fear or favour.

I say gently to Annabel Goldie that many people in Scotland have some degree of concern, some of which is legitimate. For example, one of the reasons for the summary justice reforms was to show that we can afford a legal aid system in Scotland. Inevitably, as we discharge justice more effectively, quickly and practicably, some people will not get the same legal aid funding that they got previously, including some well-known firms of solicitors. I understand their anxiety. We should take the information that comes before us from people who can give it without fear or favour and we should remember that some people might have a little bit of a vested interest in making the comments that they do.

I admire Annabel Goldie's stance on a range of issues, but she is on shaky ground when she talks about criminal justice in Scotland, for three reasons. First, the Conservative party did not build a single prison in 17 years in office. Secondly, it created the automatic early release system in 1993. Bill Aitken describes that system as farcical, but we, with the Conservative party's support, are committed to ending it. Thirdly, when Lord James Douglas-Hamilton was responsible for prisons as Scottish Office Minister for Health and Home Affairs, there were 98 absconds from the open estate in Scotland, as against 69 last year. However, the open prison population then was 290 as against 444 last year. In other words, under the Conservatives, there were three times as many absconds per prisoner as there are now.

I make those points not just to reply in party-political terms to Annabel Goldie—[Laughter.] I said "not just". The Conservative party should take a bit of care and remember its—how shall I put it?—form before it poses as the defender of justice and law and order.

Cabinet (Meetings)

3. Nicol Stephen (Aberdeen South) (LD): To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-871)

The First Minister (Alex Salmond): The next meeting of the Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.

Nicol Stephen: Two weeks ago, on 27 May, the Scottish Government put out a press release celebrating that "hidden waiting lists" have been removed, and that there is now "full transparency"

on waiting times. It said that the Government has got rid of the "smoke and mirrors" and that the number of people waiting for 18 or more weeks is now zero. Does the First Minister think that there are any patients who are not celebrating? For example, does he know how long people are waiting for access to sleep apnoea clinics in Scotland?

The First Minister: As the former Deputy First Minister well knows, such services are not, and never have been, included in the waiting list guarantees. I think that he would be right to recall that smoke and mirrors and hidden waiting lists were the situation when he was Deputy First Minister.

Nicol Stephen: It has all changed now, has it? The chief executive of Grampian NHS Board explains the current situation in a letter about a patient who was referred by his general practitioner to the sleep apnoea clinic at Foresterhill hospital. The letter states:

"The current waiting time for routine appointments is approximately one year ... therefore"

the patient

"has waited the average length of time to have these procedures performed."

In opposition, the SNP said that there was a

"gulf between patients' real life experiences and the statistics highlighted by the government."

In June 2008, we find that not just one patient but an entire service has a waiting time of more than one year. Is this the Scottish National Party's new hidden waiting list? National health service patients in Scotland are waiting more than 18 weeks at a time when the SNP has told us that the number of people waiting is zero. How many more patients are waiting more than 18 weeks? Why are patients waiting, when the Government says that no one is waiting?

The First Minister: Not only have we abolished the hidden waiting lists for patients with guarantees, we are expanding the number of services that come under the waiting time guarantee. Audiology, for example, has been moved into the waiting time guarantee.

After some considerable experience of Nicol Stephen, I have learned to ca cannie with some of the facts that he contributes. Last week, he gave the impression that science funding in Scotland, as demonstrated by the situation in Glasgow, was decreasing. The reason why he referred to Glasgow is that the budget is increasing over the next three years—[Interruption.] It most certainly is true. However, the distribution is now based on visitor numbers. I wonder when Nicol Stephen will tell the people of Edinburgh, Dundee and Aberdeen that he wants to reduce the budgets for

their science centres by not basing the funding on visitor numbers.

Mike Rumbles (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD): What has that to do with the question?

The First Minister: What it has to do with the question, Mr Rumbles, is this: we have learned to look with some care at the detail of Mr Stephen's remarks in the chamber. If Mr Stephen does not like to be reminded of last week, that is no wonder, because the people in Aberdeen will remind him of the implications of the question that he asked last week.

On the health service, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing has already said that she is willing to look carefully at individual cases to effect change. She has already done that for Mr Stephen—one of the few useful things that he has contributed in the Parliament.

The Presiding Officer (Alex Fergusson): I will take a supplementary question from Liam McArthur.

Liam McArthur (Orkney) (LD): The First Minister will be aware of the impact that the fuel protests by French and Spanish fishermen are having on Scotland's shellfish producers. Buyers and truck companies are now unwilling to risk trying to get Scottish products to continental markets, with potentially dire consequences for fishermen in my constituency and elsewhere. In Orkney, the losses to the catching sector are estimated at around £60,000 per week. The level of borrowing by individual fishermen and the local shellfish co-operative is quickly reaching unsustainable levels. Can the First Minister reassure my constituents that he and his Government, in conjunction with United Kingdom ministers, are doing everything possible, both bilaterally with the French and Spanish Governments and through European Union channels, to bring an end to this damaging dispute? Will he ask the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment to give urgent consideration to what short-term support the Government could provide to stop small businesses in my constituency being forced to the wall as a result of the blockade?

The First Minister: I thank Liam McArthur for notice of his question. As he will understand, given that we share a huge fishing interest, I am well aware of the situation.

The Scottish Government has been in constant contact—indeed, on a daily basis—with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the UK embassy. Richard Lochhead has written to the Foreign Secretary, and I have met and written to the French ambassador. The UK embassy is pursuing the matter at our urging with the French

interior ministry. Seafood Scotland is keeping exporters up to date as quickly as possible with the changing situation—the market is opening and closing as protests take place. That is the full extent and range of the measures that are within our power and province. I cannot stop fuel protests across the continent of Europe, but we are doing everything that we can to ensure that there is free movement and passage of goods for Scottish exporters.

I share Liam McArthur's concern, because seafood export is a sector that is based largely on small companies. There are seasonal factors that make the issue especially acute at this time of year. It is of enormous concern that the losses that may be sustained cannot be recovered and that product cannot be absorbed into the home market. The cabinet secretary is willing to meet Liam McArthur and other concerned members to take the matter forward and to discuss any further initiatives that we can take.

Alcohol and Drugs

4. Nigel Don (North East Scotland) (SNP): To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government is taking to reduce the damage caused by alcohol and drugs by 50 per cent before 2025. (S3F-889)

The First Minister (Alex Salmond): The publication of our new drugs strategy, "The Road to Recovery: A New Approach to Tackling Scotland's Drug Problem", on 29 May marked the beginning of a new era of tackling drug misuse in Scotland. I welcome the fact that, on the whole, it has received substantial support from political parties in Scotland. The strategy sets in motion a programme of action in which more people recover from problem drug use, fewer people start using drugs, early intervention prevents and reduces the harm caused by drugs, and communities are stronger and safer places in which to live and work. In addition, we are developing a long-term strategic approach to tackling alcohol misuse. We are facing up to the scale of the problem in Scotland and will publish our proposals for consultation shortly. We are also making significant investments in tackling both alcohol and drug misuse: £120 million and £94 million respectively have been made available over the next three years.

Nigel Don: The target that I mentioned is an aspiration that is expressed by Scotland's Futures Forum in its report "Approaches to Alcohol and Drugs in Scotland: A Question of Architecture", which was published this week. The report highlights the need for us to tackle problems in Scotland associated with alcohol, which have grown in recent years. Last month, Scottish Government figures revealed that alcohol misuse

is costing the Scottish economy about £2.25 billion each year. What action will the Government take to reduce the impact of alcohol misuse?

The First Minister: Like Nigel Don, I look forward to the imminent publication of our consultation paper on the subject, which will set out a range of measures to enable Scotland to face up to the serious and growing problem of alcohol misuse.

Press coverage of the Futures Forum's report tended to accentuate points of difference with our drugs strategy, which has gathered so much support in the Parliament. That emphasises the importance of moving together in a collaborative way to face up to the drugs problem. As a Parliament, we do ourselves justice and do well when we respond to serious issues in that way. I welcome the cross-party support that the strategy received. I hope that, when we publish our alcohol strategy in the very near future, it will receive similar support and that the Parliament will confront jointly one of the great problems that our society faces.

Dr Richard Simpson (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab): Does the First Minister agree that it is a matter of concern that workers for a number of voluntary organisations that work on drugs and alcohol face redundancy notices and have done so for a considerable time? Will he undertake to have the Cabinet Secretary for Justice examine the issue? It is a serious matter that such organisations not only do not have three-year funding but do not even have funding for this year. Does the First Minister agree that it is inappropriate that workers in this area should constantly and repeatedly face redundancy notices?

The First Minister: I know that Richard Simpson will wish to provide details to the relevant cabinet secretaries. I will point him to two things. First, the budgets that I have just discussed in response to Nigel Don's question for addressing drug and alcohol problems have been substantially increased compared with previous central Government budgets. I can see by Richard Simpson's gesture that he acknowledges and accepts that. Secondly, he will be aware that, for the first time in a generation, the local government settlement has risen as a proportion of year-by-year Government expenditure in Scotland. I hope that, as we move to single outcome agreements and co-ordinate the work of central Government and local government, Richard Simpson will find much to support in our direction of travel.

Domestic Abuse

5. Margaret Curran (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab): To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government will take to support survivors

of domestic abuse, in light of the single outcome agreements due to be signed at the end of June 2008. (S3F-895)

The First Minister (Alex Salmond): The Scottish Government is committed to tackling violence against women and, within that, to tackling domestic abuse. We will continue to build on the excellent work that has been undertaken in Scotland to date.

As Margaret Curran well knows, we are currently discussing single outcome agreements for 2008-09 with all 32 councils. We aim to complete the process by 30 June. Subject to agreement with councils, all single outcome agreements will be made publicly available shortly thereafter.

Margaret Curran: There is agreement across the chamber about tackling domestic abuse as a priority. I ask the First Minister specifically to address the issue of what priority will be given to local authority domestic abuse services under the concordat. I am sure that he will be aware of concerns that women's organisations are raising now. They are telling us about a squeezing of services, about posts under threat and about funding being cut and projects merged.

I draw the First Minister's attention in particular to what is happening in the Western Isles, where the local authority domestic abuse co-ordinator post has now been cut. That is a vital loss to the islands community. Women who are experiencing domestic abuse are not part of the concordat discussions, but I do not think that there is one member of the Parliament who does not think that that post in the Western Isles should be reinstated. I ask the First Minister to use his authority and intervene to give the Western Isles back the service that it needs.

The First Minister: We will be discussing such issues with Western Isles Council, as we will with all councils in terms of the single outcome agreements. I do not think that it is possible to doubt the Scottish Government's commitment in this area. We have committed more than £44 million to this agenda for 2008 to 2011, which is an increase of 100 per cent on the £22 million that was allocated by the previous Administration over the previous three years. I do not doubt for a second Margaret Curran's commitment in this area, because I know that it is very substantial. I can only think that she was not able to convince her financial colleagues of the criticality of the position.

In our funding, we have committed support for the national offices of Scottish Women's Aid, Rape Crisis Scotland, the Scottish domestic abuse helpline and the national rape crisis helpline. We have continued with the children's services-women's aid fund and the rape crisis specific fund.

The Scottish Government supports 19 projects in Glasgow across the range of funding streams, which address a range of violence against women issues. That funding amounts to more than £4 million over the next three years.

On the single outcome agreements, I do not necessarily believe that we are totally at one with Glasgow City Council on every specific issue—as with our discussions on the single outcome agreement with Western Isles Council. It might be that, in Glasgow, the Wendy Alexander approach is taken to class sizes, as opposed to the Fiona Hyslop approach to class sizes. However, I would be astonished if, when the single outcome agreements come out, the issue of women's aid and violence against women is not a huge priority in the single outcome agreement for Glasgow.

As we discuss the matter with councils throughout Scotland, I think that, with the increase from the Scottish Government and with co-operation and parity of esteem with local government, we will arrive at a substantially better position for women who are under threat throughout the country.

Commissioner for Children and Young People in Scotland (Report)

6. Margaret Smith (Edinburgh West) (LD): To ask the First Minister what assessment the Scottish Government has made of the report by the Commissioner for Children and Young People in Scotland to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. (S3F-890)

The First Minister (Alex Salmond): The Scottish National Party manifesto set out our support for the provisions of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. In government, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning's decision to extend access to higher education to children of asylum seekers has made clear that support, as has the Cabinet Secretary for Justice's statement on ending the remand of under-16s in prison.

The cabinet secretaries have asked officials to explore what changes can be made to policy, practice and legislation to ensure better implementation of the UN convention in Scotland. That work is under way across a wide range of health, education and justice activity.

Margaret Smith: The First Minister will be aware that the report painted a pretty bleak picture of the lives of Britain's children, although key issues such as Scotland's children's hearings system were welcomed. He will also be aware that the report states that, although the United Kingdom Government has ratified the convention, it is unenforceable because it is not part of UK law. That inadequacy of protection has led to some

laws being introduced that are clearly in breach of the convention.

The Scottish commissioner's office believes that the Scottish Government could play its part in improving matters either by introducing children's rights impact assessments, which the Liberal Democrats advocated in our manifesto, or by introducing legislation that incorporates the convention into devolved domestic law. Will the First Minister commit to delivering for Scotland's children by doing either of those things?

The First Minister: We have decided not to respond to each of the reports that have been submitted to the UN. We plan to respond in detail once we have a clear set of recommendations from the UN, which will undoubtedly draw on those that have been made by the commissioners and the non-governmental organisations. We will answer the point that Margaret Smith makes in that context.

The timetable for submission of the periodic reports started in July last year. Many of the most worrying statistics in the report were historical, but we would be kidding ourselves if we did not believe that we still face serious difficulties on a range of issues. As Margaret Smith will know, the children's commissioner pointed to certain recent actions of Government of which she very much approved, which show that the Scottish Government is trailblazing a better way of representing and safeguarding children's rights in Scotland.

There is also the matter of how many of the issues are not within our devolved competence at present. When we produce our comprehensive response to the final UN report, Margaret Smith will see the Scottish Government's huge anxiety to do everything that we can to entrench and protect the rights of Scotland's children.

The Presiding Officer: That concludes First Minister's questions.

Jackie Baillie (Dumbarton) (Lab): On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

The Presiding Officer: The member may certainly raise a point of order, but I hope that it is not about the fact that I was unable to call her to ask a supplementary question. That would not be a point of order.

Jackie Baillie: Presiding Officer, you were aware of my desire to raise a question, but I recognise that it is your right to select supplementary questions. My point of order relates to the Vale of Leven hospital. I wonder whether you would consider it in order for the Parliamentary Bureau to timetable an emergency statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing on the outbreak of Clostridium difficile at

the Vale of Leven hospital. It is not just a local issue; it is a national issue. Such a statement should set out the timetable for the investigation to date and the measures that are being taken to control the infection. It should also commit the Government to an independent inquiry.

The Presiding Officer: As you, of all people, know, Ms Baillie, that is a matter for you to pursue through your business manager and the bureau.

Unusually, we have further business today, so I ask members who are leaving the chamber to do so quickly and quietly, please.

Expenses Scheme

The Presiding Officer (Alex Fergusson): The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-2092, in the name of Tom McCabe, on the expenses scheme.

12:34

Tom McCabe (Hamilton South) (Lab): I rise, on behalf of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, to speak to the recommendations of an independent review panel on members' expenses.

In light of the heated debate that such matters usually generate among the general public, the principle of having recommendations that are independent is critical. The Parliament suffered greatly in 1999 when it left itself open to the charge that its decisions on members' expenses were self-serving and far from independent. Therefore, I hope that the whole Parliament will join me in extending thanks to Sir Alan Langlands and the other members of the panel, who took on the review voluntarily.

Some of the issues raised in other Parliaments in the recent past have brought into sharp relief calls for independent evaluation. When we consider the attention being paid to members' expenses both at Westminster and in Brussels, we see the importance of drawing members' and the general public's attention to the comments in the independent report that acknowledge the transparency of our existing scheme and the fact that if any expense is reimbursed to a member of the Scottish Parliament, it is done as a result of verified receipts having been produced and subsequently made public. Because of that, it was far easier for the panel to recommend that any new scheme should reflect the seven principles of public life: objectivity; accountability; openness; integrity; selflessness; honesty; and leadership.

The panel was keen to dispel the myth of members' allowances. We are discussing the reimbursement of members' expenses that are legitimately incurred. Neither the past scheme nor the new one will give any member additional money over and above their salary.

Much has been said and written about the mortgage interest scheme that operated during the first eight years of the Parliament. Although the panel recognised that there could be a case for continuing the scheme on a value-for-money basis, it felt that the scheme should come to an end for reasons of public perception. There will be a facility for qualifying members to claim overnight hotel or leasing costs and those changes will take effect in 2011. In due course, the corporate body will produce guidance.

On travel, the recommendation is to reduce the current rate of 49p per mile to 40p for the first 10,000 miles and 25p thereafter. As members know, those rates are fixed by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs. Although they might not reflect adequately the costs that individuals incur when fuel costs are more than £5 a gallon, our constituents must endure the same rates and it is surely right that we place ourselves under the same conditions—some might say burdens—as our constituents.

It is important to note that the vast majority of recommendations in the report are agreed by the vast majority of members in the chamber. The main point of contention is the difference in the staffing allowance accorded to constituency and list members. The independent panel acknowledged that the evidence base for its conclusions on regional members could have been more robust. In part, that is due to the relatively low response from regional members to the panel's call for evidence. The recommendation has caused considerable concern among list members and, indeed, others. To deal with those concerns in a way that protects the integrity of the Parliament, we should agree to a further review of list members' position as quickly as possible.

I have received many representations since the report was published, but I have received none that challenges the appropriateness of the conclusions for constituency members or the evidence base that led to those conclusions. Nine years into the life of this institution, protecting its integrity and demonstrating its maturity are vital. I do not believe that a solution that merely divides the spoils without any evidence base either protects that integrity or promotes the maturity of the institution. I especially do not believe that a solution that denies parliamentary staff access to fair and decent pay scales will do us credit.

Therefore, in moving the motion on the recommendations in the report, I stress two important caveats. First, the Parliament should acknowledge the need for a leader's allowance scheme, as the independent report recommended, simply because in any properly functioning democracy the Opposition should have the resources to challenge the Government of the day. Secondly, any shortcomings on the recommendations on regional members' staff allowance should be dealt with speedily, on the basis of evidence and not through a political fix.

I move,

That the Parliament recognises that the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body ("the SPCB") commissioned and received a report from an independent review panel on the reimbursement of expenses for Members of the Scottish Parliament, notes the SPCB's responsibility to present a scheme to Parliament, and therefore;

(a)by virtue of sections 81(2) and (5)(b) and 83(5) of the Scotland Act 1998

(i)confers functions on the SPCB to pay allowances to members in respect of expenses or costs incurred in each financial year in accordance with the Reimbursement of Members' Expenses Scheme ("the Scheme") annexed as Annex 1 to this resolution and confers other functions on the SPCB as specified in the Scheme;

(ii)determines that the various limits on expenses or costs under the Scheme are as set out in the Schedule of Rates annexed as Annex 2 to this resolution and that such limits are applicable until the SPCB exercises its power under the Scheme to uprate or vary them;

(iii)determines that the Scheme shall come into effect on 1 October 2008, subject to any arrangements made under sub-paragraph (vi);

(iv)directs the SPCB to make such arrangements as it may consider necessary or expedient to allow transition from the Members' Allowances Scheme agreed to by resolution of the Parliament on 21 June 2001 ("the Previous Scheme") to the Scheme, including, but not limited to, continuing in force any provisions of the Previous Scheme beyond 1 October 2008, making apportionments between the Previous Scheme and the Scheme or making arrangements for particular cases or particular classes of case as appropriate;

(v)directs the SPCB that any transitional arrangements which it determines under sub-paragraph (iv) shall end not later than 31 March 2011; and

(vi)directs the SPCB to make such arrangements as it may consider necessary or expedient to apply the limit on entitlement to reimbursement of staff salary costs with effect from a date before 1 October 2008, whether by adjusting the amount of the Members' Support Allowance under the Previous Scheme or by backdating reimbursement of staff salary costs under the Scheme;

(b)rescinds, with effect from 1 October 2008, the Resolution of the Parliament of 21 June 2001 in relation to the Equipment and Furniture Scheme;

(c)subject to any arrangements made under paragraph (a) above, rescinds, with effect from 1 October 2008, the Resolution of the Parliament of 21 June 2001 in relation to the Previous Scheme.

ANNEX 1 TO THE RESOLUTION

This is the Reimbursement of Members' Expenses Scheme referred to in the foregoing resolution.

REIMBURSEMENT OF

MEMBERS' EXPENSES SCHEME

The Reimbursement of Members' Expenses Scheme

CONTENTS

1.GENERAL RULES

1.1The Principles of the Scheme

1.2Administration of the Scheme

1.3Publication of Expenses

1.4Submission of Claims and Verification of Expenditure

1.5Review of Decisions and Improper Claims

1.6Virement

1.7Pools

1.8Miscellaneous Provisions

2.ACCOMMODATION

2.1Accommodation in Edinburgh

2.2Overnight Accommodation outside Edinburgh

3.STAFF COSTS

3.1Introduction

3.2Staff Salary Costs

3.3Employer's National Insurance and Employer's Pension Contributions

3.4Temporary Staff Cover Costs

3.5Incidental and Ancillary Employment Costs

3.6Redundancy Costs

3.7Employment of Close Family Members

4.OFFICE COSTS

4.1Introduction

4.2Reimbursement of Office Costs for Members who Establish and Run Local Parliamentary Offices

4.3Reimbursement of Office Costs for Members who do not Establish and Run Local Parliamentary Offices

4.4Members Working from Home

4.5Telecommunications Costs

4.6Surgery Advertising

5.COST OF TRAVEL

6.DISABILITY

7.ADDITIONAL EXPENSES

7.1Interpretation, Translation and Similar Costs

7.2Exceptional Expenses

8WINDING-UP

8.1Introduction

8.2Staff Costs

8.3Staff Redundancy

8.4Office Winding-Up Costs

8.5Time Limit for Submission of Claims

1.3Publication of Expenses

1.4Submission of Claims and Verification of Expenditure

1.5Review of Decisions and Improper Claims

1.6Virement

1.7Pools

1.8Miscellaneous Provisions

2.ACCOMMODATION

2.1Accommodation in Edinburgh

2.2Overnight Accommodation outside Edinburgh

3.STAFF COSTS

3.1Introduction

3.2Staff Salary Costs

3.3Employer's National Insurance and Employer's Pension Contributions

3.4Temporary Staff Cover Costs

3.5Incidental and Ancillary Employment Costs

3.6Redundancy Costs

3.7Employment of Close Family Members

4.OFFICE COSTS

4.1Introduction

4.2Reimbursement of Office Costs for Members who Establish and Run Local Parliamentary Offices

4.3Reimbursement of Office Costs for Members who do not Establish and Run Local Parliamentary Offices

4.4Members Working from Home

4.5Telecommunications Costs

4.6Surgery Advertising

5.COST OF TRAVEL

6.DISABILITY

7.ADDITIONAL EXPENSES

7.1Interpretation, Translation and Similar Costs

7.2Exceptional Expenses

8WINDING-UP

8.1Introduction

8.2Staff Costs

8.3Staff Redundancy

8.4Office Winding-Up Costs

8.5Time Limit for Submission of Claims

9. DEFINITIONS

ANNEXES

A. Groups of Constituencies For Entitlement To Accommodation in Edinburgh

B. Constituencies and Regions For Entitlement To Overnight Accommodation Outside Edinburgh

SECTION 1 - GENERAL RULES

1.1 THE PRINCIPLES OF THE SCHEME

1.1.1 In submitting a claim, a member shall:-

(a) act in accordance with the Scheme Principles;

(b) comply with the rules of the Scheme; and

(c) have regard to any guidance issued by the SPCB under paragraph 1.2.2(c).

1.1.2 The Principles of the Scheme are:-

Objectivity

• A member is entitled to reimbursement of expenses which have been incurred only for the purpose of carrying out parliamentary duties.
• A member shall not submit a claim unless the member is satisfied that the expenses represent value for money and were incurred having due regard to efficiency and effectiveness.

Accountability

• A member is personally accountable for a claim, even if the member delegates the administration of the claim to others.
• A member is entitled to reimbursement of expenses only if the claim is supported by receipts or other documentation confirming the expenditure, unless otherwise determined by the SPCB.

Openness

• A member shall be open and transparent as respects expenses claimed under the Scheme.

Integrity

• A member shall ensure that a claim is in compliance with the Scheme.
• A member shall not submit a claim which relates to party political activity and a member shall not enter into any arrangement which could give rise to a benefit to a party political organisation.

Selflessness

• A member shall ensure that any claim is submitted solely in respect of the performance of parliamentary duties and is not submitted in order to gain financial or other benefit for the member or any other person.

Honesty

• A claim shall be made in good faith.

Leadership

• In complying with the rules of the Scheme and the Scheme Principles, a member shall lead by example to strengthen public trust in the Scheme.

1.1.3 The SPCB shall exercise its functions under the

Scheme so as best to promote and achieve conformity with the Scheme Principles.

1.2 ADMINISTRATION OF THE SCHEME

1.2.1 The Scheme is to be administered by the SPCB.

1.2.2 In exercising its functions under the Scheme, the SPCB may make such arrangements as it sees fit for administration of the Scheme and for determining any claims and may, in particular:-

(a) prescribe the form and manner in which claims are submitted and the manner in which claims are verified;

(b) on the submission of a claim by a member, reimburse expenses incurred by that member;

(c) issue guidance to members on the operation of the Scheme;

(d) prescribe time limits for the submission of claims and determine the consequences of failure to comply with any such time limits; and

(e) do anything else which the SPCB considers necessary or expedient in connection with the administration of the Scheme.

1.2.3 In determining any matter under the Scheme the SPCB shall, in particular, consider whether a member has had regard to guidance issued under paragraph 1.2.2(c).

1.2.4 For each financial year the SPCB shall uprate the various limits on expenses or costs which can be reimbursed under the Scheme, having regard to such indices as the SPCB considers appropriate. Such increases shall apply from 1 April in any financial year.

1.2.5 The limits on the reimbursement of accommodation costs under paragraph 2.1.7, staff salary costs under paragraphs 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 and office costs under paragraphs 4.2.3 and 4.2.4 shall be rounded up to the nearest £100 at each uprating under paragraph 1.2.4.

1.2.6 The SPCB may at any time review the limits on the reimbursement of staff salary costs under paragraphs 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 and office costs under paragraphs 4.2.3, 4.2.4 and 4.2.7 and may, following such a review, apply such variation to those limits as it considers appropriate. Any such variation shall apply from 1 April in any financial year.

1.2.7 Where any changes are enacted in respect of constituencies or regions following a review by the Boundary Commission for Scotland, the SPCB may amend such references to constituencies and regions in this Scheme as it considers necessary to give effect to those changes.

1.3 PUBLICATION OF EXPENSES

1.3.1 The SPCB shall publish information on expenses reimbursed to members under the Scheme in such form and at such intervals as the SPCB may determine.

1.4 SUBMISSION OF CLAIMS AND VERIFICATION OF EXPENDITURE

1.4.1 Where a member is entitled to reimbursement of expenses or costs under the Scheme, the member shall complete and authenticate any form or other documentation provided or required by the SPCB.

1.4.2 Where a member is required to apply to the SPCB for reimbursement of any expenses or costs under the Scheme:-

(

for reimbursement of any expenses or costs under the Scheme:-

(a) in advance of incurring any such expenses or costs, a member shall submit an application to the SPCB for approval of such expenses or costs in such form as the SPCB may require;

(b) the SPCB may grant its approval for reimbursement of such expenses or costs to such extent as it considers appropriate; and

(c) following such approval and once any such expenses or costs have been incurred by the member, the member shall complete and authenticate any form or other documentation provided or required by the SPCB and the SPCB shall reimburse such expenses or costs to the extent previously approved by it (or to the extent of expenses or costs actually incurred if that amount is less).

1.4.3 Subject to paragraph 1.4.4, the SPCB shall reimburse expenses or costs under this Scheme only on production of evidence of such expenses or costs in the form of supporting invoices or receipts or such other documentation as the SPCB may determine from time to time.

1.4.4 A member is not required to provide supporting invoices and receipts for the reimbursement of the cost of travel undertaken in the performance of, or in support of, the member’s parliamentary duties:-

(a) in respect of a claim for an amount per mile for a journey, or part of a journey, by motor vehicle (excluding a hired motor vehicle), motor cycle, or bicycle; or

(b) in such other exceptional circumstances as the SPCB may determine.

1.4.5 The SPCB may determine that in certain circumstances a member shall provide written justification for the use of a taxi. The SPCB shall reimburse a member for taxi costs only to the extent that it is satisfied with the justification provided.

1.5 REVIEW OF DECISIONS AND IMPROPER CLAIMS

1.5.1 Where a member disputes a decision either not to reimburse expenses or costs or not to approve expenses or costs for reimbursement, the SPCB may review that decision. Any decision of the SPCB on review is final and it shall intimate the result of that review to the member.

1.5.2 The SPCB may investigate any claim. Where, following such an investigation, the SPCB finds that a member has submitted an improper claim, the SPCB may report to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee and may recommend the removal of all or part of the member’s entitlement to reimbursement of expenses under this Scheme for such period and to such extent as the SPCB may specify.

1.6 VIREMENT

1.6.1 Subject to paragraph 1.6.2, a member’s entitlement to reimbursement of expenses or costs may not be transferred between the different categories of entitlement to reimbursement of expenses or costs in Sections 2, 3, or 4.

1.6.2 Once in any financial year a member may transfer up to one third of the limit on that member’s entitlement to reimbursement of office costs to that member’s entitlement to reimbursement of staff salary costs. A member making

such a transfer shall notify the SPCB in advance of incurring any costs in respect of the sum transferred.

1.7 POOLS

1.7.1 Any members who set up a pool with one or more other members shall give written notice to the SPCB of the setting up of the pool. Such notice shall be in the names of all of the members in the pool.

1.8 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

1.8.1 A member is not entitled to reimbursement of expenses where those expenses have been, or will be, reimbursed or otherwise met from any other source.

1.8.2 Where a person becomes a member part way through a financial year, or where a member ceases to be a member part way through a financial year, any limit on the annual entitlement to reimbursement of expenses or costs is to be applied on a pro rata basis or on such other basis as the SPCB may determine.

SECTION 2 - ACCOMMODATION

2.1 ACCOMMODATION IN EDINBURGH

2.1.1 Subject to the provisions of paragraphs 2.1.4 to 2.1.6, a member with a main residence in a constituency listed in Group Two of Annex A is entitled to reimbursement of the cost of overnight accommodation for each night which that member requires to stay in Edinburgh in connection with the performance of parliamentary duties.

2.1.2 Subject to the provisions of paragraphs 2.1.4 to 2.1.6, a member with a main residence in a constituency listed in Group Three of Annex A is entitled to reimbursement of the cost of either:-

(a) overnight accommodation for each night which that member requires to stay in Edinburgh in connection with the performance of parliamentary duties; or

(b) leasing residential property in Edinburgh, other than from a close family member, another member or connected person.

2.1.3 Where a member is entitled to reimbursement of the cost of leasing residential property under paragraph 2.1.2(b), the member is entitled to reimbursement in respect of the following:-

(a) rent;

(b) council tax and water charges;

(c) factoring charges, but excluding common repair costs;

(d) utility costs and telecommunications costs; and

(e) contents insurance.

2.1.4 Subject to paragraphs 2.1.5 and 2.1.6, a member who has either a main residence or any other residence in Edinburgh is not entitled to reimbursement of the cost of accommodation in Edinburgh under this Section.

2.1.5 A member who has a main residence in a constituency listed in either Group Two or Group Three of Annex A and who also has any other residence in Edinburgh may apply to the SPCB for reimbursement of the cost of overnight accommodation in Edinburgh. The SPCB shall reimburse such costs only if it is satisfied that it would not be reasonable in all the circumstances to expect that member to use that member’s other residence in connection with the performance of parliamentary duties.

2.1.6 Where:-

(a) a member has a main residence in a constituency listed in Group Three of Annex A; and

(b) the member also has any other residence in Edinburgh which the member uses in connection with the performance of parliamentary duties,

the member may apply to the SPCB for reimbursement of the costs specified in paragraph 2.1.3(b), (d) and (e) in respect of that other residence. The SPCB shall reimburse such costs only if it is satisfied that it would be reasonable in all the circumstances so to do and may determine to reimburse such costs to the extent it considers appropriate.

2.1.7 A member is entitled to reimbursement of costs for accommodation in Edinburgh under paragraphs 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 2.1.5 and 2.1.6 subject to the limit in each financial year specified in the Schedule of Rates.

2.2 OVERNIGHT ACCOMMODATION OUTSIDE EDINBURGH

2.2.1 A member is entitled to reimbursement of the cost of overnight accommodation:-

(a) subject to paragraph 2.2.2, outside Edinburgh (but within the UK) for each night when the performance of parliamentary duties prevents the member from using the member’s main residence or any other residence; and

(b) when in Brussels or Strasbourg for meetings with members of the European Parliament and/or with representatives of the European Union institutions in connection with the performance of the member’s parliamentary duties.

2.2.2 A member is not entitled to reimbursement under paragraph 2.2.1(a) in connection with the performance of parliamentary duties within the constituency or region from which the member has been returned unless:-

(a) the member has been returned from one of the constituencies or regions listed in Annex B; or

(b) in the case only of members returned either from the Cunninghame North Constituency or from the West of Scotland region, the requirement for overnight accommodation arises in connection with the performance of parliamentary duties on an island in the Cunninghame North constituency.

2.2.3 Unless paragraph 2.2.1 (b) applies, a member shall apply to the SPCB for reimbursement of the cost of overnight accommodation for each night which the member requires to stay outwith the UK in connection with the performance of parliamentary duties.

SECTION 3 - STAFF COSTS

3.1 INTRODUCTION

3.1.1 A member may engage staff under a contract of employment (whether on a full-time or part-time basis), under a contract for services or by virtue of an arrangement with an agency and any such staff may be permanent or temporary.

3.1.2 A member of staff may be engaged either by a single member or jointly by two or more members through a pool.

3.1.3 This Section applies in respect of the following costs for staff who are engaged for the purpose of assisting in the performance of the member’s parliamentary duties:-

(a) staff salary costs;

(b) employer’s National Insurance and employer’s pension contributions;

(c) temporary staff cover costs;

(d) incidental and ancillary employment costs; and

(e) redundancy costs.

3.1.4 Staff shall not undertake any significant party political activity during any hours of work which are included within claims submitted under this Section.

3.1.5 The SPCB shall:-

(a) provide a payroll service for members’ employees;

(b) provide an arrangement for employer’s pension contributions to be paid to an employee’s choice of pension scheme, provided that such pension scheme has been approved by the SPCB; and

(c) process any other benefits deemed appropriate under the model terms and conditions of employment approved by the SPCB from time to time.

3.1.6 A member shall provide to the SPCB sufficient details about their employees to allow the SPCB to provide the services specified in paragraph 3.1.5.

3.1.7 A member may submit a claim under this Section in respect of an employee only if the employee is employed on terms which are no less favourable than the model terms and conditions of employment approved by the SPCB from time to time.

3.2 STAFF SALARY COSTS

3.2.1 A constituency member is entitled to reimbursement of staff salary costs subject to the limit in any financial year specified in the Schedule of Rates.

3.2.2 A regional member is entitled to reimbursement of staff salary costs subject to the limit in any financial year specified in the Schedule of Rates.

3.2.3 Staff salary costs comprise:-

(a) in respect of employees, the employee’s gross salary, including any overtime payments, and any necessary expenses (other than expenses in respect of the cost of travel or the cost of overnight accommodation) reimbursed to the employee by the member, but (subject to paragraph 3.3.1) excluding employer’s National Insurance contributions or employer’s pension contributions;

(b) the amount of any redundancy payment payable to an employee or any costs which arise as a result of any other termination of an employee’s contract;

(c) in respect of self-employed or agency staff, the gross contracted payment to the member of staff or the agency; or

(d) where members have set up a pool, incidental costs which arise from operation of the pool.

3.3 EMPLOYER’S NATIONAL INSURANCE AND EMPLOYER’S PENSION CONTRIBUTIONS

3.3.1 Where a member is entitled to reimbursement of staff salary costs for an employee under paragraph 3.2.3(a), the SPCB may also reimburse any employer’s

National Insurance contributions and employer’s pension contributions. The reimbursement of employer’s pension contributions will be subject to a limit of 10% of the employee’s gross basic annual salary, except in the case of employees in post as at 1 March 2001 where the actual contributions will be reimbursed.

3.4 TEMPORARY STAFF COVER COSTS

3.4.1 A member may apply to the SPCB for reimbursement of the additional cost of employing or otherwise engaging temporary staff when necessary due to the absence of a permanent member of staff lasting in excess of two weeks.

3.4.2 An application under paragraph 3.4.1 shall be supported by adequate medical certificates or other relevant documents confirming the reason for absence.

3.4.3 Any costs reimbursed under paragraph 3.4.1 may include employer’s National Insurance contributions and employer’s pension contributions subject to a limit of 10% of the employee’s gross basic annual salary.

3.4.4 The SPCB shall reimburse costs under paragraph 3.4.1 only if it is satisfied that the employment of temporary staff was reasonable in the circumstances.

3.5 INCIDENTAL AND ANCILLARY EMPLOYMENT COSTS

3.5.1 A member may apply to the SPCB for reimbursement of the reasonable costs of advertising for recruitment of staff.

3.5.2 A member may apply to the SPCB for reimbursement of:-

(a) the fees incurred for the attendance of a member of staff, a volunteer or intern at a seminar or conference within the UK for the purpose of assisting the member in the performance of parliamentary duties;

(b) the fees or other charges incurred in providing appropriate training for a member of staff; and

(c) the cost of travel and overnight accommodation associated with sub-paragraphs (a) or (b) above.

3.5.3 A member who submits an application under paragraph 3.5.2 shall certify the reason for the attendance of the member of staff, volunteer or intern at the seminar or conference or the reason for the training for a member of staff. The SPCB shall approve an application under paragraph 3.5.2 only to the extent that it is satisfied with the reason given.

3.5.4 The SPCB may meet such expenses or costs in respect of such items of a kind which reflect good employment practices and facilities for members in their capacity as employers or for members’ staff as the SPCB determines appropriate and subject to such conditions as the SPCB considers appropriate.

3.6 REDUNDANCY COSTS

3.6.1 Paragraphs 3.6.2 to 3.6.4 apply where a member dismisses an employee by reason of redundancy at any time other than when the member has ceased to be a member.

3.6.2 Subject to paragraphs 3.6.3 and 3.6.4, where in any financial year the limit on a member’s entitlement to reimbursement of staff salary costs is or would be exceeded by reason of the making of a redundancy payment, the SPCB may, on an application by the member, reimburse such further amount (not exceeding the amount

of the redundancy payment) as it considers appropriate.

3.6.3 The SPCB shall reimburse an amount under paragraph 3.6.2 only if it is satisfied that:-

(a) the member was entitled under this Section to receive reimbursement of staff salary costs in respect of the employee concerned at the date of dismissal;

(b) the employee was in fact dismissed by reason of redundancy;

(c) the member was under a legal obligation to make the payment; and

(d) where, under the terms of the contract between the member and the employee, the employee’s entitlement to a redundancy payment exceeds the employee’s statutory entitlement, the contractual provision was reasonable in all the circumstances.

3.6.4 If the SPCB determines under paragraph 3.6.3(d) that the contractual provision was not reasonable, the SPCB may restrict the application for reimbursement of the redundancy payment to such amount as the SPCB considers reasonable.

3.7 EMPLOYMENT OF CLOSE FAMILY MEMBERS

3.7.1 A member who submits a claim in respect of the cost of employing a close family member, whether individually or through a pool, shall declare that relationship to the SPCB. The declaration shall be in writing and include the name of the close family member, the relationship to the member and such other information as the SPCB may determine.

3.7.2 The SPCB shall arrange for all such declarations to be registered in a register which is open to public inspection.

SECTION 4 - OFFICE COSTS

4.1 INTRODUCTION

4.1.1 A member is entitled to reimbursement of office costs reasonably incurred in the performance of the member’s parliamentary duties, in so far as not available from the SPCB by way of central provision.

4.1.2 Office costs include, but are not limited to:-

(a) the cost of establishing and running a local parliamentary office, such as leasing and utility costs;

(b) the purchase or lease of office furniture or equipment (including IT or photocopying equipment) or the purchase of stationery;

(c) the cost of telecommunications, in so far as such costs exceed the limit on entitlement to reimbursement under paragraph 4.5.1;

(d) the cost of the publication and distribution of newsletters, annual reports and surveys;

(e) the cost of advertising and the cost of surgery advertising, in so far as the cost of surgery advertising exceeds the limit on entitlement to reimbursement under paragraph 4.6.1;

(f) the cost of overnight accommodation for a member of staff, a volunteer or intern when the member of staff, volunteer or intern is required to accompany a member for the purpose of assisting the member in the performance of

parliamentary duties;

(g) the hire of premises for surgeries, public meetings and other meetings with constituents;

(h) the fees for a member attending a seminar or conference; and

(i) any other costs which are ancillary to those specified in sub-paragraphs (a) to (h) above.

4.2 REIMBURSEMENT OF OFFICE COSTS FOR MEMBERS WHO ESTABLISH AND RUN LOCAL PARLIAMENTARY OFFICES

4.2.1 A member shall usually have one office within the constituency or region from which that member was returned. If a member has such an office, the member shall use it as the local parliamentary office and the office shall be the registered local address for correspondence.

4.2.2 A local parliamentary office shall not be used for party political activities of any kind.

4.2.3 A constituency member is entitled to reimbursement of office costs subject to the limit in each financial year specified in the Schedule of Rates.

4.2.4 Where in a particular region a single regional member is returned from a registered political party’s regional list or where there is a regional member not aligned to any political party, that member is entitled to reimbursement of office costs subject to the limit in each financial year specified in the Schedule of Rates.

4.2.5 Subject to paragraph 4.2.6, where in a particular region more than one member is returned from a registered political party’s regional list, those members are entitled between them only to reimbursement of office costs in respect of one regional office.

4.2.6 Where in the Highlands and Islands, North East Scotland, South of Scotland, or Mid Scotland and Fife Regions more than one member is returned from a registered political party’s regional list, the SPCB may, on the written application of all of the members concerned, determine that they are entitled to reimbursement of office costs in respect of an additional local parliamentary office within the region.

4.2.7 The limit on the entitlement of each regional member to reimbursement of office costs in the circumstances set out in paragraphs 4.2.5 and 4.2.6 is calculated in accordance with the following table:-

Number of Regional Members	Percentage of Limit on Office Costs Applicable to a Single Regional Member
	One Office in the Region (limit per member)	Two Offices in the Region (limit per member)
2	60%	100%
3	47%	80%
4	40%	65%
5	36%	56%

Any limit calculated in accordance with the table above shall be rounded up to the nearest £100.

4.2.8 On the application of a member the SPCB may, if satisfied that local variations in the market for office accommodation make it impracticable for the member to

establish and run a suitable local parliamentary office within the limit of costs which can be reimbursed under this Section, increase by up to 10% the limit on entitlement to reimbursement which would otherwise be applicable to that member.

4.2.9 A member is not entitled to reimbursement of costs in respect of a local parliamentary office if the member leases office premises from or sub-lets any part of office premises to a close family member or connected person.

4.2.10 A member who sub-lets any part of a local parliamentary office to any other person is entitled to reimbursement of the amount of rent paid by the member less the rent due under any sub-lease.

4.2.11 A member who leases local parliamentary office premises from a party political organisation shall supply to the SPCB a report prepared by an independent surveyor providing a professional opinion as to the fair market rent for the premises concerned when leased on the same terms. The SPCB shall not reimburse rent incurred until such a report has been provided. If, on the basis of the report, the SPCB determines that the rent payable in terms of the lease is greater than the fair market rent, the member shall be deemed to be liable only for the fair market rent and the member’s entitlement to reimbursement shall be calculated on that basis.

4.2.12 A member who sub-lets local parliamentary office premises or part of those premises to a party political organisation shall, before concluding the sub-lease, supply to the SPCB a report prepared by an independent surveyor providing a professional opinion as to the fair market rent for the premises concerned when sub-let on the same terms. If, on the basis of the report, the SPCB determines that the rent payable in terms of the sub-lease is less than the fair market rent, the member shall be deemed to be in receipt of the fair market rent and any rent reimbursed shall be calculated on that basis.

4.2.13 A member is not entitled to reimbursement of office costs in respect of a local parliamentary office which is shared with a Member of the House of Commons (“MP”) or a Member of the European Parliament (“MEP”) unless the member has entered into a written agreement with the MP or MEP as to the apportionment of costs and the terms of the agreement have been approved by the SPCB.

4.3 REIMBURSEMENT OF OFFICE COSTS FOR MEMBERS WHO DO NOT ESTABLISH AND RUN LOCAL PARLIAMENTARY OFFICES

4.3.1 Where a member does not establish and run a local parliamentary office within the constituency or region from which that member was returned, or where a member uses an office in the Parliament as a local parliamentary office, that member is entitled only to reimbursement of office costs up to a maximum amount of 25% of the limit on entitlement to reimbursement which would otherwise be applicable to that member.

4.4 MEMBERS WORKING FROM HOME

4.4.1 A member who works from home in connection with the performance of parliamentary duties is not entitled to reimbursement of any office costs arising from the use of the home for that purpose other than the cost of telecommunications.

4.5 TELECOMMUNICATIONS COSTS

4.5.1 A member is entitled to reimbursement of the cost of telecommunications subject to the limit in any financial year specified in the Schedule of Rates.

4.6 SURGERY ADVERTISING

4.6.1 A member is entitled to reimbursement of the cost of advertising that member’s availability to the public at specified dates, times and places in that member’s constituency or region for consultation regarding enquiries and problems, through surgeries or otherwise, subject to the limit in any financial year specified in the Schedule of Rates. “Advertising” includes the production of posters or leaflets.

SECTION 5 - COST OF TRAVEL

5.1.1 A member is entitled to reimbursement of the cost of travel:-

(a) undertaken in the performance of parliamentary duties within the UK; or

(b) to Brussels or Strasbourg for meetings with members of the European Parliament and/or with representatives of European Union Institutions in connection with the performance of parliamentary duties.

5.1.2 Subject to paragraph 5.1.3, travel undertaken in the performance of parliamentary duties may include journeys between any places at which parliamentary duties are performed or between such places and a member’s residence or overnight accommodation.

5.1.3 Where a member’s rent is reimbursed under paragraph 2.1.3(a), and where the property is situated outside the boundary of the City of Edinburgh, the member is not entitled to reimbursement of the cost of travel between that property and the Parliament.

5.1.4 A member is entitled to reimbursement of the cost of travel within Scotland undertaken by a member of staff, volunteer or intern in support of the member’s parliamentary duties. A member’s entitlement to reimbursement under this paragraph is limited to the cost of a maximum of 74 journeys per member in any financial year. A member who submits a claim under this paragraph shall certify the purpose of the journeys undertaken. A journey shall be all such travel completed within one day, but shall not include daily commuting journeys by a member of staff, volunteer or intern to a normal place of work.

5.1.5 Unless paragraph 5.1.1(b) applies, a member shall apply to the SPCB for reimbursement of the cost of travel outwith the UK undertaken in the performance of parliamentary duties.

SECTION 6 - DISABILITY

6.1.1 A member who has a disability may apply to the SPCB for reimbursement of expenses incurred in respect of additional resources reasonably required for the performance of that member’s parliamentary duties.

6.1.2 In selecting premises for a local parliamentary office a member should have regard to the accessibility of the premises and in particular to the special needs of any person. A member may apply to the SPCB for reimbursement of expenses incurred by the member in respect of:-

(a) making reasonable adjustments to the office to accommodate a disabled member of staff and/or facilitating access for disabled members of the public;

(b) providing equipment and/or parking spaces for disabled persons; or

(c) facilitating meetings involving disabled persons by hiring (on an occasional basis) alternative office and meeting premises.

SECTION 7 - ADDITIONAL EXPENSES

7.1 INTERPRETATION, TRANSLATION AND SIMILAR COSTS

7.1.1 A member may apply to the SPCB for reimbursement of any expenses incurred in respect of:-

(a) engaging an interpreter for a language other than English or engaging a sign language interpreter who in either case is required for a meeting with members of the public;

(b) translation services required for correspondence with members of the public; or

(c) any other services required to facilitate equal access to members for disabled persons.

7.2 EXCEPTIONAL EXPENSES

7.2.1 A member may apply to the SPCB for reimbursement of any exceptional expenses to be incurred by that member in connection with the performance of parliamentary duties.

SECTION 8 - WINDING UP

8.1 INTRODUCTION

8.1.1 This Section applies when a person (referred to as the “former member”) ceases to be a member of the Parliament for any reason.

8.1.2 On or after the date on which the former member ceased to be a member Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of this Scheme continue to apply only in respect of any claim relating to expenses or costs incurred or committed to prior to that date. All such claims shall be submitted within such period as the SPCB may specify.

8.1.3 Unless paragraph 8.1.2 applies, paragraphs 8.2 to 8.5 apply in respect of any expenses or costs incurred after the date on which a former member ceased to be a member for the purpose of winding up the former member’s office.

8.2 STAFF COSTS

8.2.1 A former member remains entitled to reimbursement of staff salary costs, employer’s National Insurance contributions and employer’s pension contributions, as provided for in paragraphs 3.2 and 3.3, in order to retain the services of staff for the purposes of the winding up of the former member’s office for a maximum of three months after the date on which the former member ceased to be a member.

8.3 STAFF REDUNDANCY

8.3.1 Where a former member dismisses an employee by reason of redundancy, the former member is entitled to reimbursement of any redundancy payment payable to the employee only if the SPCB is satisfied that:-

(a) the former member was entitled to receive reimbursement of salary costs in respect of the employee concerned at the date of dismissal;

(b) the employee was in fact dismissed by reaso