 Is that your point of order, Mr R台on? Is that your point of order, Mr R台on? Under rule 7.3, which says that members shall, at all times, conduct themselves in a courteous and respectful manner, I seek your guidance on what in future will be considered to be acceptable parliamentary language and behaviour in this chamber. Maewtling, can you tell me whether we are on the slippery slope with regard to the respect that members showed to each other in this chamber, while addressing other members? Maerdyn i'r fflusig yn Maesodwyr i'ch cangwch os rydyn nhw i ddweud ychydig oherwydd Patrick Harway, ond pan mae'r term Patsy Harway yn mynd i fy moddwch mas i'r tyn i ddimen nhw i gefnog eu hy inclusiono diolch. Felly i'r ffrindidol, maeddiwch yn hyn i mynd i'n ddod i amser cawr i coffordd cyfryfodol ac yn byw i ddim yn fwy oherwydd bowd yn y ddwyll yn..., mae'n fwy o fueronu eu cas. Rwyf yn collif i ni oes i ddigon nhw i ddim yn y ffwrdd, maerdyn i'w dmellodol i'r the names are used whether they are positive or negative in nature, and should we not demonstrate appropriate parliamentary respect through the use of proper name terms, be that word of phraser, Bruce Crawford or indeed Patrick Harvie. Pregnancy, your guidance would be most appreciated, we need to know what is deemed to be acceptable and unacceptable behaviour in this regard, and where the line is to be drawn. I think that you know my views in this regard. I would first of all reiterate that it is up to all of us to treat all members with the respect that they are due. That includes addressing members by their proper names. I also believe that the specific instance to which you refer, the Presiding Officer and the chair at the time, the second time that was used, did intervene appropriately at the time. I hope that Mr Crawford is assured by that matter and that we take those matters very seriously indeed. I move on to the next item of business, topical questions. We start with topical question number 1 from Tavish Scott. I suspect that I shouldn't try any jokes or names after that point of order. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reports that almost half of head teachers consider there is a lack of teaching staff in schools. Cabinet Secretary John Swinney. The Scottish Government is taking a number of actions to help recruit and retain teachers. We are spending £88 million this year to make sure that every school has access to the right number of teachers. We are opening up new and innovative routes into teaching. We have increased student-teacher intake targets for the fifth year in a row. We are setting targets to train teachers in the subjects where they are needed most. I will also be launching a new teacher recruitment campaign tomorrow. That builds on the success of last year's inspiring teachers campaign, which helped to drive a 19 per cent increase in PGE applications to Scottish universities compared to the previous year. We have also gone further than our manifesto commitment by providing £120 million of pupil equity funding for 2017-18. That funding will be available for head teachers for the additional resources that they consider, which will help to raise attainment and reduce the poverty-related attainment gap. That funding has been allocated directly to head teachers as they and other school leaders are best placed to know the needs of the children and young people in their schools. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for his reply. In 2007, the Scottish Government said that we will reduce class sizes in primary 1, 2 and 3 to 18 pupils or less. Four years later, it said that there will be a new legal limit of 25 on class sizes in primary 1. Last year, it did not mention class sizes at all. Today, only one in 10 primary 1 to primary 3 classes have 18 pupils or less. Yet, there are 2,000 fewer teachers but 20,000 more pupils. Does the cabinet secretary accept that head teachers are telling him that the number of children in a class matters? What is he going to do about it? Of course, I accept that point. The Government is trying to ensure that we have the adequate number of teachers in our schools. As Mr Scott will be aware, the number of teachers in our schools rose last year. That was a consequence of the decisions that the Government had taken to apply resources and to apply constraints on local authorities in relation to the number of teachers that were required in our schools. We believe that it is important that, because of our commitment, we are again reinforced in the local government settlement this year to protect the pupil-teacher ratio, which, of course, is a direct relationship between the number of teachers and the number of pupils. Of course, I acknowledge that that is important. The Government is taking a series of actions to address this issue and to ensure that we have an adequate supply of teachers that are able to lead our education system in Scotland. From August this year, more than 400,000 primary school teachers will be in Scotland. Nearly a quarter, 86,000, have additional support needs. Across Scotland's 2,000 primary schools, there are only 193 additional support teachers. As schools now face further budget cuts, how are class teachers meant to cope with that reality? The first thing to say to Mr Scott is that I am sure that he is aware that the definition of young people with additional support needs was significantly broadened in 2010, which accounts to a much broader scale of attention to ensure that even the more limited issues of additional needs that a young person might have, even of a temporary nature, are adequately and fully taken into account by the teaching profession. That is the first point to put the increase in the number of pupils with additional support needs into context. The second point is to say that the number of professionals who are working with children with additional support needs rose last year, as did the amount of money that was spent by local authorities on the area of activity. The rise was of the order of £24 million, if my memory serves me correct. Thirdly, in relation to the budget that was approved by Parliament at stage 1 proceedings last Thursday, there is a significant increase in the resources that will be available to local authorities as a consequence of the Government's budget. £160 million of additional resources were put into the local authority block grant, which adds to the increase in spending power of local authorities or in local authority services of £240 million as a consequence of the Government's budget. I know that Mr Scott and his colleagues were unable to support the budget last week. It defies belief that they were unable to support the budget last week because it represents significant investment in our local authority services, and I think that it would be welcome if Mr Scott could provide some support to that effort to ensure that the schools of Scotland are given the resources that they require, including £120 million of pupil equity funding that will be influencing the performance of 95 per cent of schools across Scotland. Liz Smith, the cabinet secretary knows that from this side of the chamber we believe that two things could help ease teacher shortages. First, ensuring that there is a national register of supply teachers, which would allow councils to hire staff with much greater flexibility than is currently the case, and secondly, to relax some of the rules around pensions abatement, which would tempt more of those in retirement age to find it easier to re-enter the profession. I ask the cabinet secretary what progress has been made on those two practical steps. I am afraid that I am sceptical about whether that would make much of a difference because the challenge is about having supply teachers available. We cannot register supply teachers that are not available, and schools are habitually looking for supply teachers to fill gaps that arise out of vacancies and out of temporary absences of schools. I do not doubt that there is a huge amount of effort put in by schools to ensure that the supply needs are met. On pensions abatement, I will have a look at that particular issue to determine whether there is something that can be done in that respect, but it is important. I have to be mindful of the importance of assessing issues of value for money in relation to all financial arrangements that are put in place in relation to the teaching profession. The same survey result did not just highlight teachers. It highlighted supporting staff and, indeed, classroom materials. Is the reality not that this highlights the impact of the £1.4 billion decline in revenue funding to local government since 2010? While the cabinet secretary mentions extra money, the reality is that that is a £170 million net decline even after the additional funding that he mentions, which is a cut, not an increase. Does that not reflect the reality of resourcing in education? No, it does not. There is an increase in spending power in local authority services before the stage 1 proceedings last Thursday of £240 million. We added another £160 million of that to that figure. Within that number, we have targeted £128 million of pupil equity funding directly into the schools of Scotland. No, I do not recognise the picture of funding that Mr Johnson talks about. One of the things that would help to improve the recruitment of teachers if members of Parliament, like Mr Johnson, were slightly more positive about Scottish education than the dismal diatribe that we hear from him every single time he speaks in this chamber on education, he contributes to undermining the quality and strength of Scottish education and he should up his game. To ask the Scottish Government what it is doing to reduce the amount of time families are spending in emergency accommodation. People may be in emergency accommodation such as B and Bs if they have to leave their home quickly, for example because of fire or domestic abuse. Households with children and pregnant women are covered by the unsuitable accommodation order, which ensures that that is only for a short period of time. We are committed to introducing a cap of one week for families with children and pregnant women living in B and B accommodation unless there are exceptional circumstances. Scotland's strong homelessness rights means that families are placed in temporary accommodation while they wait for appropriate, sustainable, permanent accommodation. Colleen McNeill Presiding Officer, let me begin by welcoming the Government's statement on the cap of one week on bed and breakfast accommodation. Is the minister aware that shelter in an article this week has said that the time that families have spent in temporary accommodation has risen by one-fifth in two years? The minister well knows that children are adversely affected by living in temporary accommodation, but since last year there are 826 more children living in temporary accommodation. Does the minister first agree that those are the correct figures? If not, at some point I would hope that he would indicate to me what the figures that he would accept are. Also, what is the minister doing to establish the factors and the reasons for any rise in those figures? The minister has pointed out that temporary accommodation is a necessary part of our strong homelessness legislation and ensures that families have a home if made homeless. Time spent in temporary accommodation should be best used to positively identify the best possible housing option for households to ensure a better outcome. We want time and temporary accommodation to be as short as possible and we are increasing housing supply to help with that. Temporary accommodation in Scotland is generally of good quality and is normally in the social rented sector. We have strengthened the unsuitable accommodation order, which regulates the quality of temporary accommodation for households with children and pregnant women, and we have plans to strengthen that further. The order also addresses the issue of proximity to health and education services. We are working with local authorities and partners to improve the use of temporary accommodation for homeless households. I wrote to Ms McNeill last month to offer to meet her on homelessness issues, and I say that that offer still stands. Presiding Officer, I thank the minister for his offer and I will take him up on that. However, I have to ask again, does the minister accept that there has been a rise in the number of children and the rise in the length of time that families are spending in temporary accommodation? Further to that, does the minister agree that it would be helpful if the Scottish Government were to create minimum standards for temporary and emergency accommodation, particularly since the welfare benefit cap could affect the quality of housing that families are living in, to ensure that they have decent affordable accommodation? We have done everything possible to ensure that temporary accommodation is the right accommodation. That is why 86 per cent of the temporary accommodation that is being used in Scotland at this moment is in the social housing sector. Increasing the affordable housing in Scotland by 50,000 units is one of the key planks of Government policy, 35,000 of those for social rent, and that will help in those particular areas. Households and temporary accommodation have decreased by 1 per cent from the same date last year. It is unfortunate that the number of children in households and temporary accommodation has increased compared to one year ago. As I pointed out in my previous answer, we will do everything possible to ensure that temporary accommodation is as short as possible. As I said, this period gives us the option to find the right housing for those folks while they are in that accommodation. As I previously said, we will put in a cap of one week for families with children and pregnant women living in BNB accommodation. I am glad that Ms McNeill welcomes that. Adam Dobbins In his report on homelessness in Scotland, Shelter Scotland in September of last year reported that, in England, the ministerial working group on preventing and tackling homelessness has brought together eight different Government departments to produce a series of what Shelter described as major strategic documents that have been significant in progressing the approach to preventing and tackling homelessness in England and have led to a number of important innovations such as joint funding initiatives and Shelter give some examples. The minister then said that far more must be done to ensure that similar joined up working with multiple strategic partners is achieved in Scotland. Does the minister agree? The homelessness prevention and strategy group of which Shelter is a member meets to look strategically at homelessness across Scotland. Any member of that group can raise any issue and we can try and find solutions to any issues that are raised. In terms of cross-government working, I have met colleagues over the past number of weeks, the Minister for Social Security, the Minister for Mental Health and the Minister for Children in early years to look at how we can better join up our approach to homelessness in Scotland. I intend to have bilateral meetings with other colleagues and to present findings to the strategy group that I have mentioned. I hope that, by working in partnership with our stakeholders and by ensuring that there is a cross-government response, we can do even better for homeless people in Scotland. I rise to make a point of order regarding reports that today the Government's independent poverty adviser removed criticism of Government cuts to councils from the final draft of her report on tackling poverty. In the earlier drafts as reported today, before the Government suggested change, Naomi Eisenstadt said that the cuts to councils services would hit the poorest, the hardest. Can you confirm that the questions raised today will be addressed in a ministerial statement before the end of the budget process? Thank you, Mr Early. I do not believe that that is a point of order, but it is an important point that you have raised, which I am sure the Government will have heard and will consider in due course. Point of order, Neil Findlay. Under rule 8.12, I intend to move a motion without notice. Under rule 8.14, I move a motion without notice to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes. That will allow additional debating time so that members who have indicated to you that they want to speak in this debate but have been denied a speaking slot by their party managers and whips can have the opportunity to speak in this debate. Subject, of course, to being called by you. That happens regularly in members' business. Regularly in members' business, and in the interests of democracy, I would urge you to accept this request. Thank you, Mr Findlay. That is a point of order. The member is raising a point for me to consider. Just for information, although business managers may recommend speakers, it is for the Presiding Officer to choose which speakers to select, and the Presiding Officer will choose speakers to reflect a range of views across the chamber. In this instance, the bureau made a recommendation and set aside the whole of this afternoon for today's business, and Parliament voted and agreed that that was sufficient time. We have not even started the debate yet. If members feel that the debate is overcrowded and there is not sufficient time later on, it is up to any member to move such a motion. However, at the moment, I will not consider the motion for a vote. Further point of order from Mr Findlay. Positioning, I would like it put to a vote. I have moved that position and I would like that put to a vote of Parliament. Yes, you made a suggestion and it is up to the Presiding Officer to decide whether or not to take it or not. In this case, I am not going to take it, so we are not going to have a vote on it. So, we will now...