Scottish Parliament, 4 May 2000

372 contributions from 81 members. The official report.

Introduction

Discipline in Schools

David (None, Lothians)

Good morning. Our first item of business is the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party debate on motion S1M-792, in the name of Mr Brian Monteith, on discipline in schools and amendments to that motion.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

It is now a year since we were elected and I am sure that most members accept that, although the public continue to support the Parliament, they are less enthusiastic about its overall performance.

This is the first Scottish Parliament for nearly 300 years. As we all go through a steep learning curve, some errors of judgment should be expected. One such error is raising public expectations too high. Instilling a belief that we can legislate away our problems is a misunderstanding that we must continue to suppress.

For example, we have an education bill that purports to legislate for better standards in schools. However, if we are honest with ourselves, we must acknowledge that the bill itself cannot deliver higher standards; it is the teaching profession that must achieve those standards for us—the parents—and, more important, for our children. We should look to the McCrone committee, not the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Bill, to raise the morale of the teaching profession. Furthermore, we must tackle the rising tide of indiscipline in our schools.

Teachers are leaving the profession—some say in droves. Although it is right that the bill should tackle incompetent teachers, Carol Fox of the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers has said:

"Never mind disciplinary procedures for incompetent teachers—what about statutory disciplinary procedures for pupils backed up by referrals to the Children's panel system or courts?"

And Carol Fox was previously a social worker.

I do not know of any head teachers who use exclusions lightly—and the figures bear that impression out. In 1996-97 and 1997-98, before the Government introduced its target reduction of 30 per cent by 2003, exclusions accounted for only 0.57 and 0.53 of the school population in Edinburgh. It is our contention that introducing target reductions for exclusions—or what, in my day, were called expulsions—will result in more violence against teachers and pupils and greater disruption of pupils, with a consequent lowering of morale for the teaching profession, which can only affect standards.

If we examine the most recent available statistics—for 1998-99—we find that a total of 187 working days were lost by teachers as a result of violence in classrooms. Such violence includes not only physical violence, but verbal abuse, which can often be highly threatening. There were 1,388 recorded incidents against teachers and 517 against ancillary workers such as dinner ladies and jannies. However, not everyone is prepared to believe even the Government's statistics, and it is not yet possible to compare figures over the years. That said, the anecdotal evidence suggests that violence is rising.

What do some of the experts say? Glasgow teacher Hugh Reilly, a columnist and teacher known to many, has said:

"It will become more difficult to exclude them if they misbehave. When inevitably exam results decline, the finger of blame will deservedly point to those responsible, i.e. the teachers."

What can we expect from the Government? Hugh Reilly continues:

"Sam Galbraith prattles on about the child being at the centre of everything and I have lived through the 'every child is special' guff dropped on me from high."

Yet

"the herd of decent kids who dominate every school, even the so-called sink schools, are treated as nonentities."

He was appealing for more concern to be shown for pupils who behave.

Last year, in a report to the City of Edinburgh Council, the education director said:

"Circular 2/98 has prompted a change in practice in exclusion from school, moving away from the ability to use informal exclusions. It is expected, therefore, with the loss of the informal exclusions as an available sanction, that there will, inevitably, be an increase in the numbers of formal exclusions from session 1998/99."

Why are exclusions used? As I have said, they are used sparingly. This example was given at a recent conference.

"A boy was found trying to set light to a Chemistry bench with a cigarette lighter. When challenged he threatened to burn the teacher and became verbally abusive. After school on the same day the boy hung around with a group of friends and made rude and obscene gestures to the teacher. These matters were reported and the boy was eventually excluded."

Note the "eventually".

"However management were immediately concerned to work out strategies to enable this boy to return to school. They were less concerned about the protests of the teacher who was made to feel neurotic and inadequate. Finally following NASUWT intervention agreement was reached that this child would not return to that chemistry class. But the problem has not been solved. It has merely been moved around and another teacher may face more serious harm next time."

In dealing with the issue, the focus was on the pupil and the concern was the exclusion statistics. What about the teacher? What about the other pupils? What about the message sent to the whole school about behaviour and punishment?

It is not as if the Government is not trying. It is, for instance, spending lots of money, because we know that it is resources that really make a difference—don't we? The Government has spent an amazing £95 million. Peter Peacock may not recognise that figure, because it is probably slightly bigger than his brief will tell him, so let me explain.

In a press release in January 1999, Helen Liddell announced £23 million to combat exclusion. Not content with that—after all, an election was coming up—she announced, in February 1999, £26 million to combat exclusion. The election being over, in September 1999 Sam Galbraith announced £23 million to combat exclusion—the press release headline said the money was "additional". In February this year, Peter Peacock, the minister present today, repeated the announcement of £23 million.

That is an example of well-meaning but misguided promotion of the same money time and again. We welcome investment in trying to provide alternatives, but it is clear that the culture is more important and must change. Spending is not enough; how it is spent is just as important.

Throughout the country, there are schools—I have seen them and people have written to me about them—that have closed-circuit television that either does not work or is not supported by video facilities to record the actions of pupils as they come back to the school to wreak their revenge on buildings or staff. Mobile phones are also causing problems of indiscipline. Pupils are using them to summon their parents to the school to sort out teachers who have the audacity to attempt to correct their misbehaviour.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Nonsense.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

It is not nonsense. A teacher in Edinburgh gave me an example of a teacher who tried to correct the behaviour of a pupil who was pushing children and staff in a corridor. The pupil then used his mobile phone to report the incident to his parent, who came and barricaded himself in the office with the head teacher. The police had to be called. That is real, not make believe.

Teachers need to know that they have the full support of their peers and management when dealing with indiscipline. Head teachers need to know that they have the authority to act and to make a judgment about what is correct for the undisciplined pupil and for other pupils whose studies are being disrupted.

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

The member has given us a number of anecdotes about the difficulties with indiscipline that teachers may face in the classroom. Can he give us any examples of what he would do, save exclude the child from school?

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am coming to that.

Not just parents, but teachers and union officials say that head teachers must have the authority to act. Children, too, are concerned about discipline in schools and regularly cite it as one of the most important issues they face, whether in the context of bullying or of classroom disruption.

So what can be done to reduce the growth in violence and indiscipline? I suggest that Mr Barrie listen, as this was the point of his intervention. Teachers tell me that they support small class sizes. That would certainly help with crowd control. This party has supported a reduction in class sizes. When we were in government, class sizes were reduced and we support the current Government's moves to continue that.

The Government's social inclusion policy will, unfortunately, give kids equal opportunity—opportunity to disrupt lessons. Instead, we should look to reduce the number of exclusions by changing the culture of behaviour in schools. We should look to give head teachers the freedom to decide what is in the best interests of each pupil and of their fellow pupils in their school's community, on a case-by-case basis. That is the real child-centred approach. Plucking arbitrary target figures out of the air is prescriptive, self-defeating and damaging.

Special units in schools can be an alternative—and useful—but they are not a panacea. They should not be more plush than the classrooms they replace and they should not become a goal to be aimed for—as viewed from their peer group—by children with a corrosive culture.

Punishment does not need to be severe, but it must follow bad behaviour and reward good behaviour. There should be no delay; delays lessen the impact on the pupils concerned and their classmates. Without such an approach, the victims are the hard-working pupils whose schooling is damaged, the teachers whose careers are often wrecked and the perpetrators who, learning nothing but contempt for authority, often continue their amoral behaviour in adult society.

As a parent, I want my two boys to be taught in a safe, happy environment by a safe, happy teacher. As a politician, I want teachers, and the dedicated, hard-working vast majority of pupils to know that we will protect and help them.

Some people may have expected me to ask for the belt to be brought back. I am sorry to disappoint them—I do not support that policy. There is a great deal of common ground in the amendments to my motion, but the one issue that we want to point to is target setting for exclusion. Let us remove those iniquitous targets and give teachers and head teachers the authority to act for the benefit of the school community and, in the long run, for the individuals who need help to mend their ways.

I move,

That the Parliament believes that improved discipline in Scottish schools would contribute greatly to improved educational standards and would improve teacher morale; further believes that the introduction of targets to reduce the number of pupil exclusions can have a negative impact on discipline; recognises that a more flexible approach is required that puts faith in the judgement of head teachers to resolve individual cases on their merits, and calls upon the Scottish Executive to abandon its agenda of target setting for numbers of school exclusions in favour of an approach based on the needs of individual children, their peers and teachers backed up by appropriate resources to provide the diversity of educational provision and sanctions against bad behaviour that are required to improve discipline.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I am not quite sure where to start after listening to that.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Good.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Latterly, Brian Monteith said something that I could agree with: that he wants kids to be educated in a safe, happy environment with safe, happy teachers. I agree with that entirely.

In leading up to that point, Brian Monteith painted a picture of Scottish schools as if they were in a state of continuous war—that every school is a war zone, with riots going on. I will need to check the Official Report for this, but he said that we are, unfortunately, trying to give children equal opportunities. That is a most extraordinary statement to come from anybody, when giving equal opportunities and enhancing life chances is precisely what we are trying to do.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I think that the minister is taking my point out of context. If he reads the Official Report he will see that my point was about the equal opportunity to disrupt schools—it was not the way he put it.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

That is not the way it came across either. Mr Monteith's speech was really a litany of populist prejudice, masquerading as a policy speech from the Conservatives.

I wanted to have a reasoned debate about this serious, complex issue for Scottish children and Scottish education. I do not underestimate the difficulties that some teachers face at some schools at some times each day, at some times each term and at some times each year. Equally, I believe that we are beginning to address those problems seriously.

Unlike the Tories, with their 18 disastrous years of rule for Scottish education, we want to address fundamentally what alienates young people from the school system and the support schools and families require to keep as many young people as possible inside the school system, which will increase their life chances. We want never to write off any child, despite what Brian Monteith says to belittle that aspect of our approach.

Throughout the life of this Parliament, the Executive has been very active in promoting good attendance and discipline in the classroom and in helping to alleviate problems that would otherwise act against us. That is why we attach high priority to a sustained and what I believe will have to be a long-term approach to addressing the current problem and to tackling the causes of young people's alienation. That is why we are investing in early intervention.

We are trying to improve literacy skills and increase young people's confidence in the classroom—often, the process of alienation that leads to disruption in the class begins when the young person fails to gain the required literacy skills. We are trying to increase the number of classroom assistants. I am glad that Brian Monteith welcomed that.

We want to give more support in the classroom in the earliest years to ensure that children are given a proper start and do not fall out of the system. We are trying to identify and supply support for dyslexia earlier. We are investing heavily in the sure start Scotland initiative, which tries to identify children below the school age in families that face difficulties, to ensure that those children can be given the support to develop to a point at which they can make the most of their learning opportunities when they go to school.

We are improving pre-school and nursery education to ease the path into school to make learning more meaningful and productive for a range of people. We are promoting homework support, which tries to ensure that support is available for children whose family support networks are not as strong as they should be. We are promoting before-school clubs and after-school clubs as a way of encouraging young people to be part of the school system.

Those and many other initiatives attempt to identify early those who may be beginning to start the process of alienation which can lead to disruption. Since 1998, all our schools have had locally agreed targets for attendance backed up by practical support materials and guidance to help them evaluate and develop their own practices.

The Executive is supporting measures such as out-of-school learning and education for work, which are designed to stimulate pupils' interest and will to learn. We are investing heavily in the new community schools programme, which focuses on the integration of services that provide support for children and their families and can help to resolve problems and difficulties in the home that might lead to lack of attendance and disruption in the classroom.

New community schools also serve as a launching ground for personal learning plans, a key feature of which is the involvement of pupils in drawing up their own programme of learning. The initiative will engage the pupil positively and allow them to take responsibility for their learning as they get older.

Bullying is a regrettable aspect of school life that can contribute to discipline problems. We are helping schools to reduce bullying through the anti-bullying network, which has a good reputation and makes available a range of anti-bullying materials to schools, pupils, teachers and parents.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The minister referred to 18 disastrous Tory years. Does he accept that it was Michael Forsyth, as Scottish Office minister with responsibility for education, who made the first moves to institute anti-bullying programmes?

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

A spark of light in a long and gloomy period is not a cause for rejoicing. The gloomy aspects of the Tories' time in office are what people remember.

The anti-bullying network also provides in-school training and a consultancy service to support individual schools in developing effective strategies and enables teachers to recognise and deal with bullying problems. We are also helping ChildLine to maintain its bullying helpline, which provides a valuable support service to young people who are suffering at the hands of bullies.

Exclusion from school, which Brian Monteith focused on, is an important issue that arouses strong feelings. We are conscious of the frustration that teachers sometimes feel in the classroom when, for example, they have repeatedly to respond to disruptive behaviour from a minority of pupils—I stress that the problem is with only a minority of pupils. Exclusion will often seem to be the answer to these problems. We believe that exclusion from school is an important sanction that ought to be available to local authorities but that it should be used only as a last resort in response to serious breaches of discipline or criminal behaviour. Being excluded from school means missing out on learning and once pupils miss time it can be difficult to catch up and the process of alienation, which sees pupils being forced to the margins of the school system, can begin. Exclusion can mean that a pupil becomes disengaged not only from school, but from society—something that causes problems for everyone in the community.

We realise that there is a need for a multi-agency approach and to engage with other agencies in the community to address that problem. It is wrong of Brian Monteith to suggest that the exclusion policy and the targets that we are setting are some kind of imposition and that head teachers will have no scope to act in the school. Head teachers have absolute discretion to act in the school and to make the decisions that they feel are necessary. I have seen a huge improvement in the methods that head teachers employ to manage indiscipline.

Unashamedly, we have set targets for the reduction of exclusion. We believe that it is only right for an Administration that takes seriously the need to reduce exclusion—for the reasons that I have begun to set out—to set targets for itself so that it can measure whether it is achieving those targets and heading in the right direction. It would be wrong for us to take a hands-off approach to the issue.

Many problems in society stem from some of the factors that I have mentioned. By tackling those factors in schools, in a positive and constructive environment, we hope to reduce exclusions and disruption in schools and the longer-term social problems that emanate from exclusions from schools. I shall pick up other points later in the debate.

I move amendment S1M-792.2, to leave out from "believes" to end and insert:

", whilst acknowledging the problem of maintaining discipline in schools, supports the Executive's continuing work to promote good discipline in schools; endorses the Executive's commitment to training and support for teachers in maintaining good discipline in the classroom; welcomes the provision of resources from the Excellence Fund to identify viable alternatives to exclusion from school and to integrate the support services for children and their families within the school setting, and welcomes the Executive's moves to encourage the greater involvement of parents in their children's education."

David (None, Lothians)

In view of the number of members who want to speak in both debates, there will be a four-minute limit on speeches in the open debate to enable everyone to speak.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

The Tory motion is another example of the way in which the Tories are, only now, addressing an issue that they failed to do anything at all about during 18 long years in government. I say to Brian Monteith that invoking the memory of Michael Forsyth in this new Parliament is a sign of desperation indeed.

What we have just heard from Peter Peacock, the Deputy Minister for Children and Education, shows a degree of complacency over a problem that exists in our schools. The problem of indiscipline may or may not be growing: it is difficult to tell whether it is worse now than it was a few years ago. It does not help anybody to scaremonger about such matters, as Brian Monteith did for 10 minutes this morning. It is clear, however, from the views of teachers and others who work in education, that the problem of indiscipline in schools is becoming much more difficult to deal with.

Indiscipline comes in many forms. One of the problems with Brian Monteith's speech was that, in true tabloid form, he focused on only the high-profile cases. There are, nevertheless, serious cases of indiscipline in schools. The results of a survey that was published earlier this year revealed that, in 1998-99, nearly 2,000 violent attacks on teachers and school staff took place. That survey should not be ignored by any member of this Parliament. The most horrifying statistic from the survey was the fact that 40 per cent of those attacks were committed by pupils in primary schools—a fact on which we should all reflect.

It is appropriate for us to ensure that the strongest possible message is sent to young people that violence in schools will simply not be tolerated and that any pupil who commits violent acts will be dealt with severely and can—and should—expect to be excluded from school. Zero tolerance of violence in our classrooms is the message that this Parliament should send out loudly and clearly.

There must also be an effective strategy to deal with the more endemic problem of minor, but persistent, misbehaviour that disrupts classrooms, takes up the time of teachers and saps their energy, burdens head teachers and damages the educational experience for all children. That type of behaviour is notoriously difficult to deal with. Much good work is under way, and I acknowledge that. The promoting positive discipline initiative, which convinces young people that good behaviour is ultimately more rewarding than bad behaviour, is the right approach. However, such an approach will not work in all cases. Much more needs to be done to tackle the causes of disruption and to enable teachers to deal with it.

It is important to say that the onus should not be on teachers alone. Teachers are not social workers, psychologists or health workers; nor should they be expected to do the job of parents. Parents must be expected to accept responsibility for the behaviour of their children. We must also recognise that children who are disruptive—especially those who cause serious disruption—have real social and emotional problems. It is right to say that, in such cases, exclusion should be the last resort and that those children deserve support to stay in mainstream education. However, it is not enough simply to say that, nor is it enough simply to set targets for reducing exclusions and to expect the education system to cope. Targets alone will not improve discipline—many teachers feel that the statistical targets are part of the problem, rather than part of the solution.

Increasingly, mainstream schools must deal with children with emotional, social and behavioural problems without any extra resources, in a climate where teachers feel that they are being asked to perform impossible tasks that are, essentially, conflicting. Inclusion is right, but it is not always easy and it does not come cheap. If we are to cut exclusions without causing disruption in our schools, there must be more on-site specialist provision—more learning and behavioural support teachers and one-to-one support for children with the most severe difficulties.

Peter Peacock will say that the Government is spending more money on all those services, but the picture on the ground is different. Rather than increasing provision, local authorities are being forced to cut those services. Specific grants from the education budget for social work services are projected to fall from £4.2 million in 1998-99 to £2.3 million in 2001-02. Much more needs to be done. We must train teachers properly to deal with disruptive pupils and with the problems that they cause. Class sizes must be cut—not just in the early years, but across the board. That is one of the most important steps that can be taken to create the right environment for the promotion of good behaviour.

An interesting research study carried out by Moray House Institute of Education a couple of years ago showed that 73 per cent of primary school teachers and 85 per cent of secondary school teachers cited the reduction of class sizes as the priority in improving school discipline.

An effective discipline policy must give head teachers the right to exclude where such action is absolutely necessary. Apart from anything else, there must be the threat of exclusion as a deterrent. There comes a point where the behaviour of an individual is so bad that not to remove them would deny the rights of the majority. Head teachers must be allowed to exercise their judgment.

When exclusion is the only answer, we must ensure that it is used constructively—as part of the solution to the problem of indiscipline, not just as a means of punishment. We must not export the problem to the streets. I say to Peter Peacock that exclusion must not lead to children missing out on learning. We need more off-site specialist provision. There are local authorities in Scotland that have no off-site provision for children who have been excluded from school. That cannot be allowed to continue.

This issue is complex—more complex than Brian Monteith recognised in his speech this morning. Indiscipline in schools cannot be dealt with by soundbites or by a glib, populist approach. Equally, the problem cannot be dealt with by the Government's approach of simply imposing targets, which it expects other people to meet. It is time for a more complex and sophisticated solution that recognises that this problem must be dealt with urgently.

I move amendment S1M-792.1, to leave out from "improved discipline" to end and insert:

"indiscipline in Scottish schools undermines efforts to improve educational standards for all children and damages teacher morale; believes that whilst exclusion of pupils from schools should always be a last resort, headteachers' professional judgement must not be unduly restricted by the imposition of statistical targets for reducing exclusions; and calls upon the Scottish Executive to implement a national strategy for improving school discipline which includes an emphasis on the role of parents, improved teacher training, enhanced specialist provision in schools, increased numbers of learning and behavioural support teachers, a reduction in class sizes, and a constructive use of exclusions."

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

I, too, listened with great interest to Brian Monteith's speech—I hope that he is not leaving the chamber. We heard some colourful, anecdotal illustrations from him, and I share Nicola Sturgeon's view. His speech was a bit too populist for me. However, it gave away Brian's view: he is locked in a mindset of the past. I will illustrate that with a small tale.

When I was a pupil at Tain Royal Academy, we had a bad boy who not only filled a fire extinguisher with weedkiller and sugar in an attempt to blow up the school—that was his ultimate act—but I remember that he put sugar in the rector's petrol tank. That lad was expelled. As it would not be fair to record his name, I will not say it, but I can assure the minister that it was not me. I met that fellow just the other day in the street and, pointing to something in the newspaper, I said, "Look at that." However, I did not get through to him and suddenly remembered that he could not read; he never could. Of course he could not read. He was a casualty of the bad old system.

I hope that all members would accept that exclusion is not at all desirable, and I have some statistics that will back up that view. A recent MORI poll in England indicated that 72 per cent of children excluded from school had offended in the previous year, compared with only 28 per cent of those who attended school regularly. A report by the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, "Learning the Lessons", includes research findings from the Metropolitan police and estimates that 40 per cent of all robberies, 25 per cent of burglaries and 20 per cent of thefts in London are committed during school hours by children aged between 10 and 16. I put it to the chamber that exclusion leads to a form of ghettoisation; it is a means by which one can send children into outer darkness and not worry about them. Brian Monteith has, quite rightly, owned up to saying that the day of the taws is over, and so it is. We must move away from the mindset of the past and move towards a new way of doing things.

Peter Peacock has touched on the resources being made available to teachers. I hear what Nicola Sturgeon says about social work, but if she were to go to an authority such as the one that runs my old school, Highland, she would discover that councils are up front about saying that there is new money in education and it is very welcome. Their only concern is about whether funding will continue when the current period is over. I hope that it will.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will Mr Stone give way?

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

I will not give way. I do not have much time left.

The underlying trends are there. The notion of good pupil pressure can be made to work. That is closely linked to what the minister said about community schools. I would like the community schools scheme to be extended, perhaps even into primaries, as I am sure that it is the way forward.

One thing that interested me about what Brian Monteith did not say was that he did not mention the role of parents. The minister's amendment mentions

"the greater involvement of parents in their children's education."

That is something that Nicola Sturgeon also touched on, and it is absolutely fundamental. It is about community schools, it is about good pupil pressure and it is about involving parents. Those three new directions are radically different from the old mindset that led to ghettoisation and, ultimately, led to an old classmate of mine, now in his mid-40s, not being able to read. I urge members to support the minister's amendment.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

It is important to start a debate such as this by stressing the points upon which we are all agreed. I hope that we all agree that teachers should be able to teach without fear of abuse, physical or verbal, from pupils or from their families. We must recognise that cases such as those outlined by Brian Monteith occur and have to be dealt with. We also agree that, if there is indiscipline in a class, it will be more difficult for the teachers to teach and for the pupils to learn. Again, that is an issue that we must address. However, I regret the way in which the motion has been worded, because it concentrates on exclusions. A more positive approach to the whole discipline issue would have been more effective.

Many schools are now involved in promoting positive discipline, and there are various theories as to how to do that. The most commonly used package in Scottish schools is "Turn Your School Around". It is a behavioural management package that can be used in primary and secondary schools. It has eight components. I will not list them all, but the best known are the concepts of circle time and golden rules. Such discipline packages involve pupils in establishing the rules. They also give teachers the opportunity to work with their pupils to establish a relationship and to build up their confidence.

All the theories about positive discipline show that the teacher needs to be assertive. Lee Canter, one of the theorists, said that the assertive teacher is one who

"clearly, confidently and consistently states expectations to pupils and is prepared to back these words up with actions".

The behaviour of the teacher is therefore a crucial element in the discipline procedure.

Those packages also involve parents, and Jamie Stone stressed the importance of involving parents. It should be fairly obvious to all of us that parents and teachers working together will have a more positive effect on pupils. However, the reverse situation, where the relationship between parent and teacher has broken down, will always be open to difficulties. We must remember that parents have their own experiences of schools. Some parents will have been in situations that have led to them now feeling no respect whatsoever either for the school or for the education process. That attitude is passed on to their children and it can be difficult to re-establish a relationship. However, excluding a child will serve only to perpetuate that line of broken relationships without dealing with the problem.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank the convener of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee for giving way. Mary Mulligan said much that I agree with, as I agree with much of what the previous speakers said. For the avoidance of doubt, does she accept that the primary point that is addressed in our motion is the target setting of exclusions? We are not saying that exclusions are right; we are decrying the fact that there are targets to reduce exclusions, which puts pressure on head teachers and takes away their ability to make independent judgments.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

The aim of setting targets to reduce exclusions is to ensure that more children are included within the education process and receive a positive experience. We welcome that. I am concerned about the view that excluding pupils shows how tough we are. The more difficult option is to keep the pupils in school and work to manage their behaviour.

Brian Monteith tried to rescue his motion and his speech by being positive towards the end of his speech, but exclusions are only a small part of the disciplinary process. Exclusion only achieves what Brian Monteith criticised: it just moves the problem around. What do excluded children do? They are more likely to be left with time on their hands, which is time to cause more trouble.

Less serious discipline problems do not require exclusion, but they may be experienced more frequently by teachers, and they are just as demoralising. That is why the positive teaching measures that Peter Peacock outlined are so important. The motion has raised an important issue of discipline in our schools. I hope that the debate will contribute in a more positive way than the motion has set out to do.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I would like to talk about disruptive behaviour in the classroom, and also the increase in stress-related absence among teachers throughout Scotland. The minister painted a rosy picture, and Nicola Sturgeon was right to say that he was complacent. Since I have been elected I have spoken to many classroom teachers and head teachers throughout the north-east of Scotland, and I can tell the minister that morale in many schools—not every school—is at rock bottom. Members would not believe some of the horror stories that teachers tell.

It is clear that disruptive behaviour is one of the factors behind the increase in stress-related absence, which is a topic that I have mentioned before in Parliament. I was interested to find out some statistics recently from Aberdeenshire Council. Because of local government cuts, the council was looking for teachers to apply for voluntary severance. I thought that I would find out how many teachers applied for it, because it would give an indication of teachers' morale in the area.

Aberdeenshire Council's director of education wrote to me on 25 April. I can tell the minister that 275 teachers called the council to inquire about voluntary severance, which means that 12 per cent of teachers want out of their jobs. The director of education also told me that at that time, 210 staff were off ill. That is between 10 per cent and 11 per cent of the work force. The minister should not paint too rosy a picture. He should find out the national figures for Scotland, because they would indicate the morale of teachers.

Dundee City Council is another of the few councils that keeps statistics on stress-related absence among teachers. The council wrote to me and said that between 1 August and the end of December last year 2,093 days were lost through stress in the city of Dundee. If that figure is extrapolated, 5,000 days per year are lost in the city due to stress—nearly five days per teacher. Those are appalling statistics.

Violence in the classroom is one of the reasons why morale is low, and why so many teachers are taking time off due to stress, but it is not the only factor. Having heard some of the stories, which I shall tell the minister, of what is happening in the north-east of Scotland, I find it no wonder that morale is low.

We are talking about exclusion. I know of a couple of cases in Aberdeenshire. In one, a child assaulted his fellow classmates. An auxiliary teacher was brought in to help the classroom teacher to cope, and the child assaulted the auxiliary teacher. That teacher was transferred to another primary school because the parents refused to acknowledge that there was a problem, and they refused to let their child see a psychologist. There was nothing that the school could do about that, apart from transferring the child to another school. The child went to another school and assaulted his fellow pupils there. The classroom teacher in that school had to take early retirement through stress because of that situation.

There are many such examples from north-east Scotland. Another child is at his third primary school because his parents refused to acknowledge that their child has a problem. They blame the schools for all the hassle in the classroom. Once again, the teachers can do nothing because their hands are tied. I hope that the minister will look into those examples following today's debate.

We all know that education suffers as a result of destructive behaviour in the classroom. The five to 14 curriculum suffers and teachers cannot meet their targets because they are spending so much time dealing with destructive behaviour in the classroom. A child can assault staff, be a menace in the playground and disrupt the education of the other kids in their class, but the options that are available to staff to deal with such problems are extremely limited. A child might also assault the teacher. I know of one case in which the child was excluded for five days. The child is back at school and the teacher is now terrified. There is nothing that the school can do in the situation.

We need more resources to provide alternatives-to-exclusion units on site at schools. It is fair enough not to want to exclude children, but there must be resources for alternatives. In Aberdeenshire, local government cuts mean that the council has to get rid of teachers and there is a lack of units that provide alternatives to exclusion.

Many factors other than destructive behaviour cause stress-related absence among teachers. I ask the minister to respond positively to the points that are being made in the debate. I also suggest that he visits north-east Scotland. He should get in touch with teachers and head teachers and hear what they have to say.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I will declare an interest, in that I was a teacher for 25 years and I remain a member of the Scottish Secondary Teachers Association.

The past year since I left the classroom has been the fastest and most stress-free of my working life. Allowing for the fact that it has been a year since I was a teacher, I took the precaution yesterday—in case things had changed remarkably for the better—of checking facts before I dared to speak in the debate. The SSTA tells me that it has just completed a major survey of its membership and the results will be announced in the next few days. The survey was about discipline and it is the association's belief that discipline ranks first among the concerns of secondary teachers. It is even ahead of the perennial issue of pay and the recurring problem of curriculum change, which at the moment centres on higher still.

The survey generated a major—indeed, in the association's terms, overwhelming—response. The problem is not about the headline-grabbing incidents and the soundbites that were referred to earlier. Such incidents remain rare, fortunately, and in many cases there are sanctions available to deal with them. What is defeating and wearing and leads to the stress-related illnesses, absentee rates and the preoccupation among older teachers with securing early retirement is the persistence of relatively minor indiscipline. One can hardly imagine, if one has not faced or confronted it, how such indiscipline can be a problem. The problem is the relentless grind and the wear and tear of people who will not co-operate, people who are upset and people who are alienated from school or society.

Peter Peacock's speech was positive and contained much that I can identify with, but he seems to see the discipline problems in schools as being the result of alienation of the pupil from the school. In fact, very many of the problems come from outwith the schools and are nothing to do with the schools. The difficulties cannot all be resolved by dealing with parents because parents are often not available or do not have control over their children. Schools are being asked to deal with many wider social problems and teachers must develop coping strategies.

Most of the time teachers cope very well by trying to be lively and interesting and by being non-confrontational in dealing with children. Teachers cope by being persistent and patient and by deploying their personalities. I am sure that the chamber will have worked out by now why I was an excellent teacher. [Laughter.] However, the most skilful, tolerant and experienced teachers do not always cope. It is always likely that there will be situations that strike out of the blue because of something that happened in another classroom, something that happened yesterday evening or something that happened at the pupil's home.

Exclusion is part and parcel of school life. It includes the five-minute exclusion outside the door that a teacher gives someone to allow that person to calm down and to enable the teacher to rearrange the lesson after an incident has taken place. It also includes informal exclusion when a school sends someone home for a few days until a meeting can be set up with social workers, parents or whoever a teacher wants to talk to. Schools do not readily and quickly press the expulsion or the ultimate exclusion button. The number of recorded cases indicates that it is rarely used. When it is used, that is because the school is at the end of its tether with the pupil in question. No one seeks to exclude lightly.

We have to raise further the profile of discipline in schools. It should be a much greater component of in-service training and of Government guidance to schools and education authorities. It should feature much more prominently in the inspection process, because it is fundamental to the good management and the smooth day-to-day operation of a school. I was reassured by what the minister had to say this morning about the exclusion targets. There is concern in schools that the exclusion target that has been set is arbitrary. People want to know where the figure of 30 per cent comes from and what it will mean in practice.

Sometimes head teachers are seen as company men, who represent the education authority against the teachers instead of championing the teachers against the authority, whose interest is to keep as many children in school as possible. If we are empowering head teachers, people will be happy with that. If we are saying that head teachers have the right to exclude pupils for a period of days to calm down a situation and to bring people in, they will be happy with that too.

When discussing education in this chamber previously we talked about the structure of promoted posts in the context of a pay review. The structure of promoted posts is also extremely important in the context of discipline. Part of the process of managing people is being able to refer someone on to a figure of greater authority—like you, Presiding Officer—who knows that there are lines that must not be crossed.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

You are close to one now.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

If we flatten the structure of promoted posts in secondary schools, there is a danger that we will make the human and personality difficulties in schools more difficult to contain. We might end up with more exclusions as a result, as then all we would have left is the nuclear button.

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

The implications of the Tory motion and the tone of Brian Monteith's contribution do nothing to advance what is a complicated and diverse issue. Apparently, if the Scottish Executive did not have targets on school exclusions, head teachers would not have greater flexibility to exclude disruptive students, but that is exactly what head teachers have at the moment.

Previous speakers have been quite right to say that indiscipline among a minority of pupils in our secondary schools and some of our primary schools is an increasing problem—as it is, as Murray Tosh indicated, in society as a whole. However, it is important to bear in mind that different education authorities, and different schools within those education authorities, sometimes have quite different policies on school exclusions. The exclusion rates in high schools even in the same education authority can vary quite markedly. High exclusion rates do not equal good schools, and low exclusion rates do not equal poor schools. Given that there is no such correlation, we have to consider whether higher or lower rates of exclusion are the result of the ethos in particular schools.

As Peter Peacock and others have already said, exclusions should be regarded as the last resort and as a measure to deal with very serious breaches of school discipline or regulations. We need to consider what else can be done in schools to support pupils with social, behavioural or learning difficulties. We have already heard about behaviour support units in schools, greater use of learning support services in schools and the possibility of campus units. It is also important that schools have stronger links with the outside agencies with which they have day-to-day contact: the psychological services, community education and, dare I say it, social work.

I am glad that Brian Monteith does not wish to bring back corporal punishment. That is in marked contrast to his colleague Lyndsay McIntosh, who in the debate of 24 February on physical chastisement seemed to indicate that we should be considering that. It was certainly Shuggie the security man's solution in The Scotsman today.

Mr Monteith said that we should punish bad behaviour and reward good behaviour. No one would take issue with that. However, he has to realise that, when we exclude some pupils, we reward bad behaviour, because exclusion is exactly what they wanted. The challenge that faces all of us, and educationists in particular, is to find a way of holding on to those disenchanted pupils in S3 and S4. We should not reward them by sending them on the merry-go-round, which is what often happens when pupils are excluded. They move round from school A to school B to school C, usually ending up in a residential educational establishment.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Does the member feel that maintaining the school-leaving age at 16 is a contributory factor to the problem that he has been speaking about? Would he support a change in the leaving age, which might allow pupils to go to further education colleges earlier and therefore stay within the education system, or might allow them to find education through work with an employer that provided education? That would keep them in education, but away from the school that they may have rejected.

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

Many people have tried to promote that idea. The school-leaving age is 16; for a large number of pupils—especially those whose birthdays fall in the latter half of the year and who cannot officially leave school until December but who intend to leave school as soon as they are 16—we often consider joint placements with FE colleges or some other arrangement to fill those last six months. Taking a child-centred or an individual approach, which Mr Monteith seemed to rubbish, is exactly the way to proceed.

As I said, excluding a pupil from school is often seen as rewarding bad behaviour. We must understand what we are doing when we exclude a kid. We are probably reducing their life chances considerably. We had a debate on looked-after children earlier this year, in which we talked about the lack of good outcomes for many young people in the looked-after system. Many young people who find themselves excluded from school have poor outcomes in later life. I remember being told by an educational psychologist during my days in social work that every time a child moves between schools, he or she can lose up to six months of education. If the child is excluded from two or three schools, a considerable amount of learning opportunity is lost.

My time has run out. I look forward to listening to other people's contribution.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

This has been a debate of contrasts. The strongest contrast has been on the Tory benches. We had what one can only call the William Hague, saloon bar, skinhead approach to politics, in which all the popular prejudices were displayed. Thanks to Mr Monteith, things are now even worse. We now know that Lord Shaftesbury lived in vain, that working children are to be reintroduced into society and that the school-leaving age is to be dramatically lowered. Mr Monteith's contribution explained why the Tories have been excluded from Scottish politics for so long and why they will continue to be excluded. It would have been depressing, but there was a curious ray of sunshine, and I have to describe Mr Murray Tosh as that ray of sunshine. That will embarrass him and probably hold back his progress in the Scottish Conservative party.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I have been called worse.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

His contribution was excellent and distinguished. He has practical experience, and has pointed out to us many of the problems and some of the solutions. At the heart of what Murray Tosh said is the fact that serious exclusion is failure. It is a failure of children to integrate, to socialise and to be able to work with their teachers and their peers in society. It is a failure of parents to care for and to manage their children. It is a failure, as Mary Mulligan pointed out, of parents to establish a relationship with the school. That can happen for many complex reasons, not least of which may have been the parents' own experience at school. It is a failure of the school and teachers to cope. That is not a criticism, but a moment comes when a breathing space of some sort is required for the sanity of the school staff and the smooth running of the school. It is a failure of the system, whether that be the local authority as employer or the Government or Executive as resourcer. It is the failure of the system to resource and support individual teachers, schools and families. Exclusion is an expression of failure and how we overcome that failure is the subject of this debate.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

rose—

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

No, not at the moment.

The debate should not be an excuse for a litany of individual incidents to make Scottish education appear to be a cross between "Blackboard Jungle" and "Nightmare on Elm Street"—which is what we had from Mr Monteith. Instead we must look at tackling failure.

Although Mr Peacock has spoken of some of the things that are being done, he has not looked widely enough at good practice elsewhere, including, perhaps surprisingly, practice south of the border. Just last week Mr Blunkett announced more resources for learning support units and for secondary schools to take on and tackle the issue of difficult pupils. In France there is more investment in ancillary staff and counselling, coupled with more investment in policing schools. The police have a useful, if regrettable, role in assisting a school if things get out of hand.

Involving parents in education is good practice everywhere. Schools do not have the sole responsibility for educating children; it is a joint responsibility in which parents are deeply involved. We must find strategies and methods to bridge that gap because, as good teachers know, to educate children without parental involvement is to invite failure. When serious exclusion takes place, it is the relationship between the child, the family and the school that is at the heart of solving the problems presented. That is not easy, but children should not be excluded from school and left to be a burden to the community. As Nicola Sturgeon said, we must not export the problem outwith the school. The family must be involved in the solution.

I regret the way this debate began, but it is worth having. I hope that it will finish more positively and contribute to solving the problem, not just for schools and teachers but for families.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

Following Mike Russell in introducing a more positive slant—and what Scott Barrie said is closest to where I am coming from—we should not be approaching this from a Roman discipline angle. The debate should be about how to maintain an atmosphere that supports the enjoyment of learning.

What are the problems in maintaining that atmosphere in schools? Our society remains deeply divided with between 20 per cent and 30 per cent of children living in poverty. That is where part of the problem starts. I am glad that the Executive has committed itself to addressing Scotland's problem of poverty.

I have no particular problem with setting targets. I want to see targets for conversion to organic agriculture, for example. But targets should be realistically negotiated in education on a school-by-school basis. Setting an overall target of a 30 per cent reduction in exclusions for Scotland is unrealistic. A school-by-school negotiation of targets can help each school to address its problems in a realistic way.

From the bottom of my heart I support Richard Lochhead's call for research into the numbers of teachers in Scotland suffering from stress, absent through sickness and volunteering for early retirement. Those problems became increasingly evident throughout my teaching career—37 years, Mr Tosh—a third of it in schools that could be described as difficult to teach in. The school I taught in last was in many ways very easy to teach in, but is still a school where teachers suffer from overwork and stress and feel undervalued. At bad times of the year the absence rate was spectacularly high on occasion.

I support what Peter Peacock is trying to do but I am also sympathetically aware that it is not enough because of very limited resources. To follow on from what Mike Russell said, we should find money and put it where it is really needed.

There are already signs that we want to get kindergarten and pre-school education up to a higher standard. However, in primary schools, if we could reduce class sizes to under 20, it would have the most spectacular effect on the quality of education and the stress on teachers. It would mean that the bulk of children going into secondary schools were keen on being in school as they would not have been alienated by being taught in classes of 30. We must get it into our heads that a class of 30 is still too big for a primary teacher to cope with. The children do not get the attention that they deserve.

A class is sitting in the public gallery. I am sure that they would like to have an extra teacher, although I am also sure that they are very fond of the teacher who is with them. Smaller classes would make it easier for everybody, children and teachers. Our aim must be to reduce class sizes. That would do so much to solve this problem.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

I am glad to be able to speak in this debate. I am sorry that I missed the beginning of Mr Monteith's speech, as it was clearly very interesting. Did I miss the bit about boot camps and consignment to the army? I am sure that it will be coming, from what other members have said about the tone of his speech.

This is a serious and important issue. There are times when exclusion—or expulsion as it was called in my day—is necessary, because of the disruption caused by a small minority of our pupils. However, it should be the last resort and should be used only when every other avenue has been explored. As Murray Tosh said, and as I know from my experience, that is often the case.

Part of the problem that we face is that, sadly, for many pupils and even for their parents, exclusion is not seen as a punishment. The cynical bit in me might say—Scott Barrie made this point, too—that some see it as a reward and a badge of honour. In some of our communities, a person has to be excluded to be somebody. We must consider why that is so.

The lack of discipline in much of our society is an indictment of what happened in the 1980s. People were seen to have little value. Education did not matter because, whatever happened, people felt that they were going to be consigned to life on the dole or a poorly paid job and would have to live in poverty—that was the experience of their parents, brothers and sisters, so why should it be any different for them? That situation has led to increased drug abuse, crime and social exclusion.

If we are serious about tackling the problem of discipline in our schools, we must deal with the problem of social exclusion in the wider society. We must tackle the issues that cause disruption, a number of which were mentioned by Nicola Sturgeon, Peter Peacock and Mike Russell. One is the fact that parents do not feel involved in their children's education any more.

I welcome many of the recent initiatives. Before I was in politics, I was a community education worker. I worked in what was then the new initiative of home-school community partnerships, which brought together the home, the school and the community to build up the link that was missing. Those partnerships are valuable, as they bring into school parents who had a bad experience of education and whose educational outlook was dull, but who now see that they can play a vital role in their child's education. Those partnerships should be supported and encouraged—I know that the Executive is doing that.

We must deal with other problems that cause exclusion. Children who have difficulty in reading and writing can quickly become bored because they cannot grasp the basics; that can lead to indiscipline. The early intervention strategy is beginning to kick in and is proving successful in tackling some of those problems. The frustration of some of the kids with whom I worked in community education arose because they could not read or write—they could not compete with their friends on a level playing field. The only way in which they could deal with that and get attention was by being bad. The problems grew from that. We failed to tackle some of those problems.

Early intervention is an important step forward, as are alternatives to exclusion. Just before I left my previous job, I was working on some of the pilot projects for alternatives to exclusion. As Scott Barrie said, forming partnerships with local further education colleges and local business is important for some young people, but for others the right option is to keep them in school and to help them towards educational achievements that they have ruled out throughout their educational life. To get some standard grades at any level is an achievement for those people and it gives them a new status in their communities.

We need to reduce the number of exclusions. If we fail to recognise that any increase in the number of exclusions is a bad thing for society, the Government and the Parliament will fail to act. I support the Executive's amendment and ask members to reject the simplistic solutions proposed by the Conservative and Scottish National parties.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Nobody, with the possible exception of Brian Monteith, really believes that excluding children is in itself a good thing. However, I do not believe that the option of exclusion should be de facto removed by target setting.

Discipline problems in schools are destructive for teachers and pupils. They have a profound impact on teacher morale and turn the teacher's day into an exercise in crowd control rather than imparting knowledge. I will focus on the issue of violence against teachers. It is a terrible admission to make that our society has such a problem.

In 1998-99, there were 245 acts of violence per 100,000 pupils, which directly resulted in the loss of a total of 187 working days. Of course, those were only the reported incidents—I am sure that there were many unreported incidents. In total, there were nearly 2,000 violent incidents in that year, almost 40 per cent of which took place in the primary sector. More than half the incidents that were reported involved violence, and the majority of other incidents involved verbal abuse.

What should be done about the problem? The Executive has implemented various schemes targeting disruptive behaviour, such as the alternatives to exclusion programme, which aims to support authorities in finding other ways of dealing with disruptive behaviour. Although such programmes are welcome, it must be recognised that any pupils facing exclusion are likely to have been involved in serious incidents in the school. It is on that point that I have concerns about the Executive's approach, which appears to be driven by easily defined numerical targets, such as reducing expulsions by a third. Although it is good to reduce the number of expulsions, setting targets for that may lead to schools trying to cope with very disruptive or even violent pupils, which may have devastating consequences for teachers or other pupils. The approach fails to recognise the individual requirements of pupils and may not be in their best interests in the long run.

Schools need to keep the option of expulsion—I was pleased that, to some degree, the minister confirmed that they would be able to. Schools' decisions on discipline should not be influenced in any way by Government targets. Does the minister really believe that target setting will not influence a head teacher's decision on expulsion?

We recognise that disruptive pupils have special needs. As has been stated, to meet those needs schools require adequate facilities, learning support, adequately trained teachers and appropriate class sizes, all of which cost money. However, education authorities across the country are having to make cuts in many areas. The clear message to the Executive from today's debate is that Scottish schools need to be adequately resourced if real improvement is to be made in standards of discipline.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

We now move to winding-up speeches.

Ian Jenkins (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

I begin with a slightly off-the-wall complaint. I wish the Parliament would give us a wee bit more notice of motions and amendments. That information is arriving very late and it is difficult for our staff to help us to prepare. I am not talking about the Conservatives' business in particular; it is simply that I have been asked to raise that matter today.

As a teacher who left the profession—although not in a drove as Brian Monteith suggested—I was very interested in the singular contribution of Mr Montooth. Jamie Stone spoke about violent incidents. When I was a pupil, three pupils went into the chemistry department and burned down my school. In a very good job-creation scheme, two of those pupils got jobs building the new school. That is true.

Brian Monteith's motion contains some grains of sense but is misguided at its heart. I am not a fan of targets or target setting, but targets themselves are not wicked. They should be sensible, open to discussion and agreed with the people involved so that they direct policy in an appropriate way. In this case, I am slightly worried about the 30 per cent target. I wonder where it came from; work might need to be done on that.

As Brian said, the problem with disruptive pupils is to be solved not by politicians but as far as possible within the school and, failing that, within the local authority. A pupil should be excluded from education only as a last resort. It is sensible to recognise that we cannot wash our hands of disruptive or difficult pupils. Pupils who are not inside the education system are alienated from society, community and from our values. We ignore that alienation at our peril. As Jamie Stone indicated, the London statistics show that the crime rate among kids who are not in school is astonishing and deeply worrying. Those children include not just the ones who have been permanently excluded, but those who are skipping school.

The acceptance of open-ended exclusion is a doctrine of despair. Setting targets is not the problem, although I hope that it can be part of the solution. We do not think that classroom teachers should be forced to tolerate chronic disruptive behaviour that seriously damages the working ethos and good order of their classes. Richard Lochhead and Murray Tosh spoke effectively and accurately about teacher stress and the way in which exclusion can be part of the solution. I want to make a distinction between long-term exclusion and the temporary exclusion that Murray was talking about, in which pupils are sent home for a couple of days and their parents are brought in to discuss the problems with the school. That is not reprehensible; it is a tactic that tries to bring in the parents and is used effectively on a daily basis.

We are all in the same camp—even Brian Monteith—because we want to improve discipline in schools. Peter Peacock gave a full account of developments in his opening remarks, which, as Nicola Sturgeon acknowledged, are positive steps in the right direction.

Scott Barrie talked about bringing in social workers and so on; that, too, is absolutely right. All those other agencies should be involved. Murray Tosh and others talked about parents, whose involvement is valuable.

I agree with Robin Harper about class sizes. Everyone in the profession would say that class sizes are important. When the minister revises the Scottish schools code, I hope that he will accept that and examine class sizes carefully.

In a sense, I agree with some members that the terms of the Executive amendment, on paper, sound a bit complacent. I am glad that the minister's speech showed that that was not the case and I am pleased that the tone of the rest of the debate was in keeping with that.

I regret that the debate has been so short. The issue is complex and, if the Tories thought that it was worth debating, they should have given it the whole morning. Teachers need our support, as do parents and pupils. The solution will not be easy and will not come cheap. If we all work together, we can do something about the problem.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

For all that the Tories' credibility on this issue is somewhat limited, I am glad that we have had the opportunity to debate the matter.

Ian Jenkins rightly said that politicians alone cannot solve the problem of indiscipline in school. That much is true, but it is also true that the policies that we adopt will have a real impact on other people's ability to tackle the problem. It is also the case that the policies that politicians adopt have the potential to hinder those who are at the sharp end and have to deal with the problems. That is why I have to conclude by saying that I am not over-impressed by the Tories' approach, nor indeed by that of the minister. As I said, the Tory approach, which simply takes a few examples and presents them as the norm in our schools, is scaremongering. That does a service to nobody, whether pupils or teachers.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Nicola Sturgeon and others have been consistent in trying to portray our position as something that we have made plain it is not. Does she accept that my opening speech was based not only on examples and quotes from a social worker, a teacher and a director of education—none of whom, I believe, is a member of the Conservative party—but on comments from her own past speeches?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I did indeed identify the direct quotes from a speech that I made at a recent conference. Brian Monteith drew on that conference a lot today; I think that he attended it for 45 minutes out of the entire day, so I am glad that he has, at least, read the conference notes. In any event, his approach is to scaremonger and to use examples that, I am sure, are valid but are to some extent taken out of context.

On Labour's approach, I accept that much good work is under way but there was a hint of complacency in the minister's speech. I would have liked him to acknowledge—perhaps he will do so when he sums up—that the imposition of statistical targets can be a problem. Many head teachers will admit privately that the pressure not to exclude—brought about by the targets—and the pressure of the bureaucracy that surrounds exclusions lead in some cases to children remaining in mainstream schools when it would be to the benefit not only of other pupils but to those children themselves for them to be removed, even temporarily, from those schools. In other cases, those pressures lead to head teachers using informal exclusion, whereby they work around the formal procedures by asking a parent to take a pupil out of school for a couple of days to allow a situation to calm down. Neither of those things is to the benefit of anybody in the education system.

The minister needs to acknowledge that part of the reason why teachers feel under so much pressure is that they are being asked to perform tasks that are, on the face of it, conflicting. On the one hand, they are asked to teach an increasing number of pupils who have serious problems and whose behaviour may disrupt daily the entire classroom. On the other hand, they are expected to raise standards continuously and to ensure that their school is high up the league tables, a position for which they will be held publicly accountable. Such matters should not be conflicting, and would not be if we valued the work of a teacher in keeping a difficult pupil within mainstream education as much as we valued the work of a teacher in getting a well-behaved pupil through his or her exams. However, that is not the current culture of education in this country and, as a result, a lot of pressure is placed on teachers.

Schools around the country are finding that they have to do more with less; although they have to keep difficult children within mainstream education, they do not have the resources to do so. We need more specialist teachers, learning support teachers and behavioural support teachers and more facilities in schools to deal with pupils who cause most difficulty.

Finally, I want to say a few words about exclusion. Many speakers have said that exclusion is seen as a reward for bad behaviour; the minister himself said that it simply allowed pupils to miss out on learning. We must fix that problem, because exclusion should not be seen as a soft option or a means of exporting the problem elsewhere. If exclusion is part of a discipline strategy, it should be used constructively. Although I do not often cite David Blunkett, the Executive could learn from his work in this area to ensure that exclusion is used constructively to the benefit of pupils who require to be removed. I am not sure that the Tories or Labour are dealing with the complexities of this issue, and I look forward to the minister's closing remarks.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

After a faltering start, this has turned out to be a good and thoughtful debate. I am sorry to embarrass Murray Tosh—sometimes we Hawick people have to stick together—but I have to say that his speech was excellent; he drew on his own experience to recognise that this issue is complex and serious. That speech contrasted sharply with Brian Monteith's recovering bovver-boy approach. I should add that Robin Harper and Ian Jenkins, who were both teachers, also gave thoughtful speeches that drew on their experiences.

I stress that the Executive takes this issue very seriously. This morning's debate has shown that there is much common ground among the parties, and I welcome the chamber's support for our efforts. We are trying to make a comprehensive start to tackling a complex and long-standing issue that will take a long time to resolve to anyone's satisfaction.

I have been listening to members' suggestions about what the Executive can do further on this matter. Policy and practice is developing in this area, and we want to take further action where possible. I have visited some of the new units that are being developed partly through the alternatives to exclusion fund—notwithstanding Richard Lochhead's comments, I understand that such funding is being used to develop two new units in Aberdeenshire. Such units are finding new ways in which to address young people's difficulties, to engage them in the education process and to help them to confront their behavioural problems and deal with them positively.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I recently visited Burnfoot Community School, which the minister will know well, and was impressed by the efforts to build children's social skills at an early age to tackle deep-seated social problems. Can the minister say whether resources for such measures will be mainlined and made permanent for those schools, and whether resources will be available to extend the practice to other places?

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Expenditure for the new community schools programme is part of the Executive's overall baseline. This phenomenon is not temporary; we want the principles and the culture change embodied in the concept of community schools to be rolled out across the system. This process is not at an end; it is just beginning.

As Murray Tosh, Scott Barrie, Nicola Sturgeon, Robin Harper and Karen Gillon have pointed out, the situation is not easy and there is no one answer to the problems confronted by schools. As they rightly say, the issue does not just concern schools; we must widen our approach and involve organisations such as health and social services agencies and the police. Part of the reasoning behind the new community schools concept is to allow that to happen more effectively.

Although the issue is not just about setting targets, targets are important. First and foremost, targets set a broad direction for us to move in. For example, pressure must be brought to bear to reduce the number of exclusions. Being excluded from school is the beginning of the process of being excluded from society. We want to combat that.

Setting a direction through targets is important. It creates a focus for attention and drives forward a search for the alternatives to excluding young people. However, targets are only one part of the approach. I have already alluded to our early intervention programme. Classroom assistants have been introduced to address to some extent the issue of class sizes—bringing the ratio of pupils to teachers to an average of 1:15 rather than 1:30. I hope that, over time, that will develop. Sure start Scotland tries to take a more comprehensive family approach to developing support for young people. Pre-school and nursery education are allowing earlier intervention. There are also out-of-school clubs, homework support, new community schools—which we have talked about—and the personal learning plans that are developing from them.

The need to bring the police more actively into the school setting has been mentioned. I hope that that was not meant in a draconian sense. Part of the ethos of new community schools is to encourage the development of proper partnerships and arrangements with such agencies. The anti-bullying network is playing an important role. There is also a need for continuing professional development to support teachers in their task. Initial teacher education is also important in teaching people how to deal with discipline matters. That is being developed.

Scott Barrie referred to the school ethos. It is important that that is developed and that schools encourage achievement, celebrate success, have high expectations for every child and find means to include children in their education. A number of members referred to the importance of involving parents as partners in the education process. We share that view. We want to develop that and to give it a high priority. That is why the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Bill begins to place burdens on local authorities to find ways of involving parents in their children's education.

There is a list of things that we want to do and that we are doing. Targets are only one part of a comprehensive package, which sets the direction and sends a clear signal about what we want.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I must wind up.

In the final analysis, it is the head teacher's judgment of a situation that must carry the day. I would not criticise a head teacher who, having put in place the proper mechanisms to deal with discipline matters in his or her school, felt, as a final solution, that they had to exclude somebody. They must decide whether exclusion is necessary to relieve pressure on the school and to allow time to develop alternative mechanisms and so on.

In that context, I believe that we have a positive approach. When David Mundell, who is usually a positive person, winds up, I hope that he will move away from some of the rather damaging comments made by his colleagues. I hope that he will be able to expand on his party's policy of lowering the school-leaving age, because I am interested to know to what age it would be lowered—15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10 or whatever—as I am not clear about that. I hope that he will develop a positive agenda. There is much that we share and there is much to be done. This is a serious issue that must be addressed.

David Mundell (Conservative, South of Scotland)

This has been a useful and helpful debate. I take issue slightly with something that Ian Jenkins said. It would be useful if he were to bring pressure to bear on his coalition colleagues to ensure that the Parliament's agenda better reflected the issues that people want to be debated. Discipline in schools is a real issue for parents, pupils and teachers. It is higher up the agenda of the average person in Scotland than some of the things that have been debated in Parliament in the past year. I am sure that Ian Jenkins will use his influence in the coming months.

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

What subjects was the member thinking of?

David Mundell (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Section 28, for example, was a subject raised by the Executive, which we then had to use our time to debate.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will the member take an intervention?

David Mundell (Conservative, South of Scotland)

As long as it is a small one.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I have a query. The Conservatives have made much of section 28—there is no debate about that. Will David Mundell enlighten the chamber as to why the Conservative education spokesperson, having lodged amendments on section 28 to the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Bill, failed to turn up to the committee meeting on Tuesday to move them, which meant that those amendments fell? Is not that a waste of parliamentary time?

David Mundell (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I am not familiar with the circumstances.

As always in such debates, the contributions of people who have been directly involved add greatly to the discussion. Murray Tosh, Robin Harper, Ian Jenkins and Karen Gillon—speaking in her capacity as a community education worker—bring perspective to a debate such as this, and their contributions are helpful to everybody participating.

My wife recently returned to teaching as a supply teacher. I was struck by the availability of work. When Lynda first said that she was going to return to teaching, she thought that she would work one or two days a week, but found that there is a constant search for supply teachers.

That shortage must be a result of stress and of the management system, which takes so many teachers out of the classroom during the working day. The continuity of having the same teacher must be related to the issue of discipline. That is an important factor, which I would like Peter Peacock to consider.

Murray Tosh spoke about teachers being asked to deal with all the problems of society. That is not something that we can or should ask of our teachers. They cannot deal with marital break-up, the conflict between parents or parents wanting children to do things in the evening other than their homework. We must understand that the background against which teachers are working is changing. As Murray indicated, we should give them the support within the teaching environment—with in-service training, for example—to be able to deal with those issues relating to wider society.

Jamie Stone and Mary Mulligan talked about parents. Parents have an enormously important role, but a worrying recent statistic is that about one in 10 violent incidents within schools involve parents themselves. That is a cause for concern.

A head teacher to whom I spoke recently told me that he was concerned about what happened around the school gate and his inability to control it. That is one of the problems with exclusion. The head teacher's remit extends to the school gate; if people are inciting or causing difficulty outside that gate, that is a matter for the police, time scale issues arise and the problem becomes much more complicated.

Shona Robison spoke about violence against teachers. That is a serious problem, which reflects changes in society and in how classrooms are managed.

The Scottish Executive has set a target of reducing the number of school exclusions by 33 per cent by 2002. We have clearly stated in this debate that we do not accept that target, as we do not believe that such targets will work. We are constantly told that education should be pupil centred, yet the Executive's policy is to set a national target that bears no relation to what is happening in individual schools. The needs of the child, their classmates and their teacher are not part of that target. The decision to exclude any pupil must be made on the individual merits of the case.

The working environment is very much driven by targets. As members have said, there is a conflict of interest between the individual classroom teacher and the local authority, which wants to please the Scottish Executive by meeting the targets. That conflict of interest creates an environment that is not wholly suitable for dealing with the issues.

We agree with the Executive that every effort should be made to improve behaviour and reduce violence and disruption while retaining as many pupils as possible in mainstream schools. We believe that that can be achieved through programmes that promote positive discipline—those programmes were started by the Conservative Government—and through having special units that act as sin bins. David Blunkett has recognised the need for more such units, which allow good order to be maintained and educational standards to be upheld for pupils in mainstream schools who would otherwise have their education disrupted.

As it is important that we listen to the views of those who are most directly involved in the areas that we are discussing, I conclude by quoting Nigel de Gruchy of the NAS/UWT. He said:

"When serious anti-social behaviour occurs, it must be seen by other pupils to be met with a response. The message has to be that such behaviour is simply unacceptable. If it cannot be cured or at least contained then exclusion must follow. But it is essential to convey a message to everyone else."

On that point, I reiterate support for our motion.

Elderly and Disabled People

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The next item of business is a Scottish Conservative and Unionist party debate on motion S1M-790, in the name of David Mundell, on services for elderly and disabled people, and amendments to that motion. I call Mary Scanlon to speak to and move the motion.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I am delighted to speak to the motion. The Executive and the Parliament will be judged by how they care for the most vulnerable in our society. I am pleased to take part in this debate, to ensure that the views are heard of those who are unwilling or unable to speak up for a better service.

I commend the Health and Community Care Committee for allocating time to this issue and recognising the need for care in the community to be a priority for the health service. I have not been reassured by any of the evidence that we have heard in that committee. If anything, the submissions have served only to heighten my concerns.

Although we have to address pressing problems today, we also have to lay foundations for preventive care and support to ensure that the problems of today are not the problems of the future.

While I welcome the earmarking for preventive care of £26 million of hypothecated tax from cigarettes, the clear message is, "Smoke more fags and the national health service gets more money." However, if Scotland smokes more fags, the NHS will need more money. With around 2,500 blocked beds in Scotland, not only is the Executive failing to provide those patients with the appropriate care, but the patients are being imprisoned and institutionalised in hospitals, although research shows that that approach disables patients and results in a loss of independence.

The enforced bed stays also prevent other patients from accessing health care and cost around £90 million a year. In order to help the elderly, the mentally ill and the disabled, it is clear that we need one budget. The Conservatives believe that that should be a health service budget that can provide seamless care from hospitals to homes and the community.

A recent report by the Scottish health advisory service on services for older people in the Highlands says that there is no multi-agency strategy for older people's services in the Highlands that could create a vision or a model for the delivery of care. I say to the minister that there is no multi-agency strategy for Scotland. The only thing that is clear about the Executive's strategy is that there is no strategy.

The report goes on to state that a Highlands-wide needs assessment should be undertaken. I suggest that we need not only a Highlands-wide needs assessment; we need a Scotland-wide needs assessment for the elderly and the disabled. The same report says that there is no vision for older people's services in the Highlands, nor is there a lead person to take services forward. Today we look to the minister to set out a clear vision and to become that lead person to oversee care of the elderly and the disabled.

It cannot be right that an elderly person who has exercised his or her choice of taking a place in a home in the private sector is told by social workers that they will receive no funding for six, nine or 12 months. However, if he or she wanted to occupy a room in a local authority-owned home, he or she could have instant access to funding. That makes a mockery of freedom of choice. It cannot be right that there is a two-tier health service for the elderly, in which those who can pay receive the care of their choice at the time of their choice, and in which those who cannot pay are left languishing in hospitals while the NHS and social work departments engage in their system of cultural incompatibility and attitude preciousness—as it was described to the Health and Community Care Committee.

We must be able to measure best value, quality and the most effective care for the elderly, whether it is provided by councils, privately or by the voluntary sector. Age Concern says that many older people are being forced to go private, to use savings and to pay for treatment that they previously expected to receive through the NHS. The recent Accounts Commission report mentioned that the highest costs did not always correlate with the highest quality, and that councils should base decisions on the local provision of residential and nursing home care on sound information about the quality and cost of providers. There is also concern that those decisions should be, and are not, open to public scrutiny.

Today, I ask the minister to hold not only the health service managers but councils to account for care in the community. In a press release this week, the Minister for Health and Community Care announced:

"One year on from devolution, we have achieved a great deal in the NHS."

I agree with that statement, and give credit where it is due. The Executive has achieved a flu crisis the like of which has not been experienced for years. Despite a promise on 10 January to set up a working group, on 4 May there is still no working group. The Executive has achieved more blocked beds in Scotland's hospitals than there have ever been. There have been more petitions, meetings and marches by the people of Scotland, who are worried because they do not trust the health service that they have known and always depended on.

The Executive has had an acute services review in Scotland carried out by health trusts in a secretive, arrogant and bullying manner, as it threatens, centralises and rationalises our hospital services. That has not been debated in public, so it is hardly surprising that the public are worried. There are also more than 1,200 unfilled nursing vacancies in Scotland.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

In backing what Mary Scanlon has just said, I draw members' attention to a paper that was written by Dr Anthony Toft, the past president of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, and submitted to the Lothian division of the British Medical Association in February. He discusses the climate of fear in the national health service, and says that it has spread from the management to the doctors. The sort of response that the Executive has frequently given in this Parliament is similar to that which was displayed by Lord Callaghan, who returned from a trip abroad and said, "Crisis? What crisis?" In fact, everything that Mary Scanlon said is borne out by that paper.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I thank Margo MacDonald for her intervention—I, too, have been quite shocked by the bullying, arrogance and secrecy.

Ministers treat members' business debates initiated by members of their own party with arrogance, responding with a party political broadcast that does not address the unique points raised. The members' business debate last Thursday, which was initiated by a Labour member, was an example of that practice. If ministers treat their own people like that, there is little hope for the rest of us. If the culture of bullying and arrogance is to change, that change must start with the ministers.

We have also heard today that Scotland's only heart transplant unit is turning away hearts for transplant. As we enter the debate of presumed consent for organ donation, the health service lacks the resources to carry out donor transplants.

The Executive has also achieved a budget process that is secretive and complex. We cannot trace where the money goes, whether it addresses clinical priorities and whether it provides best value. The Executive has managed to achieve a joint investment fund for general practitioners, to enable them to offer additional services to patients. However, the process has been made so difficult that no GP practice in Scotland has been able to get a penny out of that fund.

We can add to that long list of achievements, as the Executive has managed to achieve more glossy brochures, more focus groups and more announcements on the same pot of cash than has ever been achieved before in the world of politics. In one year, the Executive has achieved a level of arrogance that the Tories could not reach in 18 years.

I refer to targets. We were promised NHS Direct by early 2000. Members could be forgiven for thinking that a nurse-led service would involve the Royal College of Nursing. However, the RCN has not even had a telephone call about that service.

Another target is that the Executive

"will launch a new generation of walk-in/walk-out hospitals."

Yet the Scottish Association of Health Councils knows nothing about that target, saying that no patient has ever benefited from that type of care or been assessed under it. The chairman of the board general managers group said yesterday that health board managers had been given no targets or guidance on walk-in, walk-out hospitals.

On top of that, we have the target of establishing 80 one-stop clinics by 2002, yet no planning or budget allocations are in place. More statistical information is given about the Meat Hygiene Service than about the national health service. When we ask civil servants about income, we are told that income is "netted up"—a few more weeks of such jargon and civil servants will be more than "netted up".

All that adds up the fact that spending by the national health service in Scotland and by councils on health care is difficult to trace. We cannot even identify the money allocated to health targets in Scotland. What has happened to the patient-centred health service? The minister is in a position to address the problems of today's health service, and to set in place plans for care of the elderly and disabled—

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

rose—

Kay Ullrich (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

rose—

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I will give way to Kay Ullrich, although I am on my final sentence.

Kay Ullrich (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Have I come to the wrong debate? I thought that this debate was about community care.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

This debate is about community care, but as members of the Health and Community Care Committee are aware, we cannot see where money is being spent on community care. We are asking for accountability and for the needs of the elderly and disabled to be met, and for that to be done, the appropriate management structure must be put in place.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Please come to a close.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I ask the minister to address the problems of today's health service and to put in place plans for the care of the elderly and disabled. I ask him to get a grip of the health service and to start to listen to the people whose lives depend on the services that he manages, in order to ensure that they are given dignity, respect and the care that they need.

I move,

That the Parliament notes that many elderly and disabled citizens across Scotland feel let down by the Scottish Executive and its failure to deal with issues which most directly affect them; further notes that such citizens are being faced with escalating charges for variable social and other services provided by local authorities; believes that many local authorities are taking measures which restrict choice for the elderly in their selection of nursing or residential care; considers that a lack of local authority resources for nursing home places and a lack of co-ordination between health and social work has led to a 40% increase in bed blocking in the NHS since 1997; recognises that local authorities are systematically withdrawing financial support from facilities used by elderly and disabled citizens, and calls upon the Scottish Executive to abandon its agenda of political correctness and replace it with a programme that delivers to Scotland's elderly and disabled citizens affordable services, freedom of choice in care and the dignity and respect they deserve within our society.

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

It will come as no surprise that I reject the terms of the Conservative motion. Apart from anything else, it is a bit of an all-embracing motion for a 90-minute debate. However, I welcome the choice of this morning's topic, which is of great importance. I have to agree with colleagues on the Scottish National party benches that it is a pity that the Tories chose not to address the motion that they lodged. Mary Scanlon spent more time talking about the Minister for Health and Community Care than about the elderly and disabled people who feature in her motion. They received no mention at all.

I welcome the debate because improving support for our more vulnerable fellow citizens is precisely the kind of opportunity offered to us by the people of Scotland almost a year ago. I join Mary Scanlon in welcoming the decision by the Health and Community Care Committee to conduct a major investigation into community care and care for the elderly.

Since last year, we have increased investment in services for older people to around £2 billion. Making something of the opportunity that we have means not only spending more but spending better. It means putting people at the centre of services, listening closely to what the people who use those services have to say and acting on that.

Every time I meet representatives from older people's organisations or disability groups, they all ask for widened access to direct payment schemes, to allow them to have care packages tailored to individual needs. I confess that that is not a message that I expected to hear, but it is a pervasive one. I have listened, and the Executive will, this year, extend direct payments to people over 65. That is an improvement to service demanded by those who want to use the service.

The overriding message that I hear is that, like everyone else in Scotland, older people and people with disabilities want to live full, independent and secure lives. We do not presume that older people are passive recipients of services, but where people need support, they expect it to be flexible, appropriate, efficient, sustainable and of high quality. That is why we have focused on better and quicker decision making, helping more people to get care at home, and that is why we insist on agencies working better together.

We are taking steps to ensure that we move from rhetoric about the benefits of joint working to real changes that benefit the users of services. This year, £7.5 million has been invested specifically to do that. It is unfortunate that Mrs Scanlon does not recognise that agencies can work together. Indeed, Highland Council has been able to appoint someone to lead on children's services, and there is no reason why bodies providing services for older people cannot also work together.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am sure that the minister will agree that providing aids and adaptations for people with disabilities is a complex area and raises a whole range of issues. He has talked about working together, but I suspect that much work will be needed in adapting buildings, installing ramps and providing various aids, given the variety of arrangements that exist in different authorities. Some authorities, as I am sure he is aware, provide adaptations free of charge, some will reimburse costs and others have different arrangements again. What advice will the Executive give to local authorities to bring about uniformity of practice, so that agencies throughout Scotland can work together to sort out the problem?

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

That is a good point. The joint futures group, which I chair, is currently developing practical non-negotiable steps to ensure better joint service delivery. Aids and adaptations are one of the areas that it is examining, and I think that we should perhaps go beyond merely giving advice and be more directive about things. I hope to make progress on that issue soon.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Will the minister give way?

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

I have just taken a lengthy intervention and I would like to move on. I am watching the clock.

Any serious approach to improving services must have quality of service provision at its heart. That is why we will establish the Scottish commission for the regulation of care, which will for the first time enforce uniform national standards in all areas of care—residential, day and home care—whoever provides it. Older people themselves are being fully involved in the process of drawing up the care standards that will be used. The standards of residential care for older people will be issued for wide consultation very soon.

We have also recognised as never before that much, and perhaps most, of the care that is delivered in Scotland is provided by informal carers. As we speak, carers throughout Scotland are discussing with local authorities how the £10 million that has been earmarked for carers services will be used. That is local authorities being held to account: not by the Executive, but by the people who depend on the services that the authorities provide. Carers who have never received support are responding to a media campaign to identify hidden carers. Those are not small measures—they will make big differences. They are not quick fixes—they are changes to how services are designed and delivered.

Alongside those measures, we are aware of the need to address issues of charging for care. Funding for care is being actively considered as part of the spending review. The work of the joint futures group on charging for home care will feed into that. I agree that people need a system that is sustainable, fair and consistent, and it must consider funding of home care as well as residential care. I am determined to deliver that, and I will take the time to get it right.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

I draw the minister's attention once again to the meeting in February of the local arm of the British Medical Association, which said in its report:

"We are particularly concerned regarding the role of social work, nursing homes and home nursing and whether there will be enough funding for the care of the chronic sick and aged persons, and particularly those outwith hospital beds, but so unwell as to be unable to be cared for in their own homes."

I appreciate much of what the minister said about the mechanism that he means to put into effect, but here we have doctors concerned that the funding might be inadequate. They also draw attention not to bed blocking, but to early discharge into communities where carers are not ready to take on board the caring that they will have to do.

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

It would not be possible to respond to those issues in the time that I am allowed, but I wish to make this point. We are not ignoring those issues and concerns—we are addressing them, but we are addressing them thoroughly. We are working with local authorities and health boards to ensure that improvements are sustainable, and with users and carers to make sure that the improvements are what is needed.

However, clearly there are priority areas on which we can focus investment now. That is why earlier this week we announced that £60 million of the additional national health service funding in the budget will be distributed to the NHS in Scotland. But before that can be spent, the service must demonstrate how it will improve performance in four key target areas, one of which is a major drive in conjunction with local authorities to minimise delays in discharge from hospital. From 1 April we introduced a mandatory quarterly census of delayed discharge, not only of the number of discharges, but of the causes, of which there are at least 40. That means more information as well as more resources to allow a permanent reduction in delayed discharge.

In summary, investing resources, setting higher standards, driving joint working and putting people at the centre of service design and delivery is the path on which we have set out in the past year. We will not be deflected from it, because it is the right path.

I move amendment S1M-790.2, to leave out from the first "notes" to end and insert:

"welcomes the Executive's commitment to improving service provision for frail elderly and disabled people in Scotland by creating modern user-focused services; notes the progress of the Carers' Strategy in Scotland, the drive towards joint working between the NHS and local authorities, and the development of national standards for care; further notes the additional funding for health boards announced this week to be used in part to reduce significantly delayed discharge, and endorses the Executive's vision of a Scotland where every older person matters."

Kay Ullrich (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Members will be relieved to know that I will speak about care in the community, but I have to commend Mary Scanlon for her bravery in standing inside the glasshouse while she threw stones at new Labour on this issue. Everyone welcomes a sinner who repents, but in her case repentance seems to have taken the form of total amnesia. Has she forgotten that it was the Tory party that introduced the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, the concept of which everyone agreed with, but that it was also the Tory party that refused to back the initiative with adequate resources? Of course, that long-standing Tory underfunding of community care has continued under the new Tories.

Rightly, much has been said about the 2,500 elderly and disabled people who are languishing in inappropriate hospital beds and who are unable to access the type of care that they have been assessed as needing. Let me put that into context. It means that an average-sized local authority will currently have around 150 people on its waiting list for long-term placement, one third of whom will be waiting in hospital beds. The local authority will have funding to place only two people per month.

It does not take a genius to work out that we are faced with a never-ending waiting list. For practical reasons, social work departments will always place people who are in their own homes—where they are deemed to be at risk—before they place people who are in hospital beds. Those in hospital beds might be inappropriately placed, but they are still seen to be safe.

A stand-off seems to have developed on funding. Local authorities claim that they are being starved of the funding that they need to provide adequate care in the community, while the Executive claims that local authorities receive sufficient funding—they cannot both be right. The facts, however, seem to support the claims of the local authorities. We all know that there have been years of underfunding and that, as a result, local authorities have run up huge deficits. This year's local government finance settlement will mean yet another real-terms cut.

Is it any wonder that when Sir Stewart Sutherland compiled his commission's report, he found that about £70 million had been diverted from social work departments' indicative funding for community care to other social work areas? The Association of Directors of Social Work has said that, because of the severe cuts in social work departments' funding, money that was earmarked for community care will have to be diverted to ensure that priority areas—such as child protection and families—are adequately funded. Is that what the Executive wants? Local authorities are robbing Peter to pay Paul and, unfortunately, evidence suggests that the Peter who will continue to be robbed is elderly and disabled.

The new council budgets show that the first cuts have already been made in services to the elderly and the disabled. Since new Labour came to power, 10,000 fewer people have been receiving home care. Sheltered housing wardens have been removed and home helps' hours have been slashed while charges have been raised. Day centres have closed and, regrettably, the list goes on and on. It makes one wonder why, when local authorities are faced with cuts, they immediately make scapegoats of the elderly and the disabled.

There can be no doubt that the way forward for community care is full implementation of the recommendations of the Sutherland report, but we have been deafened by the sound of new Labour's dragging feet in the past 14 months. While Labour delays, the misery gets worse. Surely there cannot be a member who has not had a constituent's inquiry on community care. So far, all that Parliament has had from the Executive are holding answers, the occasional touchy-feely soundbite and—of course—self-congratulatory amendments such as that which we are debating today.

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Can I take it from that, that Kay Ullrich believes that the formation of the independent Scottish commission for the regulation of care is a touchy-feely soundbite? The formation of that commission meets one of the key recommendations of the Sutherland report.

Kay Ullrich (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I know that the formation of that commission was one of the key recommendations of the Sutherland report, but we are all waiting to hear what will happen regarding the recommendations on personal care, the three-month disregard and many other facets of that important report, which has been lying gathering dust on the shelf for 14 months.

If Iain Gray has any doubts about the reality of community care today, he should listen to the elderly and the disabled. He should listen to their carers and to the social workers and health workers who are totally dismayed when they look for resources, but find that they simply do not exist.

No matter how the Executive tries to spin the matter, patients and social work and health care professionals will tell Iain Gray loud and clear, "Community care ain't working." I move amendment S1M-790.1, to leave out from the first "that many" to end and insert:

"the failure of successive Conservative and New Labour Governments in Westminster and of the Scottish Executive in Holyrood to provide adequately for elderly and disabled citizens in Scotland; condemns the cuts in grants to Scottish local authorities which have undermined much of the good work being carried out throughout Scotland at a local level; supports greater guidance being given to local authorities to ensure that money intended for the provision of community care and other services for the elderly and disabled is channelled into those areas and not diverted into other sectors of local authority spending; urges real joint working and partnership between central and local agencies, and calls upon the Scottish Executive to implement in full those aspects of the Royal Commission into Long Term Care of the Elderly which fall within the scope of the Parliament."

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I am bound to say that the Tory motion is convoluted and the way Mary Scanlon spoke to it—addressing matters that are not in it—did not assist in clarifying what the Tories are trying to put across. The motion is about issues such as bedblocking, local authority restrictions and liaison between social work and health care. Those are central issues. There is a bit about the disabled, but I think that the disabled deserve a separate debate. This is not the place to deal with that issue and I do not propose to do so.

There are undoubtedly a number of issues that need to be addressed, but who are the past masters here, for goodness' sake? The previous Conservative Government, which created the internal market. The two-tier system about which Mary Scanlon waxes indignant was also a creation of the Conservative Government, which set one health trust against another, cut local government services to the quick and widened the Pontius Pilate-type fault line between councils and health boards into a yawning chasm. The Executive has had to try to repair the damage and put in place again a health service that meets need in these areas. If we are talking about repentance, I would advise our Conservative colleagues to let a little more time pass before they become too indignant on these matters.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Does the member agree that the waste that went on in councils was responsible for their failing to play their part when the community care project was set up? In particular, councils supported huge contracts that were run badly by direct labour organisations and lost hundreds of thousands of pounds. Does the member agree that councils chose not to put community care high enough up their agenda?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

There is an element of truth in what David Davidson says, but it is not the central issue. The central issue is the bureaucratic and structural reorganisation that caused the various problems and the lack of mechanisms to deal with them. That is now being addressed.

There is a great deal of common ground in this debate: all parties represented in the chamber have committed themselves to increases above the rate of inflation in spending on health and the associated area of community care. We all want value for money in the way those resources are spent and it is fair to say that none of us has a monopoly of good ideas regarding the way in which the problems might be tackled. The work of the Health and Community Care Committee in that regard is important. I hope that in due course the Executive will take note of its recommendations.

What is the scale of the problem and what are the objectives of public policy in this area? Research by my party estimated that bedblocking costs more than £30 million a year in Scotland. The fact that our figure differs so widely from that given by Mary Scanlon bears out her call for a Scotland-wide needs assessment. Parliamentary questions have revealed that each bed costs between £700 and £1,000 per patient per week, depending on the specialty. In December 1999, there were, on average, 35,000 available staffed beds in Scotland, more than 2,000 of which were accounted for by patients, mostly elderly, whose discharge had been delayed. As Iain Gray rightly says, this is a complex problem, but it is clear that we can do better. We must put considerable effort into that.

The people whom we are discussing are not just numbers or statistics, they are individuals with varying circumstances. They cannot be heaved about the place as if they were freight—they are all individuals and they all matter. For most of them, undoubtedly, the preferred option would be high-quality care at home, which the motion does not address. For others, it might be residential or nursing care. The difference between those two types of care is important, as the Sutherland commission noted. Residential places cost between £220 and £360 a week, whereas a place in a nursing home has been estimated as costing between £700 and £1,000 a week, which is not very different from the cost of an NHS bed. There are cost savings to be made, but they are not quite as great as people sometimes suggest. The 40 causes of delay that the minister mentioned are the key issues.

There are practical issues, including issues of availability. In England there is an entirely different pattern of health care, with more than 90 per cent of all homes and 83 per cent of places in residential care homes being provided by the independent sector. That is not the position in Scotland, where only 5 per cent of health care takes place in the private sector. That includes hospital care as well as nursing care. There are not enough designated nursing home beds to deal with the bedblocking problem. Comparisons that have been made recently in the press with what happens in England do not stand up to examination.

The Scottish Executive's multi-level approach to this issue, in which the emphasis is on narrowing the Pontius Pilate divide between social work departments and health services, is important. Speedier assessments, the use of the same definitions on, for example, delayed discharges, and incentives to work together will cut the bureaucracy that is part of the problem. There is also a cultural issue. The Scottish Association of Care Homes talks about a "dead man's shoes culture", meaning that for budgetary reasons councils delay assessments until a patient dies, despite the fact that there are vacancies in care homes. That is a growing problem because of the fact that people are living longer.

I sympathise with the Government's problems, but we do not want spurious markets, forced privatisation of care, or ill treatment in ill-regulated and unsuitable establishments. If possible, we want care at home, rehabilitation to a lesser dependency wherever practicable, and good quality care at all levels. Those are the Executive's objectives and I hope that ministers will take on board the ideas that have come from this debate and from the Health and Community Care Committee.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Members should note that time is limited. I will indicate to members when I want them to wind up. To accommodate as many as possible, I will ask members to adhere strictly to the four-minute time limit.

Keith Harding (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I would like to widen the debate to include the general services that are provided to the elderly and disabled. The Executive's social inclusion strategy must ensure that every older person matters. Its objectives must be, first, to ensure that older people are financially secure and, secondly, to increase the number of older people who enjoy active, independent and healthy lives. To date, there has been more rhetoric than reality.

The 73p increase in pensions, which was more than wiped out by council tax, rent and water rates increases, hardly lives up to the first objective. The £5 billion windfall tax on pensions did not live up to it either. The recent local government settlement certainly does not support the second objective. Although the overall settlement grew, so much was ring-fenced or top-sliced to meet the Executive's priorities and spending guidelines that councils had to make substantial cuts in other service areas.

In recent weeks, we have seen the closure of libraries, a reduction in new book investments and an increase in audio-visual and internet charges; an increase in charges for home helps and meals on wheels; the proposed closure of the Carrick Street day centre in Ayr—which was a major issue in the recent by-election; an increase in charges for leisure and sports facilities; a reduction in travel subsidies; an increase in charges for burials; and a reduction in grass-cutting services for the elderly. The list goes on. The only thing that new Labour is not cutting is the grass. Ask the residents in Fife.

There have been reductions in grants to the voluntary sector, which has an obvious impact on the elderly. Nursing homes have been closed because Labour-controlled councils will not increase payments even in line with inflation. The disparity between fee increases and cost increases in recent years has had a devastating impact on many providers and therefore on the services provided for older people.

Labour policies have impacted adversely on nursing homes. Labour's disastrous working time directive will add 1.5 per cent to the payroll costs of most homes. The salaries of trained nurses have increased by an average of 7 per cent. That is welcome, but nurses make up 33 per cent of the work force of most homes. Labour policies have also led to increasing suppliers' costs.

Much has been said in the chamber about free television licences for the over-75s and about winter fuel allowances. I should declare an interest, because I have just learned that I will receive that allowance. Although those measures are welcome for existing pensioners, new pensioners will still be £500 worse off as a result of the abolition of the age-related married couple's allowance. Once again, Gordon Brown gives with one hand and takes away more with the other.

As is becoming common with this Executive, new burdens are not being financed. I do not criticise local authorities for that—they cannot pay what they do not have—but I do condemn the Scottish Executive. It has let down the elderly, who are in the twilight of their lives. They do not want jam tomorrow; they want a little butter now—to improve the quality of their lives, to avoid constant scrimping to make ends meet and to live out their remaining years with a degree of independence and happiness. That is all they ask for and it is what they deserve.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

I would like to start by thanking the Conservatives for today's motion. Care for the elderly and disabled is key to any civilised society. I also welcome the opportunity to highlight some of the good work that is being carried out by the Scottish Executive, while also highlighting the mess that we have been left to deal with after 18 years of Tory neglect.

I am not sure whether the Tories are guilty of poor timing or poor judgment. I suspect that it is a little bit of both. The Tories lodged a motion highlighting the problem of bedblocking in the same week as the Minister for Health and Community Care announced that £60 million would be allocated to health boards, with the key condition of a reduction in the number of delayed discharges. Once again the Tories are lagging behind the debate rather than leading it. It is with breathtaking hypocrisy that they accuse us, as we begin to deal with the mess left by the internal market, of restricting choice and, as we enter a period of the highest sustained spending in the history of the NHS, of systematically withdrawing financial support.

We are systematically increasing spending on social services: an extra £51.3 million this year, £43 million next year and a guaranteed £35.7 the following year. However, meeting the needs of older people and those with disabilities is not just about increased spending; we must also ensure that services are responsive to users' needs.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Can Karen Whitefield tell me whether, unlike in every other area in Scotland, the home help service in her area is increasing?

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

I will get on to the services in Lanarkshire, which I am proud of, in a minute.

It is important that services are centred on people, as individuals, not on bureaucracy. The Sutherland report recommends that more people should receive high-quality care that allows them to stay in their own homes. That is the view of most of my constituents and the majority of elderly people in Scotland. I am pleased—

Kay Ullrich (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

rose—

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

I have already taken an intervention and time is short—I am sorry, I am moving on—

Kay Ullrich (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Will the member—

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

The member has indicated that she is not taking an intervention. Please sit down.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

I am therefore pleased that the Scottish Executive is responding to the need for improved and better co-ordinated home and support services. The joint futures group—

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

rose—

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

I am sorry—we have heard enough of Tory views of health care. We need to talk about realities instead of fantasy.

The joint futures group on community care will respond to the Royal Commission on Long Term Care for the Elderly by creating the right conditions for productive partnership working between health boards and social care services. Improving home care services helps to alleviate the problem of bedblocking and frees resources for acute services.

I am pleased to say that Lanarkshire Health Board has below average bedblocking and that there has been a drop between last year and this. The health board also reports an improved occupancy rate in private nursing homes between March 1996 and March 1999 of around 82 per cent of available beds. In the past year, the occupancy rate rose to 93 per cent. That improvement reflects a significant increase in the number of people supported by social work departments making use of resource transfer from health to social care as a consequence of the local joint strategy for care of the frail elderly.

To borrow a phrase, "the truth is out there"—but it is not in the Tory motion. The Scottish Executive is accused of following a politically correct agenda. If providing co-ordinated home-based health services for elderly and disabled people is political correctness, we are guilty. I call on the Conservative party to abandon its agenda of political hypocrisy and support the modernising programme of the Scottish Executive instead.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I begin by paying tribute to the army of home helps who, in the face of adversity, keep a totally under-funded and stretched service going by their dedication to their clients, going beyond the call of duty. Karen Whitefield should speak to the home helps in her area. They will tell her that the service has been reduced year on year, cut after cut, as it has been elsewhere in Scotland.

I will draw on my experience as a home care organiser in one of the most poverty-stricken areas of Glasgow where we experienced a consistent reduction in the home help service and the closure of the home from hospital scheme. The service was inadequate to meet people's needs and restricted to those in immediate or imminent danger of being received into care. It therefore excluded many people whose lives would have been improved by receiving the home help service.

Those lucky enough to receive the home help service received an inadequate service, despite the best efforts of the dedicated home helps and the hard-working managers who had the weekly task of putting together the jigsaw puzzle to ensure that hundreds of clients received some level of service in the face of unfilled home help posts, frozen posts, sickness and holidays. That often involved last-minute phone calls to clients to ask whether they could manage as someone else was in more dire need. I am talking about people who needed assistance to get in and out of bed, assistance to wash and who needed to have their meals prepared—all basic human needs. It is a cinderella service for some of the most vulnerable elderly and disabled members of the community.

On top of all of that, year upon year, I had to send out letters to tell people about the escalating charges; they were going to have to pay more for receiving less. I would often have to visit a client who had been identified as no longer being able to remain at home. We were then faced with another dilemma: it was almost impossible to have someone admitted to care in the area because of the strict limit on the number allowed to be admitted to residential or nursing homes due, yet again, to budget constraints. Once the quota was reached, no more people could be admitted, so it came down to the luck of the draw.

It is no wonder that we often had to resort to persuading reluctant GPs to agree to admit an elderly person into hospital, which would at least get them out of their home and into a safe environment. That was not easy when GPs also had instructions not to admit people to hospital due to bedblocking. I and my colleagues fought tooth and nail to get confused and frail elderly people into hospital because they were at risk. I make no apologies for that. That was and is the reality of community care the length and breadth of Scotland.

Something radical must be done. Iain Gray talked about the £60 million put in to assist discharge from hospital, but home from hospital schemes have already closed, so in essence that money will only set up what has already been removed; it is completely inadequate to solve the problem. We must have a radical overhaul of the system and a major injection of resources to ensure that they are adequate to provide intensive home care when that is required to allow someone to remain at home and residential and nursing home places when remaining at home is no longer an option.

Anything less than that is not good enough, because our elderly people deserve much better. They deserve, and have a right to, a quality of life.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

My last job in social work was to assess elderly patients in Drumchapel hospital for community care. I also trained workers in residential care and, as a councillor, was chair of an advisory group assessing standards in residential care. At that time I was also chair of the social work resources committee, which looked after the money for social work in Glasgow. My experience in this matter is obviously not narrow.

I do not believe that any member wants a return to when older people remained in hospital when it was not necessary, but I believe that this motion, by implication, seeks to broaden the role of the private sector in the provision of social and health care. As Robert Brown said, Scotland has not gone down that road and I do not believe that it should.

The motion also states that citizens are being faced with escalating charges for variable services. Social work is not a universal service; it has always been means tested. In Renfrewshire, and indeed in Glasgow when I was there, each social work client gets a benefits check. In the past four years, that has generated some £3.65 million for home care clients in Renfrewshire.

The motion also says that the provision of local authority residential homes has steadily declined. That is true, as such homes are closing and the balance of provision in most authorities is heavily weighted in favour of non-local authority homes. However, users and carers are still offered a choice. One reason for so-called bedblocking is that users are holding out for a vacancy in their preferred home. It is correct that they should do that. The whole ethos of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 is that people should be able to choose where to go.

I am concerned by what Kay Ullrich, for example, said about the possibility of moving patients who are blocking acute beds into nursing homes after three months. I cannot think of any patient whom I have assessed being willing to go into a nursing home as a stopgap before going home. Patients who go into nursing homes are highly dependent and they know that, unfortunately, they will probably live there until they die.

Kay Ullrich (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

No, I have no time to take an intervention.

I am very concerned about that method of dealing with blocked beds. There are many other methods.

Mary Scanlon spoke about local authority withdrawal of community care funding. I can only speak for Renfrewshire and Glasgow. Renfrewshire has allocated all new moneys that it has received for community care from central Government since 1996 to the expansion of provision. In addition, new moneys that have been allocated for the support of carers have been fully committed and the resource transfer of £3.7 million from the health board has been fully committed to developing community care services. Research for the Health and Community Care Committee's report on the subject may show that provision is patchy, but some councils are providing good community care services.

The Scottish Executive agenda is also about moving from traditional forms of residential care toward care and support at home or in different forms of supported accommodation in the community. Those approaches recognise and strengthen the rights, dignity and respect of vulnerable older people and adults with disabilities. They also reflect the wishes of users and carers. Representative groups, carers, users and statutory agencies are keen to develop a partnership to work together, with joint investment of resources by the key agencies. As Iain Gray said, that will take time. I believe that that is the hallmark of a mature democracy, not of political correctness. Our aim is to create a genuinely tolerable society for everyone, including our elderly constituents. I urge members to support the Executive amendment.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

It is particularly important to mention the work of the voluntary sector. I strongly believe that, as Mary Scanlon and others have said, this society must recognise that it is failing pensioners. There is a danger that agism is replacing racism.

Recent attacks on the elderly by Labour politicians—outside the chamber—cannot continue or be condoned. In my constituency, pensioners have been made to feel worthless and neglected by South Ayrshire Council's closure of the Carrick Street halls. The symbolic act of closing lunch clubs and the Carrick Street halls makes pensioners feel belittled and devalued. That is not good enough in a civilised society. Selling property for profit must not come before providing for pensioners.

Responsibility for the care of those badly treated pensioners is falling more and more on to the voluntary sector. In Ayr and Troon, Churches are taking on the job of providing lunch clubs in church halls with a willingness and enthusiasm that is truly humbling. I pay tribute to the leadership and enthusiasm that has been shown by the Church leaders with whom I have been in touch on this matter.

As some members have said, a fundamental reassessment of the position of elderly people in society is needed. If it is Government policy gradually to reduce support for the elderly, we have a problem on our hands. The facts speak for themselves. Whether it is robbing pension funds, cutting tax relief for health care schemes, closing lunch clubs, or withdrawing facilities, the impression that is received is consistent: people should not get old because the Government will ignore their needs and neglect them. That must stop.

At present, the burden of care is being picked up by families and communities. If that is to continue, we need legislation to encourage the family unit, rather than to destroy it. We need the reinstitution of a significant tax relief for married couples, because the nuclear family unit provides the first line of care for the elderly. We need to smooth the path of and give more recognition to the voluntary sector for the increasing work that it is about to undertake on society's behalf. Above all, we need to change mindsets and to stop the Administration treating pensioners as second-class citizens.

Society must start squaring up to its obligations to a generation to whom we all owe a debt. Members have quoted many people. I shall quote from the Bible: "As ye sow, so shall ye reap". We must remember that we will all get old someday.

Dorothy-Grace Elder (Independent, Glasgow)

I think that that was the new member's maiden speech and I congratulate him on it.

I have been sitting here thinking that the catering department is not to blame for the great clashing of pots calling kettles black that we have heard this morning. The Conservatives—if I have got it right—are getting stuck into new Labour for the offence of following Tory policies. There is logic there somewhere, although I have not yet worked it out.

In the short time available to me, I want to talk about the elderly and those with disabilities. The talk everywhere is of social inclusion, but all I see on reality street is social exclusion, as facility after facility closes. Mary Scanlon referred to bullying. That is true of social work departments where good social workers attempting to stand up for their clients are being bullied.

Fortunately, here in the Scottish Parliament we meet real people who come from the outside to protest. I am sure that members will never forget the occasion when members of the deaf-blind community visited us. One young man, who has been deaf-blind from birth, told us that his one treat is a weekly visit to the bowling alley. He also told us that the treat must stop because his care attendant from Crossroads is being withdrawn.

People with multiple sclerosis cannot get decent wheelchairs, or beta interferon, which would help prevent many of them having to use a wheelchair in the first place. A typical letter in The Herald from someone with a disability says that, just a year ago, their home help charge was suddenly raised from £1,500 to £2,700 per annum and that this year they are being asked to pay a new charge of £104 per annum for use of a community service alarm that has hitherto been free. The writer says that at least that can be cancelled and they can accept the risks of lack of mobility. They would not pay up for the alarm because they could not. The letter came from West Kilbride, but it could have come from anywhere.

The author, Anthony Powell, stated:

"Growing old is like being increasingly penalized for a crime you haven't committed."

That sums up our agist society. Age discrimination can kill. When the terrible news broke yesterday that the heart transplant unit at Glasgow royal infirmary might have to close—something that we will resist powerfully—the first fear was that people over 50 will not receive heart transplants and are going to be written off.

We are returning the elderly to an age of fear, which is where they came from. They were born into an age of fear, where people talked of the shilling cough and the three shilling cough—they were frightened to get ill because they could not afford treatment. They created the welfare state to end that fear. They are being sent to an age of new fear. They are frightened of losing their homes to pay for care in their last years, of coping with the withdrawal of home help services and of being written off by the national health service that they created with the deadly initials DNR—do not resuscitate. Even the language of today's bean-counting NHS is chilling and Orwellian newspeak.

Who are the bedblockers? They were once the young, strong men and women who brought this nation through a world war and who went on to create the welfare state from which we all benefit. The bedblockers are the men and women who worked and contributed to society for 50 years, from 14 into their 60s. They are the people who are being betrayed. They are the people who deserve the best of times for a change and who deserve at least to live with decency or dignity. If we let them down, they will rebel against us. No seat is safe, nor does it deserve to be.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

Listening to Opposition members this morning makes me wonder whether they have been like Rip Van Winkle. Have they been to sleep and blotted out their consciousness in the years of Tory misrule? Do they have collective amnesia, or were they just plain insensitive to the suffering of our people in those years?

David Mundell's motion made me reflect on the long budget meetings when I was a councillor and depute leader of the then Fife Regional Council during those years. My recollections are of grim times, when the local authority budget-making process meant that, year after year, we were forced to identify cutbacks of £20 million and more. We do not need lessons from the Opposition.

We have considered the past, but if we look into the crystal ball, what we see ahead of us with the Tories is the new Tory health tax. The Tories have said that people will have to go private for major operations. This is nothing short of a Tory tax rise on hard-working people. For example, the Tories have said that people should pay for hip operations. Hip replacements cost at least £5,000, but the Tories say that that is not expensive. Now they admit that they want to privatise the health service and to charge people for major operations.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

No, I am sorry.

The Tories want people to pay to see their general practitioner. [Interruption.]

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Order.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

The Tories want people to use the NHS only for life-threatening conditions. They would reduce the NHS to a second-rate safety net service.

The Tories' own Norman Fowler started the care in the community policy ball rolling. Patricia Godman, Kay Ullrich and others have said this morning that they agree on the policy but that it never received the funding to make it work. My colleagues in the Scottish Executive, in having to work on that legacy, have an especially difficult task to cope with. The fundamental role of the local authority changed from being a provider of services to being an enabler of services, the bottom line being that local authorities were handed one of their most important, difficult tasks in history.

I represent Dunfermline East constituency—a bit of a misnomer because the constituency does not have any part of Dunfermline in it. There is no shadow of doubt that there is a strong tradition of concern for and care of the elderly in that area. Reflecting that, the constituency has many active pensioners and carers groupings with a history of working in close partnership with the council and with Fife Health Board for better services.

Fifers believe in pragmatic politics. The Labour council considers the care of its elderly in a wider and more holistic way. It is the only council in Scotland to have free public transport for pensioners. Only two other places in the UK have such a scheme: Liverpool and London. Some £13 million of public money is spent on subsidising buses and trains for the benefit of all elderly and disabled people in Fife. I sincerely hope that, in the fullness of time, Scotland can show a guiding light and can provide free public transport services for all our pensioners.

The Scottish Executive recognises and acknowledges that there are real problems to be tackled in our communities. However, against a background of years of Tory neglect, it is having to seek the co-operation of local authorities and health boards in what is an extremely difficult mission. If we consider some of—

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

I am sorry. I do not have time.

Turning to the bedblocking that has been talked about this morning, the Scottish Executive is committed to ensuring that the problem of delayed discharge is dealt with. Like Karen Whitefield, I welcomed the news on 1 May, when Susan Deacon announced the £60 million of the new budget money. In a move designed to deliver better results, the money is going to health boards with strings attached. The money is to be used to improve performance, and health boards will be given their share of the cash only when they have shown how they will use it to improve patient services. One of the key target areas for improvement is a major drive to reduce the number of delayed discharges from hospitals, which lead to blocked beds in Scotland.

I hope that we will support the minister this morning.

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

Winding up the debate will be quite difficult, because it has had many different strands. I will try to go through what members have said and pick out the underlying themes.

Information has been a running theme throughout the debate. Mary Scanlon mentioned Scotland-wide needs assessment. Bruce Crawford talked about aids and adaptations and the wide difference in provision around the country. Robert Brown picked up on the need for information and, as Trish Godman said, information can be used to help people to access benefits and bring much more money into the system. Trish Godman and Helen Eadie outlined areas of good practice; such information can be shared. We need to tighten up systems and collect information in ways that will enable identification of needs, co-operative working and monitoring of effectiveness. Iain Gray mentioned the quarterly review of delayed discharge, which will be useful. That information can be fed into the system to make it better.

Mary Scanlon also mentioned the acute services review. That review is not necessarily a bad thing; indeed, it is very necessary. The review must be done properly and must involve people, but when resources are under pressure, they must be used effectively. To me, reviewing and rationalising services is a good way forward if we do it properly, take people with us, and explain what we are doing and why.

Iain Gray gave recognition to informal carers. I want to highlight the work of young carers, to which an awful lot more attention needs to be paid. Those young people are picking up adult responsibilities without having access, in an adult way, to support and resources. That is a key area.

Kay Ullrich talked about years of underfunding, especially for local authorities, and I quite agree with her on that. I was astounded by Keith Harding, who went on about pensions and local authorities, funding for both of which was eroded systematically by the Tories. I was also astounded by his remarks about the working time directive. We all want more services, but not at the expense of people having to work long hours for poor pay, with bad training. That was appalling.

Keith Harding (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

If the member had listened, she would know that all I was saying was that the working time directive had had an impact on nursing home costs that local councils will not meet. The directive is putting nursing homes in difficulties, and many are closing.

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

I think that I heard exactly what was said, and my remarks stand. We cannot provide more and better services at the expense of the staff who work in the homes. We have to meet the costs; it is right that we should do so.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Does the member agree that it is quite awful that Aberdeenshire Council has passed on huge charges for warden services to the elderly as a means of trying to balance its badly run books? Does she agree that it is bad for a council to single out a defenceless part of the community and deprive the elderly of the little money that they have?

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

I challenge that. Aberdeenshire Council is not badly run. Given the council's funding, it provides services at a much lower cost per head of population than almost any other council in the country. The council is grievously underfunded and is having to take measures that are deeply regrettable, but that is not down to bad management.

Services need resources, but resources can mean less dependency on services. The basic old age pension has been devalued over two decades. If people of pension age had a reasonable income, they would be far less dependent on social services and health services. The most effective thing that we, or Westminster, could do for the elderly and the disabled would be to whack up the basic pension. It was interesting to hear the minister say that people mostly wanted direct payment schemes that enabled them to purchase their own services. That brings us back to the point that if we give people a decent income, they can sort out their affairs for themselves.

Duncan Hamilton (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Although this has been a reasonable debate, Helen Eadie's speech gave the lie to any suggestion that last week's rebellion over warrant sales would herald a new, refreshing era of independent and radical criticism from the Labour back benches. Regrettably, her speech was nothing more than a Scottish Executive press release.

I will concentrate on three areas, one of which—institutional agism in the NHS and the question whether rationing exists—has not received sufficient attention in this debate. I will also touch briefly on local authority funding and the position regarding the Royal Commission on Long Term Care for the Elderly.

The Executive has said that the rationing of health care—the idea that the elderly would be pushed down the list, would not receive treatment or would be excluded altogether—does not exist; in fact, we heard the same claim only a few days ago. Everyone is interested to hear the minister's response to the criticisms of the British Geriatrics Society, which has cited examples of over-75s being excluded from important Government targets and of over-65s being rarely offered breast cancer screening, even though two thirds of mortalities from that disease come from that age bracket. Such criticisms suggest that there is a systemic problem with older people's access to the same level of service that others receive in the NHS. We must identify whether that problem exists, and if it does exist, I hope that the minister will act quickly to ensure that such unacceptable discrimination in the NHS does not continue.

On the issue of local authority funding, we should start where Nora Radcliffe left off. If a coalition partner claims that there is grievous underfunding of local authorities, perhaps the problem exists. Furthermore, we have not yet had an answer to Kay Ullrich's question whether local authorities' claim that they are not receiving adequate resources was right or wrong. Labour councils are blaming the Labour Executive for the situation, but the Executive has not provided any answers.

Let us examine the figures. Since 1993, there has been a real-terms drop of 9 per cent in local authority funding. The Tories should not look too smug, as that includes the period when their party was in power. For 2000-01, there is a shortfall of £298 million in local authority funding across Scotland. Those figures are from the Labour- controlled Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, not from the SNP research department. Is it any surprise that there is bedblocking and that 2,500 to 3,000 are receiving inappropriate care? That is the problem that we must address. Until we get into the figures for local authority spending and make such funding adequate, we will not make any necessary progress.

Shona Robison made a very telling speech about the reality of the shortfall in local authority funding and how that will affect services such as home helps and the ability to help people to care for themselves at home. Those services are critical to the philosophy of community care, and will not happen without adequate resources.

The Royal Commission on Long Term Care for the Elderly has become something of a totem for this Government's commitment to the elderly. Although no one wants to undermine attempts to implement some of the commission's recommendations—for example, the national care commission, which the minister mentioned and which should be welcomed—we must ask about the Executive's attitude to the rest of the report. As so many measures, such as the three-month disregard mentioned by Kay Ullrich, could be implemented overnight by the Government, we must ask why it chooses not to do so. It has been suggested that some of those powers are reserved to Westminster; however, that is not really true. Age Concern and other organisations have said that all but two of the key recommendations can be implemented by this Executive, if the will is there.

Most people in Scotland understand that we need a rational and mature debate about provision of care for the elderly in the NHS and local authorities and as part of the community care philosophy. However, such provision must be backed by adequate resources. Without that, and without the implementation of the Sutherland commission's recommendations, most people will rightly say that the Government's commitment has been radically undermined.

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

I have listened to the debate carefully. I appreciate and have certainly never denied that people face real problems and that services must improve. My point, however, is that considerable progress has been made. In the first year of the Parliament, a firm foundation has been laid for genuine and sustainable improvement in services for some of our most vulnerable citizens. That does not indicate indifference or complacency—it is a fact.

We are helping agencies to work together to focus on people's needs, setting higher standards, supporting Scotland's carers and increasing investment in health and social care. As I have said, we believe that listening is central to getting that right—taking the time to listen and to consult on issues such as, for example, national care standards.

I am happy to listen in the chamber too. I did listen carefully and thought that I heard Mary Scanlon announce a Tory policy to remove community care from local authorities and shift it to the NHS. I confess that the idea flashed by before she could develop it, so I cannot be certain that that is what I heard. Trish Godman heard an echo of privatisation, which was perhaps there too, but Mary did not go on to develop that either. She did not develop either of the two apparently new policies that she announced.

I listened in vain for constructive engagement from the SNP in how we can improve services for the elderly and disabled. I confess that I saw a glimmer of a constructive proposal in the SNP amendment, but maybe I was clutching at straws. Opposition members, as always, have focused on spinning the numbers, so that a £53 million increase in local authority social work is called a cut and introducing a proper census to identify regularly the scale of delayed discharge is called ignoring the problem.

Duncan Hamilton (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Will the minister give way?

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

No, I am sorry.

Increasing NHS resources by £300 million and then by a further £173 million is called failing to invest. Progressing Sir Stewart Sutherland's recommendations on the care commission, on carers, on direct payments and on joint working between agencies is described as gathering dust and touchy-feely soundbites. Duncan Hamilton may not have described it as that, but Kay Ullrich certainly did. She referred to the sound of dragging feet. She has told me before that she hears dragging feet. I am quite concerned about it. I am reminded of Caligula, who constantly heard the sound of galloping horses in his head. Things ended rather badly for him.

Dorothy-Grace Elder (Independent, Glasgow)

Will the minister give way?

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

No.

Where was the debate about the new models of sheltered and very sheltered housing that I have seen in Brechin and Moray, where older people are being given the chance to move back to their own tenancies, which offer independence within the security of an intensive home care package? Where was the debate on community rehabilitation teams, such as the one in Edinburgh, which are so successful that they can lead to a reduction in dependency following a hospital stay? Where was the debate on day care and respite for those with dementia, provided in homes not institutions, as I have seen in Stirling, Falkirk and Clackmannan? What about the brokerage of independent living fund direct payments in Grampian, which is giving disabled young people homes, jobs and the lives that they want?

I agree that too many people do not have access to those kind of improved services, but they are around and I would like a rational debate about them. I am open to suggestions from anywhere as to how we can do more to spread good practice and bring in new and better approaches.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Will the minister give way?

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Certainly.

Duncan Hamilton (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I see that the minister will take interventions from his own party.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

If the minister would like to learn more about spreading good practice, I invite him to come to my constituency, where not only was the first charter mark award in Scotland for a local authority elderly care home won last year, but the NHS has won a charter mark award for its care of the elderly. Will the minister come to see such partnership working in practice?

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

I thank Cathie Craigie for that invitation. I say to Duncan Hamilton that that was a tougher intervention than most of his.

We have yet to hear from the Tories, for whom David Mundell is winding up. When I came in at the end of the previous debate, Peter Peacock pointed out that David Mundell is a reasonable and positive member of the Parliament. I go along with that, so I look forward to hearing him develop the policies that were hinted at by Mary Scanlon. I look forward to hearing about the Tories' new ideas, their alternative approaches and their proposed strategic shifts in service delivery. Presiding Officer, I am nothing if not an optimist.

David Mundell (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I feel rather like Johann Lamont did last week during the warrant sales debate, when she received praise from Tommy Sheridan.

It is important to have had this debate and, as I said at the conclusion of the previous debate, it is important for the Parliament to have discussed this morning's issues. Iain Gray, in his winding-up speech, mentioned some other things that are worthy of debate in this chamber in the more expansive way that is possible with the time available. Robert Brown made a similar point. We could have had the whole morning devoted to either of the two topics. We wanted to raise a further important issue within the time that was available to us. The two topics are fruitful ones, and are worthy of discussion in the Parliament.

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

I appreciate the fact that the motion has covered a lot of issues, on which we could spend a great deal of time. Within David Mundell's motion is a criticism of what is described as the Executive's "agenda of political correctness". I point out that the Conservatives have on occasion used their debating time to discuss matters such as section 2A, when the same time could have been spent discussing services for the elderly and the disabled. I hope that such discussions will be the pattern for the future.

David Mundell (Conservative, South of Scotland)

As I indicated at the end of the previous debate, it was the Executive that put section 2A into the political environment. The Executive has allocated time to the census debate, time which could have been used much more usefully to discuss topics such as those chosen for today. I hope that this morning's debates set a pattern for the discussion of issues that people are concerned about.

I want to comment on two contributions. I could agree with most of Trish Godman's contribution, but when I drafted the motion, I had no hint of privatisation in my mind. As far as I am aware, there is no such hint in our policies here in Scotland. As for Helen Eadie, I do not know where she got the statements that she referred to. The Conservative party in Scotland will make policies for Scotland, and that is underpinned by our view that all NHS treatment in Scotland is free at the point of delivery. That is clearly our position. I do not know what the source of Helen's material was, but it was not accurate in relation to our position in Scotland.

We often talk in terms of social inclusion, and not a day goes by in this Parliament when it is not mentioned. That is not a topic that people talk about in the post office queue or in the supermarket, and it is therefore important that we discuss the issues that people really understand and are concerned about. Those include the question of why, for example, people in Stranraer are faced with the cost of their meals on wheels service rising overnight from £1.05 to £2.99, the highest price in Scotland. The same meals on wheels service may cost £1.40 here in Edinburgh.

A number of views have been expressed in relation to the past, and many MSPs seem to be wedded to a blame culture. From my positive stance, I really want to improve things by dealing with the immediate practical problems facing elderly and disabled people throughout Scotland. Everyone must acknowledge the fact that the elderly population is growing. In parts of the South of Scotland, which I represent, one in four people is over the age of 60, and a growing part of the population is over 80.

It is vital that an effective strategy to ensure that people receive the help and support that they require lies at the heart of the Executive's priorities. It is clear from a range of evidence that Scottish pensioners feel let down, and not just by the UK Labour Government's promises of massive pension rises—promises which have come to nothing, of course. They also feel let down by the way in which the Executive has presided over an allocation to local authorities whereby council tax increases have outstripped pension increases.

Pensioners and disabled people find themselves paying for services for which they did not previously pay or facing massive price hikes. I have given Dumfries and Galloway as an example, although I do not regard that council as typical as it is led by an odd coalition between Labour and the SNP, which appears to disagree on everything bar allowance payments.

In the south-west, an area that is typical of Scotland, elderly people are being deprived of a choice about the home in which they will receive nursing care. I do not want to comment on the legal action or the auditor's report in relation to externalisation of residential homes in Dumfries and Galloway, but this Parliament must be able to reaffirm its view that people are entitled to freedom of choice when they are required to move into residential or nursing care.

The basic entitlement of any elderly person in Scotland should be the freedom to choose an establishment that is close to their community and their family or where people that they have known all their lives are living. They do not deserve to be shipped off to a place in which the council has been able to purchase spaces on a bulk basis and which is miles away from their domestic connection. They certainly do not want to be part of the bedblocking problem that Mary Scanlon mentioned earlier.

Bedblocking is one of the clearest ways in which the Executive will be judged on its aim to deliver joined-up government and an holistic approach. It is clear to the public that, while having elderly people in NHS beds might save £300 to £400 a week, it costs another section of the public purse nearly £1,000 a week and deprives someone else of a medical place. We need to see evidence of co-ordination between agencies rather than a scramble for funds.

A number of the most significant issues for the elderly and disabled groups are, as Kay Ullrich and Duncan Hamilton pointed out, reserved matters. Pensions, which we debated some weeks ago, is an obvious issue, as is the UK

Government's response to the Sutherland report. We must have that response as soon as possible. The Government must work more closely with the UK Government, not just on politically correct issues, but on issues that matter to the Scottish people. The Executive must adopt a programme that delivers to our elderly and disabled citizens affordable services, freedom of choice and the dignity and respect that they deserve.

Business Motion

David (None, Lothians)

The next item on the agenda is consideration of business motion S1M-795, in the name of Mr Tom McCabe on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, which sets out our business programme.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Before I move the motion, I draw members' attention to the amendment to this afternoon's business to take a motion without debate from the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body on the setting up of the Scottish Parliament branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.

I also advise the chamber that the SNP business for next Wednesday afternoon will be on the subject of independence.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees—

(a) the following revision to the Business Motion approved on 27 April 2000— Thursday 4 May 2000 after Debate on the Role of Sport in Social Inclusion, insert— followed by SPCB Motion on the establishment of the Scottish Parliament CPA Branch and (b) the following programme of business— Wednesday 10 May 2000

2.30 pm Time for Reflection followed by Non-Executive Business - Scottish National Party followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business - debate on the subject of S1M-769 Mr John Munro: The Black Cuillin Thursday 11 May 2000

9.30 am Ministerial Statement on Drugs Action Plan followed by Committee Business - Transport and Environment Committee Report on Telecommunications followed by Business Motion

2.30 pm Question Time

3.10 pm First Minister's Question Time followed by Debate on Special Educational Needs followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business - debate on the subject of S1M-737 David Davidson: A90 Upgrade Wednesday 17 May 2000

9.30 am Time for Reflection followed by Executive Debate on Glasgow Regeneration

12.00 pm Ministerial Statement

2.30 pm Continuation of the Executive Debate on Glasgow Regeneration followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business Thursday 18 May 2000

9.30 am Executive Debate on Community Care

12.00 pm Ministerial Statement followed by Business Motion

2.30 pm Question Time

3.10 pm First Minister's Question Time

3.30 pm Executive Business followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business

David (None, Lothians)

The question is, that motion S1M-795, in the name of Mr Tom McCabe, be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

David (None, Lothians)

Give me a second.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Only a second, Sir David.

David (None, Lothians)

We will hear a point of order from Margo MacDonald.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

In view of the Parliament's stated objective of achieving transparency and accountability in its dealings, I am interested to discover why—in light of today's news that the Holyrood project's sponsor will carry out her duties no longer—you ruled as inadmissible a question on her role as a civil servant, for which I believe the Scottish Executive is accountable?

David (None, Lothians)

I did not rule that it was inadmissible; I said that I would not accept an emergency question on the matter, because the matter is not an emergency. We will get on with question 1, from Pauline McNeill.

Question Time — scottish executive

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether any additional funding has been allocated to the Greater Glasgow Primary Care NHS Trust to cover health support services for asylum seekers accommodated at Kingsway Court and other sites in Glasgow. (S1O-1605)

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Under normal budgetary rules, a substantial part of any additional costs will automatically be picked up centrally. I expect Greater Glasgow Health Board to meet the remainder from the overall resources that are available to it, which amount to more than £800 million this year.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

Will the minister join me in warmly welcoming asylum seekers to Kingsway Court in my constituency of Glasgow Kelvin? Does he accept that my concerns are related to Glasgow's health budget and that there is a danger that placing a further financial burden on the primary care NHS trust will further disadvantage the city of Glasgow, which has the worst health record and the poorest population in Scotland?

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

I agree that we have a responsibility to make proper arrangements for those who seek asylum and refuge on our shores. It is right that Scotland and our cities play their part in that. I am confident that Glasgow will do so and that the NHS will play its proper part. As Pauline McNeill knows, the Executive continues to work on the funding of health services in Glasgow, taking into account Glasgow's particular health problems. We are doing that in particular through the on-going work on the Arbuthnott review, which has been debated in Parliament.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Does the minister agree that the Government's voucher system is degrading and dehumanising, that it does not provide a reasonable standard of living and that it is completely alien to the Scottish tradition of hospitality?

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

As members know, the arrangements for housing and living costs are a matter for the Home Office as part of an arrangement reached between it and the host local authorities—in this case Glasgow City Council.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

Does the minister agree that it is unacceptable that additional funding is not being made available for health, when additional resources have been made available for matters such as housing and social work services that are making additional demands of local authorities?

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

I indicated in my original answer that some account is taken of the increase in the patient load in primary care through the general medical service's non-cash limited budget. That budget will be uprated to deal with additional patients. Generally, what is important in the debate is a sense of proportion. Greater Glasgow Health Board is responsible for looking after the health of just under 1 million people. When we talk in those terms, the increase is relatively small and I am confident that the health board will take the measures that it feels are necessary to ensure that services are delivered.

David (None, Lothians)

Question 2 has been withdrawn.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

To ask the Scottish Executive, in the light of the move towards inclusion of pupils with special needs in mainstream schools, what provision sportscotland has made for these pupils in its school sports programmes. (S1O-1631)

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Sportscotland helps to provide sporting opportunities for children who have disabilities in mainstream schools in several ways, including funding the BT top play top sport programme, the sportsability programme, the Royal Mail's ready, willing and able for sport programme and a Scottish disabilities sport resource pack for teachers, leaders and coaches.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

Does the minister see a role for school sports co-ordinators in developing access to sport for young people with disabilities? If so, will she encourage the appointment of co-ordinators in areas where there are none at present?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Yes. In my speech in the debate following question time, I will make an announcement about the number of school sports co-ordinators currently in place. School sports co-ordinators have a central role in developing programmes of physical activity and sport for youngsters with disability. That is one of the specific areas that school sports co-ordinators have been asked to look at. They will be evaluated according to whether they have been successful in providing access to sport for all children, whatever their ability.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

Can the minister assure us that, when she and her ministerial colleagues are developing personal learning plans for children with special needs and disabilities, sport and physical activity will be included as an important way of helping such children to develop their motor neurone capacity?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I am sure that my colleagues would agree that sport and physical activity is a very important part of the curriculum, whatever the needs and abilities of the youngster concerned. In the case of youngsters with physical disabilities, specific, tightly targeted programmes—sometimes involving physiotherapists—are necessary. Those would be seen as an important component of personal learning plans.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

To ask the Scottish Executive how the extra money given to further education colleges will promote lifelong learning. (S1O-1630)

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

The additional £28.4 million will help further education colleges to provide an additional 20,000 student places this year, targeted particularly at those from socially and economically disadvantaged backgrounds. That will enable them to achieve their full educational, training and employment potential. Of that funding, £10 million will go towards providing the latest information and communications technology.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Can the minister assure the Parliament that that money will be directed at those groups that find it difficult to access further education? I am referring to the unemployed, contract workers and the low paid. If that is what he intends, how will he achieve it?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

That is what I intend. Many of the Executive's policies are aimed at achieving greater social inclusion. It is our aim that 20 per cent of the growth in student numbers should come from the most deprived areas of Scotland, as a way of promoting social inclusion. There is a premium payment to further education colleges worth £4.3 million for taking students from the 20 per cent of most deprived areas in Scotland. On top of that, there has been a 12.8 per cent increase in the funding for student bursaries, which is well ahead of the increase in student numbers. Again, that is targeted at encouraging the groups that Duncan McNeil has mentioned into further education.

David Mundell (Conservative, South of Scotland)

What steps will be taken to ensure that the money to which the minister has referred will be used to develop IT skills in both teaching and learning?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

We are concerned to encourage more activity in that area. There is a balance between the Executive passing down funds to the Scottish Further Education Funding Council and the funding council distributing that funding to individual colleges. The extra £10 million to which I referred is the allocation that the funding council has made to the individual colleges, to ensure that they expand their distance-learning courses and participate further in internet and e-commerce activity, as a way of driving forward the knowledge economy. If, despite those extra funds, that does not happen on the ground, the Executive and the funding council will want to take firmer action to ensure that it does. However, at the moment we are taking a co-operative, partnership approach. From the great explosion that has taken place in initiatives associated with e-commerce, we are convinced that there will be increased activity in that area.

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it has considered the memorandum on local government finance by Professor Arthur Midwinter dated 25 April 2000 and what response it is proposing to make. (S1O-1636)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Professor Midwinter's memorandum was submitted to the Local Government Committee to inform its consideration of the budget for 2001-02. The Executive looks forward to hearing the committee's views, which I will take into account in the preparation of the budget proposals.

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Given that Professor Midwinter is using the Executive's own figures, does the minister accept that the Executive's support for local government is now £0.5 billion less, in real terms, than it was seven years ago?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

No. I think that those figures are regularly distorted. The figures for this year show one significant fact: the agreed grant settlement for local authorities for next year contains the highest increase that there has been for seven years. That increase is resulting in significant investment in education, in social work and in other vital services. That is good news for local government. We can build on the settlement through the consultation process with the Local Government Committee in future years.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Is the minister making any plans for next year to ensure that the real-terms decline in revenue support grant that is allocated to Aberdeenshire Council is reversed? He will know that my constituents are, yet again, having to cope with an 8 per cent increase in council tax and with real cuts in council services.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

At the end of a local authority budget process that was, at times, difficult, it is helpful that Aberdeenshire Council, like one or two other councils, has been shown not to have had to make the more dramatic changes in its budgets that had been predicted during the winter. However, it is important that we learn lessons from this year's settlement and that we improve on the settlement next year. That process is under way. I am meeting the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities again next week and I am meeting the Local Government Committee on Tuesday. I look forward to those discussions being productive in the months ahead.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Does the minister accept that the squeeze in council resources that has been identified by Professor Midwinter is at the root of the disastrous reduction in council expenditure on roads maintenance in recent years? A reduction from £400 million to £300 million a year is pretty substantial in my judgment. The newspapers have trailed the substantial increases that it is believed Mr Prescott will make next month. Will the Executive ensure that the Scottish consequential will, at least in part, be allocated to Scottish local authorities to allow them to carry out essential road and bridge maintenance?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I welcome Mr Tosh's support for the Executive's efforts to turn round the years of decline in the maintenance and building of roads in Scotland. I also welcome his denial of the performance of the previous Government in dramatically running down that budget in the early and mid 1990s. That Government's plans, had they been allowed to continue, would have led to the decimation of the Scottish road network. I will welcome his support when we announce further plans in the months and years ahead.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether the Scottish health technology assessment centre will ensure equality of access throughout Scotland to new and existing drugs and treatments. (S1O-1597)

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

The newly established Health Technology Board for Scotland will provide a single source of national advice to the national health service in Scotland on new drugs and therapies. That will ensure that effective innovations move quickly into mainstream practice and will help to ensure equity of access across Scotland.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The Health Technology Board for Scotland will provide advice to health boards. In a written answer to me, the minister stated:

"Boards will be expected to take account of that advice".—[Official Report, Written Answers, 26 April 2000; Vol 6, p 25-26.]

Is it the case that health boards will still ultimately determine which drugs and treatments are provided, and that postcode prescribing will not be stamped out, contrary to what the minister promised last November?

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

I find a certain irony in the fact that a member of the Conservative party seems to be implying that we should dictate to the health service what it does, given that the Tories presided over the fragmentation of the NHS into a series of local entities. We are now putting it back together again.

As I have been setting out to the NHS this very morning, we are now putting in place an effective new relationship with the NHS in Scotland that will allow local health bodies to operate effectively, but that will establish a centre of national guidance and advice. We are committed to ending postcode prescribing, which we think is wrong. We have put in place a body that is open, transparent and involves patient and service representatives. Its advice will be published openly. It is for health boards to look to that advice in taking local decisions. I would find it surprising, to say the least, if they were not to follow that advice; they would have to justify publicly a decision not to do so.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

As the minister widened the question from postcode prescribing, I wonder whether I might ask what would happen if a health board were to do what she considered was less than a good job in looking after its own patch. There is an example from this patch, where, we are told, it is being suggested that the Lauriston building—a new building serving the Edinburgh royal infirmary—should be put up for sale, which would mean that we lost city-centre facilities. No one would have even contemplated that a year ago in Edinburgh. Will the minister consider telling Lothian Health Board and the trust concerned that under no circumstances should the Lauriston building be sold off?

David (None, Lothians)

Is that to do with the original question?

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Yes.

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

No.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Susan widened the question in her answer.

David (None, Lothians)

Is the building a technology centre?

I am assured that that matter is not linked to the original question; we will move on.

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

To ask the Scottish Executive what factors have led to the high proportion of Caesarean births in Scotland and what reasons there are for disparities between different health board areas. (S1O-1615)

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

A rising rate of Caesarean sections has been observed throughout the western world. Although there is no scientific basis for a correct rate of Caesarean section, the Scottish Executive will examine the issue as part of our work to develop a national maternity services framework.

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

Given the significant differences in the rates between different health board areas, does the minister agree that a Caesarean section should be carried out only for a genuine medical reason or because of the woman's choice, rather than because of the view of an individual obstetrician or group of obstetricians?

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

We discussed maternity services in a members' business debate last week, when I made clear the importance that I attach to developing effective maternity services that enable women to make informed choices about their care right through pregnancy and in giving birth. No one really knows why there has been an increase in the rate of Caesarean sections. It is important that we ensure that practices are used only when clinically appropriate. We must also ensure that women are in a position to make informed choices. We are now putting in place the first ever national framework for maternity services in Scotland; its first report will be published in October. I think that it will provide a very effective and informed basis for moving forward.

Keith Raffan (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Would the minister care to comment on the proposals by Forth Valley Acute NHS Trust to centralise maternity services in Falkirk? There are serious concerns in the Stirling and Clackmannanshire areas about the impact that that could have, especially on those who live in rural areas. I know that the matter is a decision for the board, but will she assure us that she will monitor the consultation process undertaken by the trust and the health board, to ensure that the views of people in the area are fully considered?

David (None, Lothians)

That question also seems wider than the original question.

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

Well, that—

David (None, Lothians)

It is. Do you want to answer it?

Keith Raffan (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

It is about maternity services.

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

I think that it is important and relevant that—

David (None, Lothians)

Is it relevant to the main question?

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

In the sense that it is about the future of maternity services, I would judge so—but I am not the Presiding Officer.

David (None, Lothians)

The question was about the variation in the rate of Caesarean births; I do not think that Mr Raffan's question is relevant. We will move on. I ask members to ensure that supplementary questions are relevant to the main issue.

Dorothy-Grace Elder (Independent, Glasgow)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether there are plans to increase the number of specialist nurses for multiple sclerosis patients and what the current number of such specialist nurses is. (S1O-1607)

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

Information is not held centrally on the current number of such specialist nurses. It is for NHS trusts to determine the number needed to meet the clinical needs of their local population and to recruit appropriately qualified nurses.

Dorothy-Grace Elder (Independent, Glasgow)

Minister, really! I must thank Susan Deacon for answering the question, but not for the answer that she gave. I must also add that some of us are rather tired of the blancmange non-answers that we are getting. The Multiple Sclerosis Society in Scotland claims that there are only seven specialist nurses for MS patients throughout the whole of Scotland. That is only seven nurses to 8,000 MS patients, many of whom are, as the minister is aware, young people, including mothers, struggling to stay on their feet.

How does the minister intend to deal with the inequalities throughout Scotland? For example, Greater Glasgow Health Board has refused to supply interferon to help to keep people on their feet who have been approved for beta interferon treatment. Will she introduce a national policy for treatment of MS patients, as Shetland has requested?

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

Let me make it clear that I very much understand the needs of MS sufferers. I have spent a lot of time—both as a minister and in dealing with constituency cases—looking into a range of the issues that Dorothy-Grace Elder has raised. I have also responded in some detail to a number of written parliamentary questions on this subject, from her and from other members. If she looks at the Official Report , she will see that the first answer that I gave was a precise answer to the specific issue that she raised. However, I am delighted to have the chance to make some wider points.

First, as we discussed in relation to Mary Scanlon's question, the Health Technology Board for Scotland has been established. That board will play a crucial role in examining treatments such as beta interferon. It will attempt to provide one source of national advice, because there is no national consensus among clinicians at the moment about the appropriate use of that treatment.

Secondly, we are putting in place an appropriate balance between national planning and local decision making. For example, in August last year, we established the Scottish integrated work force planning group. That will help us to look at where, or if, there are gaps in specialties in terms of nurses and doctors and to plan training and resources effectively across Scotland, while still enabling local health bodies to take local decisions.

Finally, at a national level, work is going forward under the auspices of the Scottish needs assessment programme to consider the whole range of needs of MS sufferers and to examine the range of treatments and support from which they could benefit. That will inform our policy making at a national level.

Irene Oldfather (Labour, Cunninghame South)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it has any plans to review the legislation regarding the registration of childminders. (S1O-1634)

Sam Galbraith (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

I have been considering responses to last year's consultation on the regulation of early child care. That includes regulation of childminders. I will announce conclusions shortly.

Irene Oldfather (Labour, Cunninghame South)

I thank the minister for his answer. Is he aware that there is an anomaly within the system, whereby child carers who look after children in the family home are not able to register as childminders and so cannot qualify for child care tax credit? Will he give an assurance that he will look into that as part of the consultation?

Sam Galbraith (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

It is fair to say that the regulation and registration of early education and child care is probably one of the most tricky problems that I have had to deal with in some considerable time. It requires a great deal of my attention. I am just about ready to make announcements on it but, before I do, I will give due consideration to the point raised by Irene Oldfather.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive when it intends to make a policy statement on debt recovery law in Scotland. (S1O-1602)

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

In my statement to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee on 31 August last year, I said that we must

"ensure proper consideration of the diligence system as a whole."—[Official Report, Justice and Home Affairs Committee, 31 August 1999; c 21.]

That was repeated in November 1999 in the Executive's memorandum on Mr Sheridan's bill and it remains our view. Arrangements for taking forward that review are under way.

In respect of poindings and warrant sales, the Executive is committed to abolition, but on the basis that an effective and humane alternative is put in its place. That was also the conclusion of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee. I hope that our proposal to take this forward on a cross-party parliamentary basis will command the support of all members of the Parliament.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Will the minister state that—contrary to press reports at the weekend allegedly coming from the Executive—the Executive has no intention of killing the Abolition of Poindings and Warrant Sales Bill by stealth? Furthermore, will he give an assurance that he will set the objective of having that bill and the complementary measures ready for implementation no later than 2001?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Mr Neil will recall that I said last week that we hoped to introduce legislation before the end of 2000-01. That is our objective. It is certainly not our intention to kill off by stealth the abolition of poindings and warrant sales. We believe—the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, too, expressed this view—that, standing alone, Mr Sheridan's bill is flawed and that additional measures are required to ensure that a humane and workable system replaces poindings and warrant sales.

John McAllion (Labour, Dundee East)

Does the minister accept that there is a distinction between the reform of the present system of seizing people's moveables—the system of poindings and warrant sales—and outright abolition of that system and any other system of seizing people's moveables for the recovery of debt? If he accepts that distinction, will he make it clear whether the Executive seeks to delay the enactment of Tommy Sheridan's bill so that it can present proposals for the abolition of any system of seizing people's moveables as a means of debt recovery or so that it can replace the present system with another system for doing precisely that?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Last week, I said that we were committed to the abolition of poindings and warrant sales but believed that there ought to be some system for diligence against moveable property. I think that people would find it intolerable if those who can pay do not pay. There has to be some system in place, but we want to ensure that the inhumane aspects of poindings and warrant sales are consigned to history. I hope that we can attract cross-party support to ensure that the legislation that we introduce meets the objectives that the Parliament clearly expressed last week.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

What advice and guidance will be given to small businesses that are struggling to avoid bankruptcy in the face of the determined refusal to pay by those who are well able to do so, or indeed the refusal to pay timeously, which in certain cases can drive them into bankruptcy?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I have just explained that there ought to be some form of diligence against moveables to cover cases of people who can pay but will not pay. Likewise, we could not expect commerce to progress smoothly if Scotland became known as a place where people could avoid paying debts arising from business transactions into which they had entered voluntarily. That is why it is important to have a review of the whole area of diligence, and not just of diligence against moveables. Arrangements for such a review are under way. In that context, the Parliament owes a debt to the work of the Scottish Law Commission, which will be able to inform the review on a range of diligence issues. Those who suggest that the Law Commission is in some way politically biased do not recognise the valuable work that it has carried out for parties of all colours.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Will the minister take this opportunity to confirm that he will take part in the group involving the majority of Scotland's most representative voluntary organisations that work with those in debt and in poverty? That group has now been formally established to work to improve and humanise debt recovery.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

That is the first invitation that I have received to join that group. I have said that we intend to set up a working group that will examine a range of diligences. That group will consider matters relating to debtor protection, which is an important issue, as well as to debt recovery. The Executive is committed to securing debtor protection.