Scottish Parliament, 24 May 2001

383 contributions from 73 members. The official report.

Introduction

Justice

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

Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S1M-1958, in the name of Roseanna Cunningham, on justice, and one amendment to that motion.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

Members may remember that, on 1 May, we had a debate on crime. At that point, I made a number of criticisms of the Executive's continual attempts to debate feel-good motions in the face of mounting public concern about the state of Scotland's criminal justice system. I complained about the feeling of déjà vu on that day, given that we had debated the subject only a few weeks prior to that. It was clear that the minister was desperate to somehow get a good-news story out of something that people were resolutely refusing to believe was such good news. I make no apology for returning to the subject today. Members will note that, despite recent well-publicised problems in the criminal justice system, the Executive has shown some reticence on the subject. I wonder why.

Last week, the decision was taken to make this one of the subjects for today's business because the Scottish National Party had obtained figures about the current situation in Scotland's courts. Early last year, there were some much-publicised problems in the courts because of the ruling on temporary sheriffs resulting from the application of the principles of the European convention on human rights. Information that we had at that time indicated that seriously long periods of time were elapsing before criminal and civil cases could be brought to court. Waiting periods in some courts were high: for instance, in January 2000, in Perth the waiting time was 22 weeks; in Stirling, 26 weeks; in Dundee, 19 weeks. That was the result of a particular decision and arose out of a particular problem, which was to be addressed by the appointment of part-time sheriffs, whose creation was the principal reason for the Bail, Judicial Appointments etc (Scotland) Act 2000.

As would be expected, the situation has become a little better, but recent figures suggest that there continues to be a major problem. The Scottish Court Service target for summary criminal trial waiting times for 2000-01 is 12 weeks. We should remember that summary criminal trials comprise the largest number of criminal trials that take place in our courts. Of the 49 sheriff courts in Scotland, 16 are failing to meet that target. Failures include Perth, with 21 weeks and Hamilton, with 16 weeks. That figure of 16 out of 49 courts means that, effectively, one third of Scotland's courts are failing to meet the targets that have been set. The number of failures has increased from four in 1997-98 to five in 1998-99 to nine in 1999-2000. The fact that the number of failures has hit 16 this year shows us that the trend is steadily upwards, even allowing for the problems of last year.

The Executive's programme for government for 1999-2000 promised to

"speed up the operation of the courts system"

but, the programme for government for 2000-01 says merely that that aim is "on-going".

In The Scotsman of 11 September 2000, the minister said of the criminal justice system:

"The Executive will continue to identify areas where improvements are needed, to make changes where necessary and to deliver a fair, open system for the people of Scotland."

Does the minister seriously think that those recent figures on court waiting times can give either this chamber or the people of Scotland any confidence in the Executive's ability to identify problems? Why, when the Executive is presiding over such a situation, do ministers not want to come to this chamber to discuss the issues and present us with their solutions?

This debate seems to have been quickly overtaken by subsequent events. Having last week made a decision to have this debate based on the information that was then available, we were confronted on Monday with a story of a highly sensitive case being dropped because of a lack of time. That might have been treated as a one-off—although the number of such one-offs appears to be rising—had it not been immediately followed by the resignation of a senior procurator fiscal, David Hingston. He wrote an article for a daily newspaper, in which he said:

"The Procurator Fiscal service is not working anymore. There are too few people trying to do too much work and the victims are justice and the Scottish public ... The entire service is totally depressed and extremely stressed ... There are not enough fiscals to do the work and as a result mistakes are made. And with every mistake made by a fiscal, justice suffers."

I know that the Justice 2 Committee is undertaking a review of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. It is clear from the Executive's amendment that it would like to wash its hands of all responsibility until the committee reports. However, that is not good enough. I also know that, when representations were made to that committee by the Procurators Fiscal Society, the Solicitor General described them as "posturing". Is it to be claimed that David Hingston is posturing? Surely the fiscals who contacted me privately—in fear of reprisals should it be discovered that they have approached an MSP—are not all posturing. The figures suggest that something is going seriously wrong in our courts.

Lest the problems are put down as being something for the courts alone to deal with rather that the Procurator Fiscal Service, I draw the minister's attention to the more than 1,000 cases that were dropped in 2000-01 because of a lack of time. The set target for that was zero.

How does the Scottish Executive intend to deal with the problem? Is it true that fiscals have effectively been gagged, as I have heard, and told that, as civil servants, any comments would have to be cleared through the Crown Office first? Will the minister give a categorical assurance that no fiscal will suffer as a result of speaking out? If he does not give that assurance, we can assume only that the fears of individuals are well founded, which does not reflect well on the Executive. In anticipation of the minister's reply, I am well aware of the intention to recruit another 30 procurators fiscal, but I point out that what cannot be replaced and is sorely missed is the experience that is being lost.

The minister cannot afford to brush off coverage such as that which appeared on the front page of Glasgow's Evening Times:

"Cops are ordered to stop court's arrests".

That is the kind of thing that destroys public confidence in our justice system. It is not enough to allow this issue to be parked in the Justice 2 Committee until some indeterminate date in the future. The Executive is in charge right now, it is responsible right now, the problems are being experienced right now and the Executive has a duty to deal with them right now.

I move,

That the Parliament notes with concern the developing crisis in the administration of Scotland's justice system; recognises that public confidence in the criminal justice system is being eroded by the system's inability to deal with the current level of prosecutions, and asserts that urgent action must now be taken to ensure that resourcing levels are assessed and addressed if this crisis is not to deepen.

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

I admit that, when I first saw the SNP's choice of topic for today's debate, I was a little surprised because, as Roseanna Cunningham admitted, the last time that we debated issues relating to justice, she complained bitterly of the "Groundhog Day" feeling. Of course, one of the themes of that movie was that, by changing slightly the way in which one approaches the recurring day, one will eventually move forward into the next day. I see that the SNP has entered into that spirit as today's debate features a change of emphasis. However, many of the criticisms that Ms Cunningham has made today were made in previous debates. Her speech did not say anything particularly different, so we are unlikely to break through into the new tomorrow.

Nonetheless, we are happy to take the opportunity to debate our justice system for the same reason as we were happy to do so before. Working to make Scotland a place where people are safer and feel safer is a priority for us. To deliver that priority, we have to build public confidence in the justice system.

The public view the system of justice as a whole and judge it based on how they feel it serves to protect them. There are some encouraging indicators. The Scottish crime survey shows that, since 1992, the proportion of people feeling unsafe walking alone in their area after dark has fallen from 39 per cent to 28 per cent. Between 1996 and 2000, the public's level of concern about crime fell across all the survey measures. The resources that the Scottish Executive continues to put into the whole justice system are bringing results in helping to increase that confidence in the system.

I appreciate that neither our amendment nor Roseanna Cunningham's motion refers to the number of police. Of course, the police are the front line of the criminal justice system. In any case, I can hardly believe that Phil Gallie will be able to resist using the rewind and replay buttons on his own ludicrous spin on police cuts. In order to get in first, I will point out that police funding is 35 per cent higher in real terms than it was 10 years ago. The number of police officers in Scotland has reached an all-time high of 15,149. The figure in March 1997 was 14,872. There are no police cuts, and we have the first indication of resources being used to bolster confidence in the justice system.

Not only the police have more resources. The number of permanent sheriffs has increased from 100 in 1995 to 129 at the end of 2000. That is another record, and that number will increase again to 136 once we have the recommendations of the recent selection board. We have also created a new statutory office of part-time sheriff to replace the temporary sheriffs, and 31 part-time sheriffs are already making a contribution to tackling delays. We have increased the number of judges from 27 to 32. It is true that the courts are under pressure. In particular, solemn business is increasing; for example, the number of indictments in the High Court increased from 1,151 to 1,478 in the single year between 1998-99 and 1999-2000, an increase of 28 per cent.

More police and clear-up rates the like of which have not been seen since the second world war mean that more criminals are being caught. That has obvious consequences for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, which is already coping with the consequences of historical underfunding through the 1980s and 1990s. New initiatives also put pressure on courts, which is why, for example, in introducing a drug court to Scotland, we are careful to provide the additional resources to Glasgow sheriff court in order to allow that to happen. We want to ensure that the historical underfunding that has afflicted the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service remains entirely historical.

A general process of strengthening Crown Office resources is under way, and will continue. The provision for 2001-02 is £55 million, which is 17.8 per cent higher than that for 1997. Recent claims in the press that there have been repeated cuts are simply untrue. In real terms, there will be an increase of around 11 per cent between now and 2003-04.

Roseanna Cunningham acknowledged that more staff are being recruited and trained, including 20 additional lawyers this year and a further 10 next year. That is on top of the fact that the Crown Office now employs 369 lawyers, as of today, compared with 250 in January 1997. The service is also introducing improved technology, which will give it a powerful tool for dealing with an ever more complex work load. That new technology will allow information to be transmitted and exchanged more efficiently in the criminal justice system.

Public confidence in the criminal justice system is influenced by the way in which the system treats not just the accused but, above all, the victims. That is why the Scottish strategy for victims has been allocated resources to initiate action on the ground. Among its early achievements has been the completion of a major phase of the witness service in sheriff courts. That service provides general advice and support to people attending court, and has now been rolled out to courts in Aberdeen, Edinburgh and Glasgow. This year, £860,000 has been provided through Victim Support Scotland.

The Crown Office is running pilots of its own victim liaison service, which is designed to make improvements in the flow of information to victims. That service will be operating in all regions by 2002.

The Justice 2 Committee intends to undertake a proper review of those matters, which will take something like a year. We welcome that, and think that it is quite right and proper to wait and see what the committee's recommendations are.

It seems that the real purpose of today's hour-and-a-quarter debate is not to address those issues seriously. The truth is that we have to finish this debate early, because Roseanna Cunningham has a bus to catch to get to a press conference, for which today's debate is just the opener. That is not a proper use of this Parliament; it is no way to treat a Parliament, but that is not a surprise.

I move amendment S1M-1958.1, to leave out from "with concern" to end and insert:

"the increased resources going into the justice system as a whole; further notes the decision of the Justice 2 Committee to hold an inquiry into the operation of the Crown Office and the Procurator Fiscal Service, and looks forward to their report."

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I congratulate Roseanna Cunningham on at last delivering on an SNP promise: today, she has satisfied her own "Groundhog Day" weather forecast in securing this debate. We welcome today's debate. I will not waste time going through the many figures that she has presented to the Parliament which, as far as we are concerned, are not disputable. I will not concentrate on them, as I had intended to do.

I am pleased that Roseanna Cunningham and her colleagues have recognised the message that we in the Conservatives have been consistently putting out throughout this parliamentary session, despite the fact that Roseanna herself has at times described our comments as bizarre. I welcome her aboard. We will take our message forward with Roseanna Cunningham and will give her motion support, provided that it is not amended in the way that the Deputy Minister for Justice intends. I find the amendment in his name takes a head-in-the-sand approach. Quite honestly, I wish that Mr Gray would get real and identify with the problems out there and with the crisis of confidence that there appears to be in the justice system.

I want to address the justice system as a whole. It is one thing to concentrate on the courts, but we must recognise those who prepare cases for the courts and the way in which the courts operate. I will start with the police. I am delighted that the Executive has, at long last, attempted to restore the level of policing to somewhere near what is required, following the reductions that there have been. It is a well-timed commitment, given the fact that we are now in an election campaign.

It is one thing for the minister to tell us how well the Executive has done on the number of police.

However, as Mr Jim Wallace could inform Mr Gray, the Scottish Police Federation certainly laid it on the line that the ridiculous words of Phil Gallie, as Mr Gray described them, were not entirely unbelievable when it came to those at the sharp end. It was interesting to note that Jack Straw got exactly the same response when he faced the Police Federation of England and Wales.

It is one thing to have the number of police; it is another thing to ensure that issues are followed up. The current situation with regard to sentencing is of no help to the police, nor are the level of repeat offending and the level of return of criminals to prisons having had early releases—there is evidence of that. That is no comfort to victims either, when the sentences that they hear being passed down in court are not the sentences that are served and individuals appear back on the streets far too early.

That is no deterrent to the hardliners who are determined to commit crime. Deterrence is the one thing that, somewhere along the line, might stop them. They laugh at the current lengths of sentences and at automatic remission. Nor is it of benefit to prison staff and those others who work to rehabilitate such individuals, to make them see the error of their ways and change the course of their lives. Not enough time is spent with those individuals, because no sooner are they imprisoned than they are out again, not having served their proper sentences.

Conservatives will deliver, given the opportunity, but—

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

That is unlikely.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

—before the minister says that it is unlikely that we will have that opportunity, although I have just heard that being said, we will attempt to persuade the Parliament next week, when we consider the Convention Rights (Compliance) (Scotland) Bill at stage 3, that there is a means of stepping back and making sentences mean what they say. That attempt was defeated in committee, but I like to think that members will reflect on the error of their ways and support us on that bill.

We have to ensure that there are sufficient procurators fiscal and Crown Office staff in the courts. We should look back at what has happened recently: the Chhokar case; the Collie case; the 16-year-old alleged rapist who got away without a trial; and the boys from Paisley who escaped a rape trial because the case was timed out due to the lack of service by procurators. Those few but much-publicised incidents are but the tip of the iceberg. I suspect that that is the reason for the announcement that the Dingwall prosecutor made when he stepped aside.

There are other problems. In considering our justice system, the minister has to address the not proven verdict at some time. It is meaningless. Procurators and police officers describe it as the teatime verdict: bring out a verdict and give us a judgment. Such a verdict means nothing to the persons who have been charged and, even more important, nothing to the victim.

I realise that I am on my time, but I would like to mention a very important issue: people who drive with drugs in their bloodstream. We have to do something about that. Currently, we protect society against drunk drivers but not against people who drive with drugs in their bloodstream. By addressing that issue, the Executive would do something for justice.

At the same time, the Executive could consider how people who have already received long driving bans very often seem to escape the wrath of the court. They have their bans extended laughably. There was such a case in Perth a week or two ago. The Executive has to bring home the message to those who administer justice that it is not right that the public should have to face such people driving around—without insurance, as they are not allowed to drive. The minister would do well to address that issue, if indeed he is serious about justice issues.

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

Although I do not argue that the topic of this debate is not worthy of our attention, I wonder how much the SNP's timing in raising it this morning was influenced by Tuesday's news reports. In some ways, the debate is premature. We could have had a better-informed and more constructive debate after the publication of the Justice 2 Committee's report on its inquiry into the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. It is unfair to suggest that the committee might brush over the concerns of procurators fiscal, as I am sure that it will take seriously all the evidence and do a thorough job.

Be that as it may, there are concerns about the pressures on the criminal justice system and its ability to cope. The issues raised by Mr David Hingston, the retired procurator fiscal whose comments were reported on Tuesday, tie in with at least two recent cases in which delays by the fiscal service resulted in the cases being time barred. Those concerns have been recognised and measures are being taken to address them.

More resources and the better use of resources help, and both are in the pipeline, with the recruitment of 30 new fiscal staff and funding to improve and develop the department's information technology to assist the organisation and administration of their work. However, there is more than one factor in any equation. There is a balance to be struck in how each of the factors in this complex equation are tackled. How do we change and strengthen the system? How do we relieve the pressures? What are the pressures? What will enable the system to work better?

Improving the operation of the courts and giving the police the support that they need are long-standing Liberal Democrat commitments, which figured in our 1999 manifesto. The police service's net grant-aided expenditure is at its highest level—it is 33 per cent more in real terms now than it was a decade ago. Police numbers also offer good news: we now have 15,149 police officers in Scotland, which is 99 more than the previous peak.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Is the member aware of people clamouring and queuing up to congratulate her and her colleagues in the Executive parties on there being more policemen on the street? I rather suspect that that is not the case. In fact, there are fewer bobbies on the beat—that is certainly the view that is held by the police.

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

I think that my next point will illustrate what has been done to address that. It cannot be denied that there are 99 more policemen than the previous peak and that there are now 15,149 policemen. I cannot resist the observation that the recruitment of one more officer would make the numbers nice and round.

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Perhaps Nora Radcliffe will note that the Scottish Police Federation was at the front of the queue to congratulate us on the increase in the number of police officers. Although it went on to criticise the way in which those officers are deployed, it welcomed the record number of police officers in Scotland, a fact that is ignored by the SNP and the Conservatives.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Even I congratulated the Executive on that.

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

In this atmosphere of congratulation, I will continue. Nobody denies that, ideally, police officers should spend their time policing. The number of staff to take over some of the burden of clerical and administrative work from front-line policemen has also risen by almost 10 per cent in the past three years. That helps to get more policemen back out on the beat and on the front line.

The Scottish crime survey 2000 showed that the crime that we know about is at its lowest since such surveys began: down 29 per cent since 1981. The caveat to that is that violent crime has increased by a third, so there is no room for complacency. The survey pointed out that part of the increase was attributable to a new screening question on domestic violence, which increased the estimate of violent crime by approximately 10 per cent. I say in passing that there is significance in the fact that the question was asked as well as in the data it produces, as its inclusion in the survey highlights the change that there has been in attitudes to domestic violence.

There is an unacceptable culture of violence in Scotland, which is often linked to alcohol and drugs. If we change that culture, we will go a long way to relieving the pressure on the system. Culture change is a long-term job, but much work has been done on it, for example by police schools liaison officers in our schools and youth clubs, and by outreach work in the streets by community policemen and policewomen and others. There will be a payback from such work in due course.

Honesty compels us to admit that we have not cracked the alcohol and drugs abuse that underlies so much criminal activity. It is a multifaceted problem, which requires a multifaceted approach. It is true that we have to crack down on dealers and get at the major players, who should be behind bars and unable to benefit from their evil profits and ill-gotten gains, but shutting people up in prison is not the only answer and often it is not the right answer, especially for the small-time dealers who are addicts themselves and are just as much victims as their customers are. Those small-time dealers need help to deal with their addiction and get back into mainstream society. Putting some people into prison is like enrolling them in an academy for crime—it is an expensive mistake.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

On the point about helping drug addicts to cure their addiction, will the member join me in lamenting the fact that the Government chose not to set up a drug court in the north-east of Scotland, which has the fastest-growing drugs problem in Scotland?

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

Answer and wind up, please.

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

I think that the Executive has set up a drug court in Glasgow. It takes time to roll out such measures. We are making a start. No one denies that there is much more to be done, but we cannot do everything at once.

It costs a lot to put people in prison and it costs a lot to keep them there. Non-custodial sentences or diversion from prosecution are far more humane and sensible ways for society to deal with many transgressors. However, for those options to be effective, there must be much more provision of rehabilitation and support outwith the criminal justice system. It would also be helpful if, in reporting on crime, the media could accept that sometimes criminals should not be put behind bars. There should be fewer shock-horror headlines about people being let off because they have not been imprisoned and more informative reporting about rehabilitation or sentencing options that involve wrongdoers doing something constructive, which can be a life-changing experience.

The criminal justice system exists to pick up the pieces where we fail as a society. If we can sort out underlying failures in social provision, the pressure on an overloaded system will ease.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Nora Radcliffe said that there are concerns about the criminal justice system—that is the first understatement that we have heard today.

The SNP motion refers to "crisis" and "resourcing", which are both key to the debate. The Executive's response to a crisis is to ask, "Crisis? What crisis?" According to the Crown Office representatives who gave evidence to the joint meeting of the Justice 1 Committee and the Justice 2 Committee, there may be a wee problem out there, but nothing to frighten the horses and nothing to frighten the law-abiding public. In what one could call a very relaxed response to questions at the joint meeting of 16 May, the Solicitor General for Scotland said:

"The other day, as I was considering various observations that have been made of the way in which prosecution is obtained in Scotland, it seemed to me that the notion that the system is cracking up has been advanced as an argument for the past 10 years at least. It is a perennial feature of the system that people make that complaint."—[Official Report, Justice 1 Committee and Justice 2 Committee (Joint Meeting), 16 May 2001; c 96.]

There we have it—there is no problem out there, and the Solicitor General is quite happy.

So, where is the evidence that the system is cracking up? I take members back to the evidence of some of the front-line people, such as Richard Stott, who is the president of the Procurators Fiscal Society, which represents 85 per cent of procurators fiscal. At the joint meeting of 8 May, Mr Stott was asked about discussions with the Crown Office on staffing. He replied:

"Very little discussion about staffing levels took place between our society and the Crown Office. We expressed the general view that we are under-resourced and understaffed, but we were not asked to have specific input to the preparation of the bid for the budget."

He went on to say:

"The Crown Office management side was well aware of our views on under-resourcing. We know not what account was taken of those views."—[Official Report, Justice 1 Committee and Justice 2 Committee (Joint Meeting), 8 May 2001; c 40.]

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

I acknowledge Christine Grahame's comments—what she read from the Official Report is true—but does she think that it would be more appropriate to consider the remarks in the context of the inquiry that the Justice 2 Committee is to conduct, rather than in this morning's debate? After all, that is the role of the committee.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I suspected that that point might be raised. Those comments are on public record and it is appropriate to raise them today. The evidence that I quoted is not part of our inquiry—it was part of our joint consideration of the budget with the Justice 1 Committee. We have not yet started our inquiry into the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. As that evidence is a matter of public record, I am perfectly free—as are other members and the public—to read it and refer to it.

On 16 May, we took evidence from the District Courts Association. Members may ask, "Who are these people?"—the witnesses from the District Courts Association included a lady who has spent 25 years in the district court service. She said:

"The fiscals are not given sufficient time to train before they are put into court. I do not think that that is the situation only in the district courts. The fiscals are also being shoved into sheriff courts because of pressures of business there."

She went on to speak of her concern that

"The level of service that we receive from the procurator fiscal's office is declining."—[Official Report, Justice 1 Committee and Justice 2 Committee (Joint Meeting), 16 May 2001; c 67-68.]

I want to listen to those witnesses and I think that the chamber should listen to them.

It appears that there is a huge breakdown between the Crown Office and the Procurator Fiscal Service, which is not helped by the Solicitor General's remarks. At the joint meeting on 16 May, the Solicitor General referred to Richard Stott, who is a senior fiscal, saying:

"He is negotiating for his society: a posture of happiness might not immediately fit in with his particular role."—[Official Report, Justice 1 Committee and Justice 2 Committee (Joint Meeting), 16 May 2001; c 87.]

The members of the Justice 1 Committee and the Justice 2 Committee were not supposed to accept Richard Stott's evidence as bona fide—the Solicitor General put an angle on Mr Stott's evidence by suggesting that he was adopting a negotiating position.

I am pleased to say that Gordon Jackson picked up that point and clarified it with the Solicitor General, although I thought that the Solicitor General's evidence was an outrageous way of dealing with a senior fiscal's evidence to the committee. Mr Stott's evidence did not come out of the blue—what happens in the courts appears in the newspapers every day.

To me, the situation looks like a crisis, sounds like a crisis, feels like a crisis and reads like a crisis, but it is not a crisis to members of the Executive parties, to the Executive's justice team or to the Crown Office. Apparently, the crisis is in our heads or has been sensationalised by the press. A smugness based on spin prevails. It is time for a reality check.

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

I referred to the sensationalised reporting of wrongdoers not being sent to prison when they are given non-custodial sentences.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I am referring to a much wider point. The Chhokar and Collie cases failed, fines are time-barred and cases are set down and not followed through or are postponed. The system is clogging up—everyone in the chamber knows that.

The system will continue to fail unless the Executive gives us what we need. The Executive is failing—not the Parliament—and must address the situation.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

Once again, we are here to talk about justice. Thanks to the SNP's motion, the debate has no proper focus. Yet again, we are going round the houses, talking about every part of the justice system rather than focusing on the detail. Phil Gallie gets the prize for mentioning the greatest number of subjects under the heading of the justice system.

Where does that take us—[Interruption.] Roseanna Cunningham talks about "Déjà vu". I agree with her; I have déjà vu, because I was one of the people who stood up and said, "Yes, let's have a debate about the court system, about resources for the Procurator Fiscal Service and about the Scottish Prison Service." However, we should deal with one subject at a time or else we will get nowhere.

I thank the SNP for at least drawing attention to the fact that the Justice 2 Committee is to undertake an inquiry. It is fair to say that we have been building up to that inquiry over a lengthy period. We have asked questions, not only during the budget process but by lodging written parliamentary questions, because we have always known that the Procurator Fiscal Service is under pressure, for reasons that I will go on to detail.

We should welcome some of the progress that has been made. During evidence-taking sessions on the budget process, members of the Justice 1 Committee and the Justice 2 Committee heard that there will be 30 new procurators fiscal. Members should welcome that news. We also heard that additional precognition officers are to be appointed.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Does Pauline McNeill accept the evidence of the procurators fiscal that, while the appointment of those 30 new procurators fiscal is welcome, the problem is that they will be inexperienced? The great problem in the service is the inexperience of new staff. Fiscals who are not senior enough are dealing with cases.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

I will deal with that point.

I am slightly angered by the fact that, although we have taken the trouble to set the terms of an inquiry under our so-called powerful committee system, the Opposition has chosen to hold a debate today—much like it did over Sutherland. The SNP either believes that the committee system is important or that it is not. If it thinks that the committee system is important, it must give the system its place.

I will not accept that the Executive's role is to come along to the chamber—[Interruption.] I would be angry if Iain Gray were to tell me today that the Executive would take over our inquiry and investigate the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. I know that he will not do that—[Interruption.]

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

Order.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

rose—

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

May I say—[ Interruption. ]

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

Order.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

Yes.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I find Pauline McNeill's comments shocking. Committee sessions are held in public. The evidence quoted by Christine Grahame is public information—that evidence is a matter of public knowledge, as the press sat in on those meetings, as did members of the public. Why should not that information be used in the chamber?

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

I thank Phil Gallie—

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

Order. The point has been well laboured. I ask Pauline McNeill to address the motion.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

May I spend a second or two on the inquiry, Presiding Officer?

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

A second or two only.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

The Justice 2 Committee wants to take its time over its inquiry. We do not want to examine the resources of the Procurator Fiscal Service alone. As Christine Grahame said, we want also to examine staff relations. The Lord Advocate admitted, on the record, to low morale and that there is a problem recruiting experienced fiscals. The Parliament must address that issue.

If we believe in a joined-up criminal justice system, we must get into the detail. I urge all the Opposition parties to consider that.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

It is easy for members to indulge in rhetoric and exaggeration during "Groundhog Day" debates, but it is not an exaggeration to say that the prosecution system is in crisis. That crisis manifests itself in a number of ways.

Roseanna Cunningham dealt with delays. Many of Scotland's sheriff courts fail to reach their summary trial targets. Given her advantage, she might have pointed out that the courts that meet their targets are found mostly in smaller, rural jurisdictions. The courts with large backlogs tend to be courts in urban areas, such as Glasgow.

I am more concerned about the delays that occur in the service of indictments after an accused person has appeared on petition and the investigation of the crime has been completed. It is completely contrary to the interests of justice that it should take eight to 10 months in places such as Glasgow to serve an indictment after appearance on petition. That cannot be good for witnesses, it is certainly not in the interests of the accused and it is totally contrary to the interests of justice and wider society.

We have heard about errors. People are working under pressure and there will inevitably be mistakes—time bars will be missed and documentation will be inaccurate. It has come out—Christine Grahame was right to stress this—that the Scottish criminal justice system is the ladies and gentlemen v the players: inexperienced deputes have to go into solemn sheriff courts and compete against a Scottish bar whose expertise is probably at its highest level, largely as a result of the introduction of the solicitor advocate system.

At the other end of the scale, we see inappropriate pleas being taken, largely for expediency. There is clear evidence that pleas are accepted in cases that should go to trial. If a harassed and overworked depute can accept, on a multicharge complaint, pleas to six, as opposed to 12, of the charges, he will do so on the ground of pure expediency. That is wrong.

Perhaps the most damning indictment of the casual approach that the Government has taken is the increased use of the diversion system, whereby cases do not go to court at all. Of course there are, as Nora Radcliffe said, cases in which diversion is appropriate, but I suggest that there is clear evidence that many cases that are being diverted should, in fact, go to court.

Gordon Jackson (Labour, Glasgow Govan)

Lots of us think that too many cases are prosecuted rather than too few. Can Bill Aitken tell us specifically which cases that should go to court are being diverted and give us examples of what he says is wrong?

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

I am delighted to do so. When the system of diversion was introduced, it was supposed to be used for first offenders with one offence—Gordon Jackson will be able to confirm that. There are now cases in Glasgow of people with previous convictions who have previously been offered a diversion being offered further diversions. That cannot be gainsaid; there is clear evidence that it happens. It is totally inappropriate.

Everybody is entitled to a chance, but how many chances are people now getting? They are getting warning letters from fiscals, conditional offers and they are being diverted. The system is not working.

The fact is that there is considerable public concern about how crime is dealt with. Police numbers may be increasing, but to increase police numbers and the number of cases that are reported is an exercise in futility if no action or inappropriate action is taken on the reports.

There is much to commend Roseanna Cunningham's motion to the Parliament—the Conservatives will certainly support it—but we must look to the Executive to come up with some answers in the near future. Otherwise, the whole system of administration of justice will become a matter of even greater public concern.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

I support Pauline McNeill's point that such a debate is the wrong way for the Parliament to deal with an issue such as justice. A short, soundbitish, electioneering debate is not the way to advance. We need a full morning for a debate on the whole justice system during which all members who are interested can make constructive remarks instead of trying to boot hell out of the other parties. There are a lot of good ideas around. The subject needs to be considered as a whole rather than in short and nasty debates such as we are having.

I am not a great admirer of the wording of Executive amendments. They tend to be a bit bland and complacent. I hope that the Executive amendment to the motion is not complacent. It is reasonable to support it because it stresses that more resources are going into the justice system and that a committee is considering the Crown Office and the Procurator Fiscal Service.

I am keen that the Executive should really push justice. There is a big opportunity for Jim Wallace—whose heart, I know, is in the subject—to make the greatest reform to how we deal with justice since Sir Robert Peel started the police.

We must consider the justice system as a whole. To start with, we have to reform the courts. The courts exist for the convenience of judges, sheriffs, advocates and solicitors. They do not exist for the benefit of the community as a whole. Who plays golf at Muirfield links at what time is more important to the people who are involved in the courts than how they get on with the real work in hand. The whole system has to be tackled. I know that Jim Wallace is a brave man and I am sure that he will tackle it. I will certainly support him in that.

The idea that all the troubles have arisen in the past two years is rubbish. Early in the previous Parliament at Westminster, I raised questions about the long delays in sheriff courts. They have been going on for a long time and have a serious impact on justice. They deter witnesses from coming forward and they must harm the value of the testimony that is given. I often wonder what would happen if I were called as a witness to a road accident or a street fracas and had to remember what happened a year ago. The chances of my getting it right are slim. The delays and the way in which the whole justice system is operated are just no good. We have to get a real grip on the system.

I welcome the start that the Executive is making, but we have to do more. That includes having more procurators fiscal and raising the quality of procurators fiscal, so that they are as good as the clever advocates who are often in court against them. We could make more use of specialist courts, so that time would be better spent and sheriffs and others would acquire expertise in a particular subject.

As Nora Radcliffe said, we have to get a grip on the prison system. Short sentences need to be examined, as Phil Gallie said. I wish him the best of luck in the election—he will be well placed at Westminster; not here. Training in prisons—resourcing prisons better so that they have a better educational system—needs to be considered. Diversion from custody needs to be considered, so that people do not go into the prison system at all, are not regurgitated endlessly around it and do not foul up the courts.

There are a lot of matters that need to be considered. I beg that we have a grown-up debate about justice, instead of the piffling, second-rate politics that we get at the moment.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I welcome the debate. One of the reasons why the SNP chose to debate justice is that it is of enormous concern the length and breadth of Scotland. There is no escaping the fact that, during the current general election campaign, justice has been one of the biggest issues on the doorsteps, despite the fact that the election is for the United Kingdom Parliament and that justice is devolved to this Parliament. That is why we should speak about it this morning.

At door after door in Aberdeen, where I am campaigning in the general election, people raise the issue of crime in the city, which has the highest rate of recorded crime in Scotland. Two days ago, I spoke to a woman whose home had been broken into five times—three times in the past few months alone. Her neighbour's house had also been broken into three times in the past few months. Yet the culprits are still out there. Those neighbours have given up completely on Scotland's justice system because it is not delivering for them and they do not feel safe in their homes any more.

I challenge Jim Wallace, the Minister for Justice, to go to Aberdeen and have a public meeting. Justice is one of the biggest issues in the city. He should hear directly from people what their concerns are. Perhaps then he will do something about them.

People in Aberdeen are not just saying that we need more police on the streets; they are turning their attention to the justice system. They are not blaming the police anymore; they are blaming the procurator fiscal's office and the courts for letting them down.

No wonder people are concerned when they read headlines such as:

"Fiscal claims stress caused by cutbacks made him quit".

That headline, to which Roseanna Cunningham referred, appeared in The Press and Journal a few days ago in relation to the resignation of David Hingston from the fiscal office in the north of Scotland. He is quoted as saying:

"The fiscal service is under immense stress, largely because of Labour and Tory governments' insistence on cutting costs. It hasn't the resources to do the job."

That is the reality throughout the country and the reason why we are debating justice today.

I have previously raised in the Parliament the 110-day rule, which puts a lot of pressure on fiscal offices throughout the country. They find it almost impossible to meet and are having to drop other cases so that they can divert their resources to dealing with the serious cases that come under the rule. We have almost the strictest timetable in the world for dealing with serious cases.

No wonder people are losing faith if they look at some of the information that comes out of the Parliament. I refer to an answer I received to a parliamentary question on cases marked "No proceedings" over the past few years. Between 1997-98 and 1999-2000, there was a 56 per cent increase in the number of cases marked "No proceedings" in the city of Aberdeen. That was the fifth worst figure in the country. The national figure was 20 per cent. In other words, over a couple of years, there was a 20 per cent increase in the number of cases marked "No proceedings". There are 49 fiscal offices. Of all the increases, three out of the top five were in fiscal office areas in the north-east of Scotland. That is hard evidence of a serious problem with resources in the fiscal service in that part of the country.

Not only the public are tearing their hair out with the justice system; the police are, too. Several times in past debates I have referred to a letter that I received from the chief constable of Tayside police on 26 March. The one section that I have not yet read out in the chamber is the one that relates to young offenders. The police are demoralised because they feel that the justice system is not delivering for the police. In the letter, the chief constable says:

"young offenders potentially present the police service with the biggest problems. The majority of crime committed by juveniles tends to be by a minority of recidivist offenders. When a repeat offender is identified there would appear to be an inability within the current system for them to be dealt with at an early stage and thereby balance the provision of support for the individual and reassurance for the public."

The chief constable gives one example of a 15-year-old in the city of Dundee who is now in a secure establishment. During his three-month placement, the individual failed to return after his first unescorted home visit. During the two-week period during which he was untraced, crime in the area rose considerably. The individual currently has 24 pending cases involving 40 charges. He has been involved in 32 previous cases. The chief constable gives some examples of what has happened in some of those cases: three times there was a disposal of supervision; 16 times no action was taken; twice there were no proceedings; seven times the referral was discharged; and four times the case was abandoned. The chief constable concludes:

"I have no need to outline the hours spent in investigation of the crimes, and the effect on the victims and impact on the morale of the investigating officers."

We have not begun even to touch on the impact of human rights legislation on the justice system. The Executive must address now many issues that are of huge concern the length and breadth of Scotland. I look for a positive response in the minister's summing-up.

Gordon Jackson (Labour, Glasgow Govan)

I will not stand here and pretend that no questions need to be asked about the prosecution system—that would be complacent. Frankly, I do not think that anyone in the justice department or in the Crown Office would either. Iain Gray's amendment does not suggest that we should not examine the system. However, I say to Roseanna Cunningham that I have a degree of quarrel with the motion, for two reasons.

First, I rather dislike the use of the word "crisis" in this context. Politicians—especially Opposition politicians at election time—are inclined to overuse the word; they use it almost at the drop of a hat. I do not accept that its use is justified every time there is a problem or a less than perfect situation, or every time that we could do better—we could do better. That is the sort of meltdown scenario of Phil Gallie. He has departed—no doubt he has other work to do while he should be here and has gone off to do something else.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

In Aberdeen, house break-ins have gone through the roof—the statistics are by far the highest in the whole of Scotland. The chances are that someone who breaks into a house in Aberdeen will not be put behind bars. Is that or is that not a crisis?

Gordon Jackson (Labour, Glasgow Govan)

It is a matter of great importance for the citizens of Aberdeen and any police officer would want to tackle it. When the people responsible are apprehended, the prosecution system should prosecute them, but to suggest that the whole structure of the system is in crisis and is in meltdown is to misuse the statistics.

The truth is that the system is under strain, but it still functions day to day. In a debate such as this, we need a bit of balance. We should recognise that there is a problem to be tackled, but it does no good to suggest that the problem is greater than it is.

My second objection to Roseanna Cunningham's motion is that the Justice 2 Committee, of which Pauline McNeill is the convener, is about to have an inquiry into the Crown Office and the whole system of prosecution. That is good; it is important for a number of reasons. SNP members make fair points: there has been a huge increase in the volume of work involving serious crime and the courts are aware of that. The High Court and the courts of appeal know that we should be looking at the system. I have no difficulty with Pauline McNeill's committee examining what is happening.

I was interested in the evidence that the Justice 1 Committee and Justice 2 Committee heard on the budget. Although the Crown Agent and the Solicitor General for Scotland were not in any way complacent, they were perhaps a little dismissive of the Procurators Fiscal Society. The society told us that there is a very real problem. I accept fully that the representatives of the Procurators Fiscal Society were not junior members of the service; they are senior people and their views need to be respected and taken into account. I agree that someone such as Richard Stott cannot be dismissed—he is a man of substance and stature in the system.

An inquiry is important and that is why I like Iain Gray's amendment: it suggests that we should await the results of the inquiry with interest. These are complex matters. I do not always agree with Donald Gorrie, but I agree with him this time—there will not be a simple, one-line solution; the issue has to be considered in the round. I suspect that when we consider the matter properly, we will discover that it involves a range of overlapping issues; the solution will not simply be a matter of throwing in money or saying that we need more resources. That is why I say to the Opposition that, like Pauline McNeill, I do not think that it is helpful to talk all the time about crisis and to demand a solution. We need to analyse the problem properly. When we have done that, we can carefully consider what needs to be done.

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

We move now to wrap-up speeches. I will have to keep members to their allotted time.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I want to build on what Gordon Jackson said about balance. Crime is an important issue; it is especially important to those who suffer as a result of it. It will always attract lurid headlines in the popular press and cries of "Scandal", "Crisis" and "Outrage".

Today's debate is the wrong debate at the wrong time and for the wrong reasons. As Pauline McNeill rightly said, it has not focused on anything in particular. The debate would benefit from waiting until we have before us the outcome of the Justice 2 Committee's inquiry. Today's motion is an electioneering motion. It bears all the hallmarks of a populist approach and it has been trotted out for that reason. It is not a serious attempt to analyse the issue. In fact, it is fair to say that, on this issue, the SNP is Phil Gallie in tartan—as he acknowledged himself in welcoming the motion.

Let us consider the facts and the record of the Liberal Democrat and Labour Executive. It is not always appropriate to go through the statistics on this, that or the other, but it is important to mention them. In the quarter to March 2001, police numbers, which have been the subject of considerable criticism, stood at 15,149—the highest number on record. The number of support staff, as mentioned by Nora Radcliffe, stood at 4,712—10 per cent more than when the Conservatives left office. The support staff's job is to deal with more of the paperwork and the red tape, leaving more time for officers on front-line duty. The Executive has provided the resources to do the job.

Court time and resources were matters for complaint as long ago as 25 years ago, when I was a depute procurator fiscal. The Executive has allocated £22 million over three years. That money is being used to phase in new officers and staff and to improve information technology resources. Once again, the Executive has provided resources.

Police officers and court staff are only one side of the problem. The Labour and Liberal Democrat Executive is getting stuck into the longer-term strategy that is the real answer to crime—supporting victims, rehabilitating offenders and tackling the drug addiction that fuels a considerable part of the property crime in Scotland. The Scottish Executive is doing the things that make the difference; it is acting on the real problems. What we are getting today is something of a masochistic exercise to see who can come down, and sound, hardest on crime.

Results are coming through: there is a drop in overall recorded crime; there is an increase in clear-up rates—29 per cent in 1992 under the Tories and 43 per cent now; and the Scottish crime report suggests that only half as many people are seriously worried about crime. Those points are significant and rather belie talk of a crisis.

Governments do not have full control over crime rates: they result from broad trends in society that Governments can influence. With that caveat, the Scottish Executive is doing the job: it has the right strategy, it is tackling crime at source and it is providing resources. That is why the SNP motion is misconceived fluff. There is a problem—one or two issues with the court scene have been talked about in passing. Those will never be fully resolved. There will always be difficulties, because of the balance that has to be struck between police officers doing the job on the streets and police officers giving evidence in court. The balance is the issue. I urge the chamber to reject the motion for the electioneering nonsense that it is.

Lyndsay McIntosh (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I heeded what Robert Brown said, but whether the motion is election fluff or not, the system is in crisis. That is a fact and unless it is addressed, the crisis will deepen.

Much of this morning's debate has centred on the resignation of Mr Hingston. All right, we are having a debate, and we plan to have an inquiry about what is happening in the Procurator Fiscal Service, and I defend Pauline McNeill's right to defend that inquiry, but many of the comments that have been made are already public knowledge. Mr Hingston merely highlighted the issue and brought it well to the fore.

Iain Gray described what the Executive has been doing to produce a justice system that will be fair to all. He commented on drug courts and I applaud the effort that is being made, albeit that that effort is too late—as Roseanna Cunningham identified, the SNP included drug courts in its manifesto for the Scottish Parliament elections, as did we. Welcome to the debate, minister.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

It was not in the Conservative manifesto.

Lyndsay McIntosh (Conservative, Central Scotland)

It certainly was, and the SNP claimed that it was its idea.

The improvement in the number of fiscals was mentioned. I applaud that too, but we must take into account the fact that the improvements that have happened simply do not go far enough. From evidence that was given to the Justice 2 Committee, we know that the Procurator Fiscal Service is under a great deal of pressure. The 30 new fiscals will not address the problem, given the additional work load and the various highlights, spotlights and campaigns that are increasing the work for fiscals and putting more strain on the service, far beyond the resources that are being put in. Nora Radcliffe also commented on that, and on the fact that we have 15,149 police officers. I appreciate that, but it would be nice if there were 15,150.

Christine Grahame commented on the evidence on the budget that we heard at the joint meeting of the justice committees. Richard Stott is not a man of insignificant experience, but a man who comes to us with a wealth of experience and a history of knowing exactly what the Procurator Fiscal Service is doing. His evidence at the joint meeting was compelling. Undoubtedly, the comments of Phyllis Hands were also compelling. I hate to correct Christine Grahame on this, but Phyllis Hands would give me galluses if I did not point out that she is a lady with 21—not 25—years' experience, and she knows what she is talking about.

Bill Aitken commented on errors and inexperience and the Justice 2 Committee also heard of inexperience in the service. Fiscals do not grow on trees; they have to be trained and to gain experience slowly but surely. One of the difficulties, which Richard Lochhead pointed out, is the number of cases that are marked for no proceedings. I went to great lengths to inquire exactly what happens when fiscals are trained. What they do cannot be book-learned. Every time that a case is marked, it has to be studied in depth. It actually takes two people to do the job. When someone is being trained, they have to sit beside an experienced fiscal and that takes someone away from doing the job. To bring in new people, even more fiscals have to be provided, so that the trainees get the training that they need.

Richard Lochhead spoke about young offenders. We often hear about mini crime waves that are down to one person and, naturally, we have to consider how to deal with young offenders.

Gordon Jackson said that there is no crisis. If the situation is not a crisis, it is one step away from it.

We support Roseanna Cunningham's motion. That is not a cosy alliance by any means; it is merely recognition of the reality.

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

It is quite astonishing for the Executive to be accused of putting its head in the sand, simply because it is giving one of the committees of this Parliament its proper place. If we did not do that, we would—quite properly—be criticised. Acknowledging that the Justice 2 Committee is investigating the issues that we have debated this morning does not mean that nothing can happen in the meantime. I have pointed to the increases in staffing and resources for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. We are also investing in the witness support scheme and victim liaison offices. That is central, because—as can be seen from the title of the consultation paper that we published on the sexual evidence (Scotland) bill—we must redress the balance in our justice system between offender and victim. That is proper, and we are moving forward with it.

We are looking not just at human resources, but at the technological resources that we can deploy in our justice system to improve the way in which it works and the way in which different parts of the justice system communicate with each other. All those things can happen, and will happen, without pre-empting the results of the Justice 2 Committee inquiry.

Lyndsay McIntosh (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I am grateful to hear about technological interventions, but can the minister explain why we cannot contact our local police by e-mail?

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

That matter has been raised before. It is unacceptable that the police cannot be contacted by e-mail. That is why we are investing in and rolling out the Scottish police management information network, which will ensure that every police officer has an e-mail address.

Christine Grahame quoted at some length from evidence that was given to the justice committees and I acknowledge that that evidence was given in relation to the budget process, rather than the Justice 2 Committee inquiry. Of course, that information is in the public domain and Christine Grahame is at liberty to quote from it, but the issue, first and foremost, is in the domain of the justice committees and their decision, having heard the evidence, was to take the issue seriously enough for the Justice 2 Committee to launch an inquiry, which it believes will last for up to a year. Nonetheless, I repeat that more resources are being invested. In particular, more staff are being taken on in the Procurator Fiscal Service. In 1997, 250 lawyers were employed in the service. Today, there are 369 and 20 more posts are being filled.

I am genuinely puzzled by Christine Grahame's point that the new staff will be new to the job. I cannot conceive how we could meet the demand, which has been made repeatedly this morning, to increase staffing in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service without taking on new staff who will, in essence, be new to the job.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

May I suggest a way round that? The Executive could examine remuneration levels and try to attract back some of the experience that has left the service.

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

The Justice 2 Committee will probably examine, and take evidence on, the structure of the service. Mr Gallie made a similar point about police numbers. Even when he acknowledges that we have record numbers of police officers, he criticises us because they are recruits and we are training them. How we could increase the number of police officers without recruiting new recruits and training them is inconceivable to me. I am glad that Mr Gallie acknowledged this morning—albeit from a seated position—that we have record numbers of police officers. I cannot help feeling anxious that he may fail to do that in other circumstances in the coming two weeks, but I hope that I am wrong.

Phil Gallie talked about drug driving, which I want to address because it is a serious issue. For clarity's sake, driving under the influence of drugs is illegal, although the legal position is reserved to Westminster. The problem with drug driving, as Mr Gallie probably knows, is the lack of a reliable roadside test, but we are investing in a pilot of a potential roadside test so that we can treat this crime with the seriousness that it deserves. That is the most important thing.

Mr Gallie also made the point that he often makes about sentencing meaning what it says. I was surprised that he talked about that in the context of the forthcoming debate on the Convention Rights (Compliance) (Scotland) Bill. Mr Gallie acknowledged in previous debates that the bill will introduce punishment parts that the judiciary will set, which are, in essence, sentences that mean what they say. However, he repeated this morning that the Conservatives would continue to oppose the bill.

Richard Lochhead spoke, as he has done before, of the north-east's potential as a site for a pilot drug court. We have discussed the reasons for Glasgow being our first-line pilot, but I reassure Mr Lochhead that I was with the drugs action team in Aberdeen earlier this week and that we discussed at some length the possibilities for using Aberdeen for a further pilot. That is not to say that we will be able to use it, but Mr Lochhead can be assured that the arguments were put at some length in Aberdeen.

Gordon Jackson made what was perhaps the most important point of a short debate when he said that we should not, and cannot, be complacent about our prosecution service and the operation of our courts. If we are serious about finding answers to make improvements, those answers are likely to be complex. I will give two quick examples. Members have talked about cases that are marked for no proceedings on a time-expiry basis. Most cases that fail on that basis stem from the problem of late reporting of case to the procurator fiscal and the overwhelming majority of such cases are reported by agencies other than the police or the Executive. We must address that issue, which does not relate to staffing or resources in the Procurator Fiscal Service.

Members have mentioned cases that are lost through delays. Such cases form a small proportion of the cases in which challenges have been made. That delay follows a change in the law. We must address that in different ways. The Scottish criminal justice system works with the most demanding time scales of any criminal justice system in Europe and perhaps the world. It is a tribute to the effectiveness of the system that we meet those time scales in all but a small minority of cases. The Executive's amendment is neither hand-washing nor complacent. It is simply good sense on a serious matter.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I cannot help but feel that when the minister made his opening speech, he had come prepared for another debate on police figures. When Phil Gallie made his speech, I formed the impression that he was just listing the Tory manifesto commitments, rather than addressing the issue that the motion raises. Robert Brown and several other members complained that some speeches were nothing more than political posturing during an election campaign. However, the motion concerns the problems in the Crown Office and the Procurator Fiscal Service. The intention behind the debate was to highlight the extent of those problems.

We should consider the facts. Fact one: a third of Scottish courts-sheriff courts—are not meeting their waiting times. In the six months up to the end of January 2001, 1,113 cases fell because they were time-barred. The minister, in his closing speech, said that responsibility for that did not always lie with the Crown Office or the Procurator Fiscal Service and that often, the responsibility lies further down the line. However, the overall responsibility lies with the justice department, for which the minister must be accountable. He cannot dismiss the problem as the responsibility of other agencies.

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Mr Matheson makes a fair point, but he fails to acknowledge that I was saying not that the issue did not need to be addressed, but that perhaps resources in the Crown Office and the Procurator Fiscal Service were not the problem, and that therefore we needed a better answer that might take more than one hour and a quarter to find.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The question for the minister is—what action is he taking to address the problem? The reality is that nothing appears to be getting done. The criminal justice system is under increasing pressure. The staff problems show that. The procurators fiscal have considered taking industrial action, and I formed the impression from the evidence that the Justice 1 Committee and the Justice 2 Committee took that quite a bit of the work of our Procurator Fiscal Service depends on the good will of its staff. That situation is unacceptable.

Not only those who work in the service realise that a problem exists. We took evidence from Gerard MacMillan, president of the Glasgow Bar Association, which is the largest bar association in Scotland. He summed up the situation when he said:

"There are too few fiscals."—[Official Report, Justice 1 Committee and Justice 2 Committee, 16 May 2001; c 63.]

I take on board the fact that 30 new fiscals are being provided, but that statement links with the evidence that we received from Phyllis Hands and the District Courts Association, that too many inexperienced fiscals are prosecuting cases. Phyllis Hands said that fiscals seem to be recruited one day, spend a day in the court watching what is happening, and are then up in the court prosecuting a case the next day. We must ensure that those who join the fiscal service have adequate training. It was clear from several members' comments about David Hingston that the problems are long-term and deep-rooted. We need to tackle them properly and fundamentally.

Resources are at the heart of the issue. It is interesting that the Executive's amendment tries to trumpet the resources that will be spent on the Crown Office and the Procurator Fiscal Service. The Executive tells us that £22 million will go into the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service in the next three years. However, the Executive's Scottish budget shows that the Crown Office budget from last year to the end of March this year was just over £51 million. At the end of the three-year spending plan, the budget will increase to £61 million. We do not need a mathematician to work out that only an extra £10 million is in the pot, even though the Executive tried to spin that the figure is £22 million. That is spin over the substance of the problem that lies at the heart of our criminal justice system. That is the Executive's responsibility.

I understand that Pauline McNeill, as convener of the Justice 2 Committee, has every right to defend what her committee is doing. However, I do not think that she needs to work herself up to the point at which she suggests that we should not debate in the chamber any issue on which the Justice 1 Committee, the Justice 2 Committee or any other committee holds an inquiry.

When the facts make it clear that our criminal justice system has a fundamental problem, we have a responsibility to debate that. It is interesting that the Executive has held two debates on justice in the past month. Both were extended press releases on police figures. If the Executive were serious about the justice system, it would have held a debate on the system's fundamental problems and detailed what it intended to do to address those problems.

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

Order.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I am winding up, although I am conscious that the minister ran over his time and ate into mine.

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

I am not asking you to wind up, Mr Matheson. I am just asking you to stay with the motion and not to labour the point. I made that point to Pauline McNeill.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The situation makes it clear that our criminal justice system is under extreme pressure and is struggling to cope. As several members said, the Solicitor General's dismissal of the views of the Procurator Fiscal Society is not helpful. That highlights the division between senior management and the procurators fiscal. That is unhealthy and should be addressed.

Morale among our Procurator Fiscal Service staff is at rock bottom. The evidence from the service makes that clear. Procurators fiscal have even threatened industrial action. Cases are being dropped because they are time-barred. Inexperienced staff are dealing with cases without the necessary training. It is clear that a problem exists. The Executive has failed our justice system, and by default, failed the people of Scotland by not ensuring that they are served with proper justice.

Education

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

The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-1957, in the name of Michael Russell, on education, and two amendments to that motion. Members who wish to participate should press their request-to-speak buttons now. I ask members who are leaving to do so quickly and quietly.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The motion concerns the need for a radical and ambitious programme to raise the standard of Scottish education. I will say a word or two about what the debate is and is not about.

I have spent many years opposing Mr McConnell as we have been through all sorts of political incarnations. I can therefore predict with a fair degree of certainty some of the red herrings that he will want to drag across the debate to distract members and the people of Scotland. I can also predict some of the rhetoric that we will hear from Conservative members. I will dispose of some of it immediately—the meaningless Tory amendment. It is a jumble of words that has no content. In short, it is dogmatic, ideological mince. That is all that I will say about the Tory amendment.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member take an intervention?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

No, I ask Brian Monteith to let me get started. He has time enough before he is mince.

The debate is not about the performance of Labour local authorities or even of SNP local authorities. It is not about the squillions of pounds that Labour has double counted in its over-spin about spending. It is not about what did or did not appear on an SNP website, or in an SNP or a Labour leaflet.

The debate is in part about finance, but not in the terms that Mr McConnell and his colleagues will want to suggest. There is no doubt that the Barnett squeeze will impose an effect on current spending programmes and also, significantly, on any ambitions for new programmes. Barnett will first of all squeeze Scotland's aspirations and will more than squeeze them if certain Labour ministers in London have their way.

The debate is also in part about fiscal autonomy, which is—of course—supported by members of all parties. The debate about controlling Scotland's resources is not an arid economic discourse. It is a debate about the means by which we can achieve the ambitions and aspirations that we set ourselves. It is about getting the tools to do important jobs—such as being an MSP.

Most of all, the debate is about the here and now and about the ambitions that we should have for all our young people. Chief among those ambitions is that which is contained in the SNP motion: that we should give our children a quality education. That ambition can make a real difference to the opportunities that are afforded to—and the prospects of—our children and grandchildren.

My old school, Marr College in Troon, has as its motto "Hic patet ingeniis campus". I do not have to tell the learned members sitting in the chamber that the motto means, "Here lies a field open to the talents." We need to make our society open to our young people by developing their talents. The debate today is about how we do that.

Over the past few years, the issue of class sizes has become increasingly important. In their 18 disastrous years in government, the Tories said and did very little about class sizes. Those years are not going to come back for the foreseeable, or even—reading the polls—unforeseeable future.

Tory rhetoric about class sizes was only rhetoric. There were no financial resources to match the need for educational change. Local authority funding has remained under pressure from 1997 onwards. However, there have been some notable successes and I pay tribute to them. One of the successes—early intervention—is mentioned in the Executive amendment. It was certainly discussed during the Tory years, but it only came into significant effect in recent times.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The process of introducing early intervention was started in 1996 by Conservative Government legislation. Does Mike Russell agree that the incoming government only accelerated the process?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I used the words "it only came into significant effect in recent times"—that is accurate. However, it is good to hear from a Tory who has a popularity rating higher than that of William Hague. That is probably the case for all of the Tories on the bench opposite, even the ones whom nobody knows.

Early intervention in the first years of primary school helps to overcome disadvantages and adds value to the educational experience for those who are at the precise point where added value can be of most help. The inescapable logic of early intervention is that it indicates a need for close pupil-teacher contact in the key, formative years of a child's education.

In a pioneering study conducted by the Institute of Education last year, the effect of that contact was observed and reported on by a distinguished team. Its leader, Professor Peter Blatchford, pointed out that to most parents and teachers it is "obvious" that children do better in smaller classes and that smaller classes are better than larger classes.

One of his colleagues, Professor Goldstein quantified that difference in the conclusions of the study when he asserted that

"A drop in class size from 25 to 15 leads to a gain in literacy of about one year's achievement for the bottom 25 per cent, and about five months' for the rest."

That study was the first British study of an American phenomenon that I will talk about in a moment.

It is fair to say that new Labour has recognised the link between class sizes and attainment. Labour manifestos since 1997 have set targets for class size reduction. Labour has repeated those targets this year and no doubt it means to achieve them, but it is not yet doing so. The latest figures indicate that some 19,597 children are being taught in classes that are outwith the targets for primaries 1, 2 and 3. It is obvious that, to meet the target date, more effort and resources will need to be expended.

Even if that reduction is achieved—and it would be better to work at it than to promise it—its effect would be marginal. It is certainly marginally easier to teach 30 children than 33 children. However, any teacher will say that it is only marginally easier. The ratio of adults to children in classrooms has got better but, as all studies show, that is not nearly as good as reducing the class size.

The Executive may have ambitions to reduce class sizes further. It is clear that 28 is better than 30 and that 25 is better than 28. Twenty-five is, of course, the maximum that is permitted for a composite class. However, as I was told only last Friday in the most impressive Ullapool Primary School, any teacher will say that, for a composite class, 25 is still quite a challenge for even the best teachers.

There is strong practical experience and there are strong practical examples of the fact that the optimum class size lies at around 18. The evidence that shows the effect of achieving and sustaining reductions to that size comes in the greatest part from the STAR project—the student teacher achievement ratio project—in Tennessee. That project commenced 16 years ago and has been followed up in other parts of the United States. At the present time, some $1.3 billion is being spent on emulating it in the United States alone.

Although much has been written about the STAR project, it is easy to summarise its outcomes. The project found that smaller class sizes, with an optimum of 18 or less, resulted in a substantial improvement in children's attainment. That attainment was sustained in later classes, behaviour improved and the need for later educational intervention declined. The project found that the effect of smaller class sizes on ethnic minority pupils was particularly marked. On those who suffered the effects of social exclusion, positive achievement was initially doubled before it became equal to that of the majority groups.

The STAR project also found that pupils with special educational needs were identified earlier and received more effective support at crucial times. Those results are not surprising. To quote Professor Blatchford again, they are "obvious". Smaller class sizes give pupils better learning environments, teachers the opportunity to teach more effectively and young people a better start in life.

Some surprising results have been found in the STAR study and in subsequent work. The STAR study found that the effect of smaller class sizes in the first three or four grades was long lasting. It found that the cost of the programme was offset by reduced high school drop-out rates, a diminished need for remedial instruction and long-term special educational support and—significantly for Scotland—by increased teacher retention. Perhaps it is not surprising that the project found that investment produces dividends.

Let me turn to the cost of that investment. I note that the Labour press release that attacks the SNP manifesto launch—and what a magnificent manifesto it is—attempts to cost the programme of class size reduction. The costing is from the usual dishonest Labour spin machine. What is particularly revolting is that, instead of entering into a debate about the desirability or otherwise—there may be other views—of radically improving education by reducing class sizes, Labour prefers to use false numbers to frighten Scottish parents. That, no doubt, was a Liddell ploy. I hope that it will not be a McConnell ploy today.

Of course, there is a cost attached to any new initiative. For a start, we will need more teachers, in particular more primary teachers even than the number proposed under the McCrone settlement. I recently commissioned research on the latest figures that Mr McConnell provided in a parliamentary answer. We will actually need 3,115 extra primary teachers. The research also shows how a reasonable programme that increases places for primary teachers can be put in place.

The programme would use the substantial over-application for primary teacher courses—currently, there are about 9 applications for each place—to increase the annual intake to 700 students for the postgraduate certificate in education course and 1,100 for the Bachelor of Education course. That is a rise of 200 from current assumptions for the PGCE course and of 300 for the B.Ed course. The number of primary teachers that will be required to implement both the McCrone settlement and such an initiative should peak at around 23,500, which is a rise of over 5,500 from current numbers.

That programme could be achieved within 7 years and would allow for the McCrone increase. That is the first reason why the SNP proposes a phased introduction for such a programme, which would start in areas of social exclusion. By summer 2006, which is three years into the next session of the Parliament, we could have 600 new primary teachers in post under the programme. By summer 2007, that number could rise to 1,480. The cost of all the training that would be required would be £56 million over 7 years with a steady-state recurring cost of £3.1 million. It would not be the £28 million in a single year that the Labour press release claims. Mr McConnell knows that.

Just as that figure is wrong, all Labour's other claims are wrong too. A Labour document claims that 5,000 new classrooms would be needed. No account is taken of existing available space or progressive refurbishment, or team-teaching, or even that Labour's figure for the teachers is wrong.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

We are talking about the SNP's proposals. What are the SNP's costings for new classrooms? How many extra portakabins would be needed in Scottish schools?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

There is a substantial number of portakabins at present. We must get rid of them. That is why we need a refurbishment programme. I am coming to that. Good things are still to come in this speech.

There is no doubt that ambition costs money. We have indicated the lack of ambition and the worry about money.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member give way?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

No, I want to finish.

The problem for the Executive is that failure is much more expensive than ambition. At present, we are failing to produce the optimum results in Scotland's schools. The SNP phased implementation programme to reduce class sizes would be completed in 7 years. During that time, money would be required for new school buildings, for refurbishment and repair, for salaries and for training. The cost of the programme would, at its peak, be around £100 million over that period. That would be £100 million well spent—it represents a quarter of the Executive underspend for this year, it is 0.5 per cent of the Scottish budget and it is just over 2 per cent of the increase in the Scottish budget that has been promised by new Labour. That £100 million would be better spent on education than on weapons of mass destruction. It would be £100 million of Scotland's hard-earned revenue spent according to Scotland's hard-headed priorities for its future. [Interruption.]

I am sorry that Labour members do not think that spending £100 million on Scotland's young people is worth while. That is a great shame.

It will no doubt be said that such a programme would be too expensive. All sorts of doubt will be cast on the figures and we will get inaccurate figures from the Executive, but those are excuses, not reasons, for not changing Scottish education. We have had enough excuses. The results from America clearly show that there would be actual financial benefit from such a programme. Instead, we get miserable parsimony from an Executive that knows the price of everything and the value of nothing—or perhaps just knows nothing.

The motion encourages the Parliament to think big about Scotland's future and Scotland's education. It encourages the Parliament to take practical steps to improve not only our education system but—in time—our entire society. That is what politics is about. That is what the Parliament is about. That is certainly what the SNP is about.

I move,

That the Parliament notes Labour's failure to meet its 1997 and 1999 manifesto pledges with regard to class sizes in the early primary years and the failure of the Executive to meet the same targets, as set in its first programme for government; further notes the examples of good practice that indicate a direct correlation between class sizes substantially smaller than the Executive's target and higher sustained levels of attainment; recognises also the clear results from programmes of class reduction that show the particularly strong effect which class sizes of 18 or less have on children suffering from social exclusion, and therefore calls upon the Executive to follow the SNP's lead and work much harder to achieve real and meaningful reductions in class sizes in the early primary years, setting 18 as the maximum figure.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I, too, welcome the debate, not least because it has given us a chance to hear Mike Russell start his speech with the red herrings that he claimed might come from other parts of the chamber.

Over the last three weeks, I have found it fascinating to watch the topsy-turvy nationalist election campaign, which has gone from defending the Barnett formula against all comers—for about a week and a half—to criticising the Barnett formula against all comers—for about a week and a half. It has gone from mentioning a separate Scotland very briefly at the manifesto launch to talking about everything that is the responsibility of this Parliament, which it has done for the last fortnight. Today, the nationalist Opposition, which has spent most of its debating time over the last two years trying to discuss reserved subjects, cannot face the prospect of debating those subjects when, in the middle of a general election campaign, they are a bit more in the public eye.

I am happy to take on the debate about education, because there is a clear choice between Mike Russell's motion and my amendment. The motion clearly refers to an unrealistic, uncosted and ill thought-out policy. The policy is designed for a headline and for the old ways of Scottish education. The Labour and Liberal Democrat coalition, however, is implementing a comprehensive programme of investment and improvement that is making a real difference in Scottish education.

I will refer briefly to that improvement and investment framework before returning to the content of motion. First, the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000 set out, for the first time ever in Scottish education, our national educational priorities. The act ensures that all levels of authority in Scotland are under a duty to achieve education that realises the full potential of each individual child. It operates against the backdrop of investment: investment in education, in under-fives, in early intervention, in special educational needs, in school buildings, in information and communications technology, in extra teachers and classroom assistants, in teachers' pay and in out-of-school activities. We now have record levels of investment in all those areas and record levels of investment in Scottish education.

Let us take a moment to see what that might mean in practice for the children that will go through our schools in 2002. Children of age three might next year benefit from the nursery place that they should have been guaranteed a long time ago. Children of age four might well be in their second year of nursery provision and they will certainly be enjoying nurseries that are full of four-year-olds.

A child in primary 1 will benefit from early intervention in literacy and numeracy and from parental involvement, which is so important for the later years. A child in primary 2 will benefit from class sizes of 30 or under. A child in primary 3 will be part of that improvement and attainment that has seen three-quarters of pupils reach the expected level in reading and two-thirds in writing.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

rose—

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Fiona Hyslop might enjoy this if she would listen.

A child in primary 4 will benefit because 70 per cent of Scotland's schools that did not have internet access under the Tory Government now have it. A child in primary 5 will have access to e-mail that allows them to communicate with the wider world. A child in primary 6 will benefit from one of the modern personal computers that will be in place for every 7.5 pupils in Scotland's primary schools by 2003. A child in primary 7 can look forward to out-of-school activities leading to a better transition to secondary school than Scottish children have ever had before.

A child in secondary 1 will attend a school that has access to the internet. One hundred percent of Scotland's secondary schools have access to the internet—up from 70 per cent just four years ago. In secondary 2 there will be a modern computer for every five pupils in the classroom. In secondary 3, a child will benefit from record spending on books and equipment in schools. Investment in books and equipment during 2000-01 averages more than £17,000 per school.

Margaret Ewing (Scottish National Party, Moray)

That is a wish list.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

In secondary 4, when children are preparing for their standard grade examinations, they will benefit from the Easter clubs and out-of-school activities that are helping children from all backgrounds at a crucial time in their lives. In secondary 5, a child will benefit from the new national qualifications that give children of all levels of ability—not just the elite—a chance to develop qualifications beyond the age of 16. In secondary 6, having gone through school, a child will have benefited from improved school renovations and from new schools across Scotland.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

rose—

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Across Scotland, all those benefits are set against a backdrop—Mr Monteith may also learn something from this—of investment in thousands of new teachers over the next five years, special education for those who need it most and 62 new community schools.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I was interested to hear about what the minister sees as the achievements of the Labour party and the Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition. In the minister's time as a teacher and as a member of Stirling District Council, did he on any occasion argue against many of those initiatives, which had their germ during the 18 years of Conservative government? Did he not protest against them, only to recant now and claim them as a victory for Labour?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I may be slightly mistaken, but I understood that it was not Scotland's district councils that were education authorities, but the regions. History can be rewritten on occasion, but facts are facts.

I heard Mrs Ewing say that this is a wish list. It is not a wish list—it will be reality in Scotland's schools by 2002. Those are the facts. Those are the improvements.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I am coming to Mr Russell's argument in a minute.

Those are the facts in Scotland's schools today. Those are the benefits that our schoolchildren and our students see before their very eyes, even if the nationalist party does not.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

rose—

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I see that the Conservatives want to interrupt. Let us compare where we are today with where we were four years ago. In five years—between 1992 and 1997—the share of gross domestic product that was being spent on education in this country went from 5.1 per cent to 4.7 per cent. It is now back up above 5 per cent. Pupil-teacher ratios increased every year between 1990 and 1997. They have gone down every year since 1997. We are well on target for an adult-pupil ratio in Scotland's schools of 15:1 next year. That was the target set out in the excellence document three years ago. Spending per pupil fell in every one of the Tories' final three years in government. It has now increased by £300 per pupil.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I am coming to Mr Russell's argument in a minute. He might want to wait until then.

Investment in nurseries was down to only £3 million in 1996-97; it is £138 million this year. Investment in books and equipment has increased by 64 per cent.

The motion calls for one policy to solve all our problems in Scottish education: a reduction in class sizes to 18. Any sensible analysis of that policy would estimate the additional number of teachers at about 5,000. The cost of those 5,000 teachers would be £168 million a year, if we do not include training and professional development. The 5,000 extra new classrooms that would be required for them—let us call them portakabins, because in many parts of Scotland that is exactly what they would be—would cost £350 million to put in place. The upkeep of those classrooms would cost about £23 million a year. That is the cost of one policy in the nationalist manifesto: £190 million a year for the additional costs, and £350 million for the new portakabins that would be littered across Scotland's playgrounds as a result. Those are the costs of implementing the full policy—that is, the full policy that was being claimed by Mr Russell until yesterday.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

rose—

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I remind Mr Russell that he said yesterday that the SNP would spend only £100 million on the policy in its first four years in office. Fewer than 10 per cent of Scotland's primary schools would benefit from the policy, which is an attempt to deceive during an election campaign, not an attempt to improve Scottish education.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Will the Presiding Officer let me finish after Mr Russell has intervened?

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

Yes.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I am surprised that Mr McConnell did not realise that ours is a phased policy, as that was stated in the SNP paper "We stand for Education". He asked for a copy of that document—although we were probably slow in sending it to him. He knows now, however, and can go back and check that it has been a phased policy from day one. I will ask the minister a simple question. He says that the objection to the policy is financial. Taking into account all the international evidence that I have given him and all the research that he and his civil servants have at their disposal, does he not consider that the policy is a good idea?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I was just coming to that. The manifesto does not say, "Only 10 per cent of Scotland's primary schools in the first four years." It talks about a phased introduction of class sizes of 18. It does not mention all the other investments that I have described today—maybe that is because Mr Russell wants to abolish primary 1 in order to pay for his policies, which are skewed to one end of the education system.

Mr Russell mentioned research on class sizes—research that was conducted many years ago. I am sure that he is aware of more recent research in America, where there has been a review of 277 separate studies on pupil-teacher ratios by academics. Only 15 per cent of those studies reported improved academic results from smaller classes. Thirteen per cent showed a decline in pupil performance as classes became smaller. Many factors affect academic attainment in Scotland's schools, not one. The policy puts headline grabbing ahead of partnership and investment. It is the old policy for Scottish education, not the new one. It is an uncosted policy, which hides the fact that primary 1 will probably be abolished to pay for it.

We, on the other hand, have a costed programme of improvement and investment and a context for it in rising standards. In Scotland today, the number of teachers and staff in our schools is up. Attainment levels are up. Standards are up. Morale among parents about our teaching profession is up. The only thing that is down is class sizes, which is the very area where Mr Russell wants improvements. We want good education, from the cradle to the grave and at every age from three to 18. It is only with a comprehensive programme that we will achieve that.

I move amendment S1M-1957.1, to leave out from the first "notes" to end and insert

"continues to support the framework for school improvement which it put in place in the Standards in Schools etc. Act 2000 and recognises that to achieve the highest possible standard for each and every pupil investment must be made across the whole of a child's education, providing a quality experience in pre-school for every 3 and 4-year-old child, effective early intervention to ensure a good foundation in literacy and numeracy, support for all children with special educational needs, a modern, well-resourced school environment and a highly motivated, professional teaching staff."

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

After the minister's litany of errors in his description of the education results of the Scottish Executive and the then Scottish Office, I am rather tempted to aim my speech at the minister and at Labour's record. However, I should do the right thing and aim my response at Michael Russell, who has been good enough to lodge the motion for debate.

It tickles me somewhat to respond to Michael Russell. He has made a good attempt at demolishing Labour's record on reducing class sizes, but as usual the high priest of sanctimony has gone too far. The point that Michael Russell failed to make was that Labour's election promises were not required here in Scotland. They were a political soundbite that was imported from down south. Class sizes in Scotland had reduced considerably under Conservative Governments and were far better than in England, where problems remain. Similarly, pupil-to-teacher ratios were below 20:1 for the first time. There is only one way to look at that record, and it shows that the problems in Scotland were considerably different from those in England.

The very idea of policies being imported from down south normally rings alarm bells in the ample cavities of Mr Russell's head, but there is a difficulty here, which is that the SNP required a big idea for the current elections. What better than to trump Labour on class sizes and say that the SNP will reduce them further?

However, the policy is not so much a big idea as a big mistake. I shall give an example of problems that are associated with class sizes. The Royal High Primary School in Edinburgh, which both my sons attended until recently, has two classes of 30 in each year. That is 60 pupils in each year and 420 in the school. The school is full and has to turn children away. The SNP's policy would require the school to lose six pupils from each of primaries 1, 2 and 3 and to introduce three classrooms with an additional three teachers. That would mean a possible 36 more disappointed parents and a requirement for considerable spending at a time when the school is already facing cuts of £4,000 to £5,000 in its devolved budget.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

That is the minister's fault.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Indeed.

Some neighbouring schools have spare capacity, but even they would require an additional teacher because they, too, have two classes each for primaries 1, 2 and 3—a total of more than 36 in each year. Even undersubscribed schools need more teachers, although they might have the physical capacity for more pupils.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

Given that Mr Hague has assured us that public spending will be cut back by only £8 billion if the Conservatives win the general election, does Mr Monteith care to detail the effect of such a policy on class sizes in each constituency in Scotland?

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Bill Butler tries to bring falsehood into the debate, with allegations that we will make cuts in public expenditure that will affect constituencies. If he cares to study the figures, he will find that those are savings in the increase in spending—spending that the Institute of Fiscal Studies says Labour cannot afford. There is a £10 billion black hole, which Bill Butler will not explain; neither will he explain that the cost of £32 million to each constituency of introducing the euro will ensure that there will be cuts in spending on education. However, that is another debate for another day.

When we replicate the SNP's policy throughout Scotland we can see that there will need to be a minimum of 2,542 teachers and the same number of classrooms to deal with the extra classes. Currently, classes of more than 30 require more teachers for those schools. When Mike Russell was explaining the recruitment policy that he has been working on, he did not take account of that point, nor did he answer questions about it. If the Executive, post-McCrone, is already encountering difficulties in recruitment to the teaching profession, what does Mr Russell have to say about the problems that he is likely to face in increasing the teacher input?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I addressed that issue directly in my speech, but I am happy to repeat my point now. There is indeed a recruitment crisis in many areas, but the ratio of people who apply for primary education courses to those who get in is 9:1, as I said. Colleges will confirm that at least three times as many suitably qualified people apply as there are places available. There is no crisis in recruiting people for primary education. The crisis is elsewhere.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Of course, what Mr Russell does not say is whether all those nine new teachers are without a post. Teachers move from school to school and they apply for new posts. Clearly, we will require more people to fill those posts.

The SNP's class-size policy also faces an insurmountable problem that is particularly important and on which it certainly cannot square the circle. It has already admitted defeat by saying that it will have to phase in its policy over two parliamentary terms. We also know that, if it seeks to restrict classes to only 18 without building new classrooms at popular schools, the policy will create parental revolt. Parents will not take kindly to having their choice of schools limited; the policy will, ultimately, fail for that reason. Parents will send their children to schools that have 30 or even more in a class if that school has a good reputation, rather than to a neighbouring school that might have class sizes below 20 or about the figure that Mike Russell suggests. Reputation is important.

Other aspects of the SNP's policy document include suggestions for limiting information to parents, limiting the powers of school boards and giving authority to a souped-up quango to discuss education, despite that fact that we now have a Scottish Parliament and an Education, Culture and Sport Committee. The truth is that the SNP's education policies have not been thought through and if they have, the spokesmen need to go back to school to learn arithmetic.

Some schools had unacceptably high class sizes, but that was generally caused by parental demand for good schools, rather than by overcrowding. Indeed, a greater problem was the many schools—especially in areas such as Glasgow—that suffered from low numbers which were exacerbated by relatively high truancy levels.

I do not doubt that Mike Russell is sincere and well-meaning in proposing his policy. I believe that he thinks that there would be real educational benefits in it and, for some children and in some subjects, he might well be right. He has talked a great deal about research documents, but he must be aware that other research papers contradict his policy. In a report that was based on 260,000 students from 39 countries, the Kiel Institute of World Economics said:

"If a more productive way of using resources in bigger classes outweighs any potential positive effect of smaller classes, there could even be an adverse effect of class size."

The jury is out on class sizes. Michael Russell should meet me half way and accept that although—as I acknowledge—there could be some improvement, there is no ideal way. There is no perfect educational system other than one that allows diversity of provision, so that different approaches can be tried and so that each and every child has the opportunity to get the right education for him or her. If schools want to offer small class sizes, let them. If schools want to offer foreign languages from an early age, Gaelic-medium education or an emphasis on the arts, let them.

The problem with Michael Russell's education policy is that the nationalists are a one-horse party. That horse is separatism and it is not even at the races. What is there about independence that gives members of the SNP a different perspective on education policy? They have no ideas that are predicated on independence: there can be none. Education as a separate institution has survived and blossomed within the union. The parties ruling at Westminster have been careful to protect and enhance Scotland's reputation for having a sound, meritocratic educational system. Let me remind the SNP doubters that we did not introduce a national curriculum in Scotland, as happened in England.

Let me clarify a number of points. Labour, the Liberals, the Social Democratic Party, the Liberal Democrats, the SNP and trade unionists all had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the real world, where public services are there for the benefit of the public, rather than for those who work in or administer them. Changes such as parental choice, school boards, the publication of exam results and truancy levels, and devolved school management were opposed at every opportunity. Those parties opposed the expansion of the nursery sector, funding for which moved from £3 million in the pilot spending programme to £70 million the following year. They also opposed at every opportunity early intervention and private finance initiatives.

The SNP's policy on class sizes is manifestly doomed to fail. I say, "Come back, Nicola Sturgeon. Your party needs you." I move amendment S1M-1957.2, to leave out from "further notes" to end and insert

"believes that there is no uniform homogenous educational system that can provide the right type of education for every child and that such a dogmatic approach should be replaced with a liberal and diverse system which provides specialisation by schools and more choice for parents; further believes that class size is only one aspect of educational provision which may help to improve standards in Scotland's schools, and considers that greater devolution of decision making to teachers and parents should be the goal of the Scottish Executive."

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

In a way, I hesitate to comment on poor Mike Russell. After the shelling that he has had from Brian Monteith and Jack McConnell, I fancy that he is holed above and below the waterline.

As we all know, there is a problem with getting sufficient teachers. If Michael Russell's plans went into operation, goodness knows what a problem we would face. Classrooms have also been mentioned, and points were well made. Michael Russell said that he had visited Ullapool High School, but I wonder how many other Highland schools he has visited. If he went to Canisbay Primary School, near John o' Groats, he would see that it is so overcrowded at the moment with the nursery unit in place that corridors have to be used for teaching. The idea of cutting class sizes in that school would be almost unworkable. It would not simply require portakabins; a significant amount of money would be needed.

Mike Russell talked about his eminent and learned friends, the professors who have given forth—

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will Mr Stone give way?

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

I shall give way in a minute.

Mike Russell gave examples from America, but I wonder how often he has visited our staffrooms and talked to those at the chalk face. If he talked to teachers—in the Highlands anyway—he would find that reducing class sizes to 18 would not be at the top of their agenda. As Mr McConnell said, the partnership Government has given a great deal. There has been a transformation in the morale of the teaching profession. If one talks to teachers and directors of education, one will hear that real delivery has come about in our schools because of the partnership between the Liberal party and the Labour party.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Will Mr Stone give way?

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

I shall give way in a minute.

If Michael Russell went into our classrooms and talked with the teachers, he might hear something rather different about what is at the top of their agenda. I know that the Executive is examining the issue of transport for nursery pupils; it is a continuing problem, particularly in the Highlands.

School infrastructure is far more important than reducing class sizes to 18. I make no apology for mentioning that; it is an old Liberal Democrat argument. As ministers know, I have banged on about that at great length, especially when I was the education spokesman for my party. I remember Sam Galbraith giving me a particularly good answer when I raised the issue at the Education, Culture and Sport Committee. He said that, if other committee members and I were willing to go away and think about it, he would be happy to consider any suggestions that we came up with. It is a tricky question, because we are boxed in by the public sector borrowing requirement, but it is an issue that is still with us.

Thurso High School in my constituency was opened in the mid-to-late 1950s. It now faces repair bills of hundreds of thousands of pounds, and that story is repeated throughout the country. Improving school infrastructure is a job of work that lies before ministers and before the Education, Culture and Sport Committee—of which I am, alas, no longer a member. That is one of the most important problems that must be addressed at the chalk face.

More than a year ago, I wrote a report for the Education, Culture and Sport Committee on rural school closures. One of the factors that lead to rural school closures is the lack of capital budgets, and constituencies such as mine and Margaret Ewing's suffer from that problem. Again, that takes us back to infrastructure. My report, which is probably gathering dust now, is still with the committee.

Those problems are the ones on which we need to work, and I believe that by doing so we will address the issues that are important to our children and to the teaching profession. At the end of the day, what is the SNP policy? Given his rather ill thought-out policy, I dare say that Michael Russell will be looking for a new job in the next reshuffle, when John Swinney changes all his spokesmen. Perhaps Nicola Sturgeon will come back.

The SNP's policy is a fig leaf to cover the monstrous thought of separatism. No matter what one says about the SNP, ultimately that is its policy. Everything else that it says is merely to disguise that. Mr Monteith made some telling points.

I will, as no one else has, lay off Michael Russell and direct a little bit of fire at my good friend—he is a good friend—Mr Monteith, because not much mention has been made of the Tory amendment, least of all by Mr Monteith. I will enlighten members. Michael Russell described Mr Monteith's amendment as "mince", but it is mince with a soupçon of strychnine. Where Mr Monteith is coming from—as I remember from my time on the Education, Culture and Sport Committee—is that he always argued for diversity in schools and said, in particular, that the special educational needs policy that was proposed by the Executive was inappropriate. He said that he did not like the policy, because he thought that it threatened specialist schools. I think that Mr Monteith will agree that that is the point that he made; he has been consistent on it.

The amendment has a lot of Monteithism in it; he is nothing if not consistent. I will demonstrate where the strychnine lies in the amendment. I will quote from that increasingly unpopular man, wee Willie Hague. This is the guts of the Tory policy that Mr Monteith is hinting at; the policy that dare not speak its name. I will read from one of Mr Hague's recent speeches. He stated:

"Some schools will wish to select part of their intake, others will wish to be wholly selective. That means new grammar schools will appear, reversing a 30-year policy of destruction that has done more than anything else to lower standards in our state education system."

I went, probably not 30 or more years ago, to what had effectively been a grammar school and which was one of the first comprehensives in Scotland—Tain Royal Academy. It did not do badly by me and I had no problems. However, my three children have attended that school—my eldest has left and my twins are sitting their highers—and it has improved from when I was there. It is utter nonsense to talk about "destruction". If members want to shiver in the middle of the night and have a bad dream, think about what Hague is saying. All of us who believe in equality of access to education for all children, regardless of background—they are all Jock Tamson's bairns—should put the Conservatives' policy in the bucket of history. I say to Mr Monteith that it will be put in that bucket in two weeks time. I hope that I have not upset Mr Monteith—he is a nice chap in other ways.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I was very disappointed by the tenor of Mr McConnell's reply. The one point on which I agree with him is that many factors affect academic achievement. We do not dispute that. A reduction in class sizes is one factor. However, I am unsure whether the Executive is repudiating the STAR project. Our position is that we believe that a reduction in class sizes is beneficial and we believe that studies indicate that. I have no doubt that some studies in the United States indicate to the contrary, but there are, no doubt, educationists in the United States of America who will argue that we face the end of civilisation as we know it if Harry Potter is not proscribed.

It is incumbent on Mr McConnell, or his colleague Nicol Stephen, to indicate whether the Executive is suggesting that reduction of class sizes is not, per se, beneficial, or whether the Executive accepts that the benefits exist. It is a matter of whether the Executive believes that that is one of the major aspects that should be supported.

We believe not only that reduction of class sizes is an individual's right, but that it is in the national interest. We believe in education for education's sake. We believe that it is everybody's right to progress as far, and to achieve as much, as they possibly can. We also believe that that creates better individuals and better citizens. The corollary of that is that a better-educated person is able to contribute more effectively to the society in which he or she lives. Therefore, we as a society and as a community collectively benefit from investing in education. We believe that one of the best ways of ensuring that everyone has that opportunity is to ensure that children benefit at an early stage. We underestimate the importance of that at our peril—it is as much in our interest as it is in theirs.

In other debates in the Parliament, we have discussed the fact that there are significant skills shortages in Scotland. The tragedy in Scotland is that we have many idle hands. Children leave school without basic literacy and numeracy, never mind other aspects that I will comment on. We, as a nation, cannot afford that. A demographic time bomb is ticking away. We have severe skills shortages in an array of areas. We need the hands that are currently idle to contribute to the economy in future years. We believe that it is much better to do so by intervening early than by having to return later to address earlier problems. That is why we believe that there is a national interest.

I will make two points about educating about learning. We all accept the concept of lifelong learning. First, on a reduction in class sizes, many trainers tell us that they face with youngsters problems not only of a lack of basic literacy or numeracy skills, but of a lack of basic self-confidence. We have a significant cultural problem—I understand the difficulties in legislating for culture—in that we in Scotland are shy and self-effacing and we must address that. That is much better addressed in a classroom in which there is much more one-to-one intervention by a teacher, than when there is rote learning and the pupil is one among many. We would benefit from giving children more self-confidence.

Secondly, we must recognise that we live in a knowledge age. I, like some other members, was at the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee's away day. I see that David Mundell is nodding. He will recall that when we spoke to those who are involved in lifelong learning, they quoted from Treasury statistics that show that individuals can expect to have to change their careers or the field that they work in 10 times in their lives. It was suggested that it would be different if a person was a lawyer or a doctor. I have to say, looking back on 20 years as a lawyer, that my whole life changed; the type of law that I practised changed manifestly. That is why even the professions talk about continuous professional development, although such development is much more marked in other jobs.

We must have a society in which people recognise that they have to learn, upskill and change. They must have the capacity to learn on the go. That means early intervention, so that we educate people not only in literacy and numeracy, but in the ability to learn as they go through life.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

I support the amendment that was lodged by the minister, because it treats a serious subject with proper gravity. It presents a coherent approach to the construction of an improved environment for learning in our schools. Mr McConnell detailed the strategy when he moved the Executive's amendment.

I am disappointed by the SNP motion, although I will not pretend to be especially surprised by it. It begins with an assertion that is plainly false and ends with an ill-thought out and uncosted piece of cynical electioneering. Education, and the debate around it, is much too important to indulge ourselves in such a way. The education of our children is a means by which even those from the poorest backgrounds can fulfil their potential, free their creativity and build better lives for themselves. To reduce it to a Dutch auction is to treat the electorate with contempt.

It is clear that class sizes in primaries 1 and 2 have been reduced to 30 or less and that this Labour-led Executive is on target to achieve the same for primary 3 by August. Those are facts.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Bill Butler said that it is a fact that pupils in primaries 1, 2 and 3 will be in classes of 30 by August. I have a daughter, who is currently in a primary 1 class of 32. Which of her fellow pupils should she expect to disappear over the next 12 weeks so that the Executive can reach its target? What Bill Butler claims is not fact—it will not happen and Bill Butler should face up to that.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

I am afraid that we will have to agree to disagree. I believe that what I said is fact and that it is incontrovertible, which might be indigestible for the national party, but it is fact nevertheless. That is not what dismays me so much about the national party's motion, but what is quite irritating is its claim to be giving a lead on the link between class sizes and achievement and its claim that reducing class sizes to 18 will almost certainly improve everything holus-bolus. Mr Russell claimed that the motion says, "a phased reduction." The motion does not say that; the national party's manifesto says that. That was just a little disingenuous. The motion indicates that it will be holus-bolus and we are debating the motion.

Furthermore, we have not been told about how we are going to reach this educational Eldorado. Where are the SNP's figures? Mr Russell attempted to give them to us, but I am neither convinced nor impressed and I doubt that members or the electorate will be either. For the sake of argument, let us set aside the perfectly legitimate educational concern that reducing class sizes to such levels in the early primary years is not necessarily a good thing and that it can lead, for example, to problems with socialisation. Even if we accept that reduction of class sizes is an entirely valid proposition, it cannot be achieved through the SNP motion, which is merely a foolish attempt to outbid the Executive's real achievements.

Parents, teachers and pupils appreciate those real achievements; they represent tangible progress, not all-too-transparent promises. They include: developments such as 47 new community school projects, one of which is at Drumchapel High School in my Glasgow Anniesland constituency; 1,297 extra full-time teachers; the negotiated achievement of the McCrone agreement and all that flows from it; 1,500 classroom assistants; an increase in internet access from 70 to 100 per cent in secondary education and from 40 to 70 per cent in primary education; and an increase in education spending as a share of GDP from 4.6 per cent to 5 per cent.

People prefer deeds to uncosted promises, which is why the Executive's policy will commend itself to members today and to the country in two weeks' time.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I had always thought that the SNP was very proud of the fact that many of its policies were home-grown. However, it seems forever to be picking up ideas from abroad and putting them forward as new inventions. The Tennessee STAR programme ran from 1985 to 1989, which means that it was introduced 16 years ago. Mr Russell said that much of it was good, but an examination of the paperwork that was attached to the programme shows that the results are ambiguous. No benchmarking was carried out at the start of the programme to allow results to be compared accurately, and much of the programme was not quantitative, but qualitative.

Interestingly, in the two years before the programme began, most of the teachers that were assigned to it had completed an in-service training exercise that dealt with classroom management, individualisation of instruction, teaching higher-order thinking skills and how to work with an aide in smaller class settings. That training produced results—the number of pupils in the class did not. Furthermore, paper after paper on the STAR programme indicates that it is out of date. I do not know why the SNP is pretending that it has something new to offer Scotland when even the Americans have accepted that that approach is not necessarily the way forward. Although we all buy into the idea of better pupil-to-teacher ratios, we need the teachers in place to make it work.

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

Will the member give way?

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I will give way in a moment.

On Saturday, I took part in an interesting exercise in the square at Stonehaven with the deputy SNP education spokesperson—Irene McGugan—and some of her young colleagues. She showed me her pledge card and we spent half an hour discussing education issues. Unfortunately, I could not find any logic in anything the good lady said, so perhaps when she winds up she will answer the questions that I asked her on Saturday. Where are the nationalists going to find the extra teachers? How are they going to train them? How are they going to provide the extra accommodation? Most important, how are they going to fund everything now that they have abandoned their penny for Scotland policy? Which money tree will provide the funding for this proposal? Irene McGugan said that there had been a reprioritisation of effort within their education programme, but she could not tell me what had dropped down the priority list. Perhaps they are all just false promises once again.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

Does Mr Davidson agree that that half-hour conversation was not something for which the electorate of Stonehaven would have been extremely grateful?

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Yes. I was not thanked for keeping people away from their Saturday morning shopping. However, the exercise was interesting nonetheless.

As for Papa and Nicole—although I see that Papa seems to have left the chamber—perhaps they can tell us how they are going to deliver reduced class sizes, because the promise to do so by the end of this August was made in 1997. None of the figures that we have heard from Labour members seem to stack up, and perhaps when he winds up the minister will give us the Liberal Democrat view of how the coalition Executive will deliver on that promise.

I am regularly asked about the full funding of the McCrone recommendations, which is a vital element in ensuring advancement in education. This week, I received once again a holding answer from the Minister for Finance and Local Government. The Executive is patently having second thoughts. Perhaps the minister will confirm today whether the McCrone report will be fully implemented, and set out the time scale for its implementation. I know that the local authorities are desperately keen to know what Jack McConnell meant when he talked about the full implementation of McCrone at a meeting I attended, and why other ministers are not backing him up.

In their 1999 election manifesto, the Liberal Democrats said that they would deliver 2,000 extra teachers. However, that figure has now been dropped to 1,000. Will they tell us today whether they will settle for a lower figure that happens to coincide with what Labour ministers are telling them to say? I get the impression that they have watered down their stance after talking up education as a vital Liberal Democrat policy area. We have not heard very much of a practical nature from them today.

The Conservatives believe in parental choice, which is an issue that has been avoided today. Although some schools might suit certain children, other schools might suit them better. However, the minister's litany made no reference to how we will deal with transport to schools. If we follow SNP policy and cut class sizes, children in rural areas might be forced to travel miles to a different school from that which their siblings attend. That would be utter nonsense. I ask members to reject the SNP motion and to disregard some of Jack McConnell's comments. I hope that he gets his problems at the Scottish Qualifications Authority sorted out before the end of the summer.

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

I wonder whether the chamber will give me a moment to offer good wishes to Willis Pickard, who is retiring as editor of The Times Educational Supplement Scotland after a quarter century of service. The educational community in Scotland owes him a considerable debt. [ Applause. ]

The business bulletin said that we were going to debate education, but the SNP motion is more about electioneering and Labour-bashing. The Scottish Parliament is not an appropriate place for such a debate; we deal with Scottish education and should not be used to promote a general election campaign for the Westminster Parliament.

I am absolutely committed to the proposition that class sizes matter and that we should aim for smaller class sizes, and it is good to see that politicians have broadly accepted that principle. Although we might argue about how much we should reduce class sizes—and despite worrying moments when members seem to draw back from the idea—members have generally accepted that bringing class sizes down to 30 is a good idea. We must carry on and introduce a phased programme that addresses the whole issue.

The SNP motion concentrates on early-years education. I did not open for the Liberal Democrats this morning because I did not know whether I could get back in time from a talk I was giving in Penicuik about the sure start programme. That programme gives help and support to youngsters from 0 to 3 years to give them a good start. The early-education programme with its commitment to pre-school education and to reducing class sizes in primary schools shows that the issue is very high on our agenda. However, although I accept the idea of early intervention and of giving children a good start, I agree to an extent with Mike Russell and—surprisingly—with Brian Monteith. As Brian Monteith pointed out, the practical problems associated with the reduction of class sizes are manifold and centre on issues such as accommodation and the recruitment and training of teachers.

The arithmetic that Brian Monteith used shows that the sums do not work out easily. Class sizes cannot be reduced from 30 to 18 just by doing the sums. People do not fit into the boxes so easily. We cannot set a maximum size for classes, as children might enter a class at different times, and such a policy would create a range of practical problems and knock-on effects. We should have a debate about class sizes and about where the programme should take us. There should be a programme—however, what Brian Monteith suggests is not that programme. It is not properly costed: it is glib, superficial and uncosted.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Although many schools throughout Scotland target class sizes at 30 pupils, they are aware that, if pupils leave, that figure may fall to 28, 27 or 26 for a term and that, when the abstract of their class sizes is taken, they will lose money to the devolved budgets that affect their spending because their class sizes have decreased. As a result, schools encourage teachers to take in 31 or 32 pupils, so that they will not risk a cut in their budgets.

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

Mr Monteith is beginning to lose me with his arithmetic. However, as a former teacher and the head of a department who had to plan class sizes, I know that class sizes do not work out easily and I accept the fact that targets cannot be set that will ensure 100 per cent efficiency.

It must be remembered that the substantial programme that the Executive has outlined is work in progress, and that class sizes matter not only in primary schools, but in secondary schools. Also, if we concentrate on a single policy, on a single front, we will forget about other issues such as the state of school buildings. The problems are diverse and complicated, and the SNP's proposition is simplistic, uncosted and impractical.

Margaret Ewing (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I am sorry that the Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs is not present to hear my speech, as I mentioned during his speech the fact that he appeared to be reading out a wish list for his election manifesto. I suspect that, if he repeated that speech in front of a group of concerned teachers and parents, he would receive the same treatment as Jack Straw received last week from the Police Federation. It took the minister eight minutes to begin to address the issues that are raised in the SNP motion.

I inform members who said that ours is an uncosted programme that we have costed it and that the figure is not vast. When parents and teachers look at the figures that we are talking about, they will contrast them with the expenditure that the Government here has colluded with the Government at Westminster in providing for the millennium dome. I would rather spend the money on the children of Scotland.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

Will Margaret Ewing take an intervention?

Margaret Ewing (Scottish National Party, Moray)

No, I have only just started.

Let us consider the efficacy of the Parliament in the context of education. Our constituents, and the country as a whole, regard education as a touchstone on which we will be judged. Education is one of our highest priorities as a devolved power and a key policy sphere. Instead of making the sort of electioneering speeches that we have heard from many members today, we should be addressing the key issues in education.

As a young trainee teacher, I was sent to a school in which there was a disruptive class, which I was given the joy of teaching. I was told by a senior member of staff to keep them amused and to try to keep them under control. That was when my interest in special educational needs began. The advice that was given to me by that teacher is probably more applicable in dealing with politicians than in teaching our children. Through training in special needs education, I became aware of the importance and significance of the one-to-one contact that one must have with a child.

My training was in secondary education. While I was undertaking that training, one of my lecturers told me that the most complex learning process that any individual ever undergoes is learning how to read. My personal idea of hell is a world without books and newspapers. However, by the time I began to teach children with special educational needs in secondary schools, it was often too late to help many of those youngsters. Early intervention, which is what the motion is about, is critical. If we can discover the difficulties that a child is facing while they are still young, we can resolve many of them.

Other issues underpin the motion. Is the Executive satisfied that our teachers are trained sufficiently to ensure the early detection of problems such as dyslexia—a complex matter about which I have been writing to the Executive recently—or autism, which we have highlighted through our cross-parliamentary group? What about young people who suffer from epilepsy? In small classes, teachers can deal with such problems effectively, but they need training and support to ensure that they can make the correct diagnosis.

Early intervention is not an expensive option. It is a cost-effective option, because it deals with the difficulties early. If we do not do so, some children will turn into school bullies and hooligans because they cannot cope with the learning process. I say to all members that the motion deserves our support.

Cathy Peattie (Labour, Falkirk East)

In the normal course of events, I would welcome whole-heartedly a motion from the SNP to debate education. After all, the Scottish Parliament is where Scottish educational issues should be resolved. If my welcome for today's debate is less than whole-hearted, that is because I believe that the Parliament's remit has been hijacked as a general election issue. Policies have been expounded in the context of a Westminster manifesto, pushing us towards adversarial confrontation rather than reasoned and consensual debate. That is a pity, as there are some suggestions among the SNP policies that, although ill-considered in its manifesto, would merit discussion and, in a reviewed form, development. Indeed, some of those proposals are already supported and implemented by the Scottish Executive and local government.

I fully support an integrated, child-centred approach to education, which encompasses the health and welfare of our pupils. Improving children's diets, as is happening in many schools, is laudable. Free fruit is available in nurseries and there are healthy eating programmes in primary schools and new community schools. The Scottish Parliament should make more progress in that direction. We also need a major programme of school investment and repair—that is why we have such a programme, which involves 100 new school developments and a new deal for Scottish schools. There are five excellent new schools in my constituency. Class sizes are also a priority and it is estimated that Labour's pledge will be fulfilled this year. We must continue to work on that issue.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Does the member agree that the small class sizes in some primary schools in the remoter areas of Scotland should be regarded as a good thing rather than a reason for closing the schools, as some councils have proposed?

Cathy Peattie (Labour, Falkirk East)

Absolutely. We must look favourably at what is happening in rural schools and consider how we can measure their success in contributing to their local communities. The role of rural schools is often underestimated, but I think that the debate around class sizes in rural schools is quite different from that around class sizes in urban areas.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

As Cathy Peattie knows, to her embarrassment more than mine, she and I often agree on educational matters. In councils such as North Lanarkshire Council, there has been an attempt to drive down class sizes—particularly in the first two years of school—to 20 or 18, which is a low level. That has happened in urban areas, where it is seen as a successful strategy.

Cathy Peattie (Labour, Falkirk East)

I will talk later about the strategy for reducing class sizes.

Smaller class sizes might be desirable, but we should discuss the evidence for the wider educational gains that can be made in relation to the extent of the reduction and whether other exchanges could offer greater gains. We should not underestimate the costs of the changes, including what we would have to forgo to find the money. We need to decide whether the advantages in further class-size reductions would outweigh the losses elsewhere. Government is the process of making such choices. Wise choices have to take into consideration all factors. Prioritisation means that we must choose whether we want to have our cake or eat it. Pretending that both things are possible is a doomed attempt to create a grand illusion.

Many of the suggestions in the SNP manifesto are fine individually, but cumulatively they are contradictory and expensive—considerably more expensive than the SNP wants to admit. We must examine logically the full costs of the proposal to cut primary 1 to primary 3 class sizes to 18. Clearly, smaller classes mean proportionately more classes. A reduction of three fifths in the class size would require 67 per cent more teachers in the primary 1 to primary 3 classes—that would mean 5,000 teachers to recruit and train. The implications of that are a squeeze on placement choice, placement battles and families having to take one child to one school and another child to another school.

We need to consider a sustainable approach to education. We are committed to recruiting more teachers, providing more resources and better buildings, and improving the quality of education. We will do so on the basis of open and balanced appraisal of all our objectives. Education is important. We should debate and have the imagination and vision to take the issue forward.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

There are two main points in this debate: we need a bigger budget for education and we have to consider how we spend that budget.

As we are in the middle of a Westminster general election campaign, it is fair to point out that the Liberal Democrats consistently criticised the Labour Government in Westminster because it followed the Tory spending plans for its first two years, which meant that there were continuing cuts. In our general election literature, we argue for a greater disbursement of UK funds for education, of which Scotland should get its fair share.

We need a bigger pot of goodies, but we must think also about how we use the available goodies. The Executive is to be commended on its decision to concentrate on sorting out the dire position that Scottish teachers were in with regard to their pay, conditions and morale. The Executive's commitment to putting the McCrone committee's recommendations into effect is praiseworthy. That is the first step towards making the teachers happy and getting them on board so that further improvements in education can be achieved.

As almost everyone has said, trying to reduce class sizes is a good idea. However, it is open to argument whether having a straitjacket of a figure of 18 pupils is the best way of doing that. It would be better to give schools more scope. If additional teachers are available, it will be up to the head of a school, in discussion with a local authority, to use those teachers in the best way. Additional help for dealing with pupils with behavioural difficulties who disrupt classes is often a bigger priority than a mere reduction in the number of pupils in all classes.

There should be more decentralisation of budgeting, which has already been started; the SNP motion is a move in the wrong direction. There should also be more teachers available for one-to-one teaching of pupils who have difficulties with learning. That will often sort things out better than simply having smaller classes.

We should put more resources into supporting small rural schools and schools in the poorer urban areas. I do not accept—I do not think that Liberals would, philosophically, accept—that we should just have blanket provision for everyone. We do not live in an equal society. We are seeking to provide equality of opportunity, but we will never fully achieve it. The children of people who come to speak in this building and children from similar families will always have a better chance in life than those who come from families that are disrupted by all sorts of problems such as poverty and addiction. However, we are all here—regardless of party—to level up or to reduce the gap as much as possible. Rather than saying that every school should have such-and-such, we should give more to the rural areas that have various problems of access and to urban schools where there are social and other problems. I have supported such moves in Edinburgh for nearly 30 years.

There are other things that need money spent on them, such as school buildings and education outside school. More good education often takes place outside school than in school, and we need much more investment in clubs, community education and so on. We should support the Government amendment, not the SNP motion.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Some members have asked why we are having this debate. I have noticed from my postbag, as other members may have done, that this is the time of year when applications for primaries 1, 2 and 3 are processed. I am being contacted by constituents from Livingston and Linlithgow, where next year's class sizes are planned to be 32 or more. That is the allocation that has been made, so the idea that class sizes in primaries 1, 2 and 3 will somehow be reduced to 30 by August is frankly not believable.

What is believable is the Parliament's capacity to have a vision of where it wants education to go. The Scottish National Party's proposals are radical but this is, after all, about what we should do. I have heard much sympathy expressed for the idea of getting class sizes down to 18, but I have also heard a lot about why the Executive cannot do it and why it is not practical. That shows what is so wrong with the current position in Scotland.

I anticipate some arguments about why we should not have that size of class on educational grounds, but—

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

Will Fiona Hyslop take an intervention?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Let me develop my point, please.

The idea is that we are unable to have such small class sizes because of the practicalities. I say that we in leadership—in the Parliament—should decide what we want to do and then work out how we can do it. To those members who say that that is an uncosted policy, I say that the revenue cost of such proposals would be £100 million, or less than a quarter of what the Parliament could have spent last year from its underspend but did not.

Points have been well made about the need for capital investment. Of course, there will be such a need, but let us use a Scottish trust for public investment, which would work out far more cheaply than the Executive's public-private partnership plans. Let us ensure that we use the wealth of Scotland to work for Scotland. Let us use our oil wealth for our education.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will Fiona Hyslop give way?

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

Will Fiona Hyslop give way?

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

Will Fiona Hyslop take an intervention?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I am limited for time and want to develop some specific points.

Let us look at the reality—not many members so far have talked about the reality for parents and children. In West Lothian, people have approached me to voice their concern that they cannot get their children into primary 1 classes because of overcrowding. There were 133 applications for deferrals from parents of four-year-olds and four-and-a-half-year-olds who felt that their children were not able or ready to go to school. Of those, only 84 were granted an additional pre-school year. Forty-nine pupils in West Lothian have to go to school even though their parents do not want them to because—I refer members to the minister's amendment—the Executive is pushing its targets for three and four-year-olds.

Something is far wrong when, to reach targets for three and four-year-olds in nursery, the Executive pressures four-and-a-half-year-olds to enter primary 1. Everybody should know that now is when councillors assess the applications. Does the minister intend to examine the flexibility of education legislation to see whether we can change the assessment of applications?

Rural schools were mentioned. A Conservative member made a useful point about falling class sizes and the closure of rural schools. In West Lothian, the minister has announced that Abercorn Primary School is to close. Let us consider how that closure will impact on class sizes across West Lothian. The classes of Low Port Primary School, Springfield Primary School and Linlithgow Primary School will not reach the class size target of 30 because Abercorn Primary School down the road has been closed.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

rose—

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

rose—

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

rose—

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I have 15 seconds left, so I will have to finish.

As Mike Russell said, failure is more expensive than ambition. If we are to take our nation to where it should be, the one thing that we can offer our children in primary 1, 2 and 3 is confidence. If confidence is to be instilled in them, children must receive attention when they are young. That is the message that we should take from the chamber. Let us be about ambition, not about failure.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

It is an honour to sum up on behalf of the Labour party in a debate on education. The Labour party has put children at the heart of its education system. It has delivered 47 new community schools—15 more are on the way; 1,297 extra full-time teachers; 1,500 classroom assistants; 100 per cent internet access for secondary pupils and 30 per cent more internet access for primary pupils; an historic agreement on teachers' pay and conditions; increased spending on education as a proportion of gross domestic product; and a 64 per cent increase in spending on books and equipment. Labour has delivered a nursery place for every four-year-old whose parents want it and is on course to deliver a place for every three-year-old by 2002. Also, by August, Labour will have delivered class sizes of 30 or fewer for every pupil in primary 1, 2 and 3. Those are the facts. That is the record of the Labour-led Executive and that is why I am proud to support Jack McConnell's amendment.

I will deal with the SNP motion and, first, Brian Monteith's amendment. What have the Tories offered the debate? Heehaw—absolutely nothing. They have offered no proposals or ideas. It is clear that they remain as right wing and dogmatic as ever they were. They talk about freeing schools from local authorities. I remember that in their most recent sorry period in power they tried to force Scottish education down that road. There was such an overwhelming demand that the number of schools in the whole of Scotland that freed themselves from local authority control was an astounding two. Both did so for particular reasons and both are now within the remit of local authorities.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Karen Gillon is 50 per cent wrong. The number of schools that opted out of local authority control was three. She has forgotten Fort William.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

Did Fort William get out or did it just propose to get out?

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

It was coming out but the general election prevented it from happening.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

Then I am correct: two schools opted out.

When Brian Monteith talked about class sizes, he talked about the effect that the proposal would have on good schools. I am not concerned about the effect that a reduction in class sizes will have on good schools; I am concerned about the effect that a reduction in class sizes will have on every school. I do not want us to create "good" schools, so that parents feel that they have to choose one school over another because their kids will get a better education there. Every school in Scotland should achieve the same educational standard. That is the opportunity we should offer.

I want to address the amendment in the name of Mike Russell—

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

It is the motion that is in my name.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

I am sorry—I mean the motion in the name of Mike Russell.

It is good that we are, at last, debating in SNP time an issue that falls within the Scottish Parliament's devolved responsibilities. Members may call me a cynic, but I believe that we are perhaps having this debate because it involves class sizes, which are covered by one line in the SNP's Westminster election manifesto. All of a sudden, they are a policy priority for the SNP.

If Alex Salmond and his pals are so concerned about Scottish education, they should stay with the Holyrood Parliament, where Scottish education is debated and discussed. We are talking about the proportion of Scottish expenditure, within the devolved budget, that will be spent on 5,000 new teachers and 5,000 new classes—those are the facts and figures; we are not talking about the Alex-in-wonderland economics that the SNP indulges in.

We are part of the United Kingdom and operate within a devolved budget. The costs that the SNP has proposed simply do not add up; the true costs to the Scottish people would be much greater. We should have an honest, straightforward debate about the future of education, first in the Parliament's committee and then in the chamber, and we should hold that debate outwith the heat of a general election. We should debate the issues that are of importance to Scotland when they are relevant to the Scottish people, not when it suits the political agenda of one political party.

David Mundell (Conservative, South of Scotland)

This has been a disappointing debate, although some members attempted to raise the standard. Many of the points raised by Margaret Ewing were well made, but she must have been complicit in the fact that we have had this debate for electioneering purposes only. Whether or not the SNP had a genuine idea, and whether or not Mike Russell believed that he could develop that idea, this is not the time to raise it in the Scottish Parliament.

In the Conservative party, we are open to ideas—that is embodied in Brian Monteith's amendment. We are the party that supports the introduction of new ideas, diversity and experimentation in education. Although, as Karen Gillon was keen to point out, some issues were not taken up during the debate, one person who is keen to take up Tory ideas was not mentioned by Labour members: Mr Tony Blair. I look forward to hearing much more about his ideas on education. Labour members were keen to mention William Hague but not Mr Blair.

Jack McConnell made an interesting point when he accused the Conservatives of not wanting to deploy the internet in schools in Scotland. I do not know the exact date on which Al Gore invented the internet—as he claims to have done—but of all the policies about which we could be criticised, our policy on internet access in schools is not one.

Jack McConnell highlighted an issue that goes back to Mike Russell's point about class sizes. I fully support the policy that each and every child should have access to a computer and the internet in school. As Kenny MacAskill indicated, that policy is vital to the development of our education system. However, the provision of computers and internet access alone will not improve education. Education can be improved only by a cocktail—a mixture—of policies that includes class size. Jamie Stone alluded to that before he began his love-in with Brian Monteith. After having two Liberal Democrats agree with him, Brian will have to have a lie-down in a darkened room. It would have finished him off if Karen Gillon had agreed with him too.

Infrastructure is another part of the cocktail and lack of connection is one of our problems. As Jamie McGrigor suggested, computers are installed in schools but, at the same time, small rural schools are closed down—sometimes just after computers have been installed. Other problems with infrastructure include the use of portakabins. Bureaucracy is also stifling schools.

The other day, I met Mike Russell with parents at Castledykes Primary School in his beloved Kirkcudbright. The school is to lose one teacher because a small number of pupils have left it. That will change the whole balance and working of the school. The internal lack of flexibility and control that the head teacher, the school board and parents have in running their schools is stifling development in education in Scotland. That is why we will continue to argue for real devolution in education and why Brian Monteith's amendment is relevant.

I commend the amendment to the chamber.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

Mike Russell set the tone for the debate. He spoke about Mr McConnell's red herrings and Mr Monteith's mince. Those culinary cul-de-sacs were not typical of his style and were unworthy of his usually learned and quick-witted approach. Mr Russell was soon back on to more comfortable ground, quoting Latin mottoes and American academics. It is just as well that Latin is his forte because funding certainly is not. Mike Russell said that his policy is not uncosted. If it is not uncosted, it is certainly hopelessly costed.

What about investment in other areas of education? How will the SNP fund its proposals? In the light of its manifesto, the SNP should never in future criticise the Scottish Executive for its glossy documents.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

There are a number of profound differences. Our manifesto is better designed and is not produced at the taxpayers' expense.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

Clearly, I touched a raw nerve.

How will the SNP fund its proposals? Its manifesto mentioned an oil fund that might be built up over a number of years after independence. The interest from the fund would be used to fund all the proposals. Would it use the Scottish Executive's underspend, which I presume it would shift from the NHS to education? In winding up, the SNP should tell us where the funding would come from.

The second key issue is: how will the SNP impose its proposals? The SNP wants to ensure a new policy initiative in Scottish education in one area only. How will that be dictated not only to the local authorities, but to the local schools and head teachers? How will the SNP override local discretion?

Education should never be a single policy issue. The SNP has reduced it to that. We want local discretion and we want to involve schools, head teachers, parents and pupils in deciding how extra investment is best spent in each local school in Scotland.

Brian Monteith told us of the great things that the Conservatives did for Scottish schools. Pupils, parents and—most of all—teachers have a very different memory. The Conservatives brought Scottish education to its knees over 18 years. There has never been such conflict in schools as there was under the Conservatives. When the Conservatives left office in 1997, 24 per cent of all children in primaries 1, 2 and 3 were in classes of more than 30. Our target is that no children in primaries 1 to 3 should be educated in classes with more than 30 pupils.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Will the minister explain how he proposes to get class sizes down to 30? There are classes in West Lothian with more than 30 pupils. My daughter is in a class that has 32 pupils. Whom will the minister have disappear over the next few weeks so that he can justify his position? Is the minister talking about only a couple of hours a day with an additional teacher? Is that his explanation?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

It is a bit rich for a party that proposes to reduce class sizes to 18 to query how we will reduce class sizes to 30. We will do it, and we will do it by extra investment. To achieve those reductions in class sizes, extra investment is being made available now—this year—and will be made available in following years.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

rose—

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

No—I am not giving way.

David Davidson asked me some questions about the Liberal Democrats and the number of extra teachers that we want. In our manifesto, we commit to 2,000 extra teachers. The Scottish Executive has already committed to 1,000 extra teachers and we are close to that target. As a result of the McCrone settlement, a further 3,000 teachers will be introduced to Scottish schools.

This is about more than more teachers; it is also about more investment—tackling the backlog of repairs and maintenance in our schools. According to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, £1.3 billion requires to be spent. We have to tackle that and we have to invest more. We are doing a lot, but there is still much to do.

Ian Jenkins spoke about many things in relation to the SNP's doctrinaire approach—I am sure that there will be consensus on that around the chamber. I add my good wishes to Ian Jenkins's remarks about Willis Pickard and the excellent work that he has done with The Times Educational Supplement Scotland over so many years.

The message is that a clear choice lies in front of us: either we can have a narrow focus on a single issue—a campaigning issue, I would suggest—or we can have a broad vision of Scottish education, involving investment across all stages of education. The conclusion is clear: a single expensive policy draws investment away from other important stages of a child's education. Research shows that attention to teacher training and teacher expertise may have as big a pay-off per pound spent as investment in reducing class sizes. We have to do both and to invest in both.

The Conservatives again take a doctrinaire and centralised approach to school governance. We want to review the devolved school management arrangements. We want to focus on outcomes for education—the national priorities focus on outcomes. We want to free teachers in schools to decide how to deliver. Taking away local authority management of schools would be a disaster. If that happened, more and more responsibility would fall on the Scottish Executive. It would be a way of centralising. It would be the sort of approach that we saw during 18 years of Conservatism, with more and more power being taken to the centre, to Whitehall.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

rose—

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

No—I am not giving way. I think that I am just about out of time.

The Scottish Executive is investing in lowering class sizes, but it is investing in a lot more, too: it is investing in pre-school education—there will be a nursery place for all three and four-year-olds; early intervention; special educational needs; and school buildings. Throughout Scotland, 100 schools will be built or substantially renovated by 2003. There will be more than £600 million of funding. We are investing in modern information and communications technology, with a commitment to new broadband technology. We are, as I have said, investing in 3,000 new teachers and 3,500 extra support staff, as part of the new pay and conditions settlement.

We are delivering more. Investment, investment, investment—that is the key. That is why we want to see more of it. Our overall educational spend over the next three years is up 7.5 per cent this year, 5.9 per cent next year and 7 per cent the year after that. That is a total increase in funding of more than 20 per cent. Most important of all, we are taking a new approach to our schools and to education in Scotland. For too long, they have been a political battleground; for too long, progress has been in reverse.

My final plea is this: let us try to do all of these things, wherever possible, together—all of us, across parties, working together to improve the education of every young person, of whatever age, in whatever part of Scotland. Today's debate, sadly, was not about that.

Irene McGugan (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I thank everyone who has contributed to this debate. I find it strange to be accused of electioneering. I remind members that education is a devolved matter, and therefore a wholly legitimate issue for discussion in the Scottish Parliament at any time. It is a truism that the more ferociously an SNP policy initiative is attacked by our opponents, the more concerned they are about the rightness of our cause. We are confident that we are proposing something that worries and upsets the Executive—so much so that our policy could find itself being number 11 in the list of SNP policies that are adopted by the Scottish Executive.

The SNP has a clear vision of what our education system should be about. At the heart of that vision is major investment in the early primary years, with the aim of giving children the best possible start in formal schooling. One of our key proposals is progressively to reduce all primary 1, 2 and 3 class sizes to 18 pupils or fewer. Labour promised in its 1997 manifesto to ensure that all primary 1 to 3 classes had fewer than 30 pupils by August this year, but I say to Mr Butler and Mr Stephen that figures show that 20,000 pupils are still in classes with more than 30 pupils.

Educational research shows that reducing class sizes to 30 or even 25 pupils has no real impact on the quality of education. It is only when there is a significant reduction to 18 or fewer that real improvements in the educational experience of children are achieved.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

That is a laudable aim, but the research has reservations on the matter. The SNP has not gone for the figure that researchers say would make a difference, which is fewer than 18 pupils. The criticism that we have is not of the objective, but of the fact that its practical application is impossible. Irene McGugan should be telling parents that the number of composite classes would increase, that the required buildings do not exist and that their children would be forced into schools that the parents do not want them to go to. That is the reality of the SNP's proposals. Let us have an honest discussion.

Irene McGugan (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Frank McAveety has not listened to one word from the SNP.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

I have listened.

Irene McGugan (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Well, listen again and I will repeat some of it. I put one example to Frank McAveety. It is interesting to note that in Finland the maximum class size is 21. Does that tell him nothing? A commitment on Labour's part to reduce class sizes to 30 might have looked good on a new Labour pledge card, but its benefits are marginal.

Reduced class sizes can be argued for on economic and social grounds. The benefits of class size reductions in the first three years of formal schooling are long lasting, and the gains are particularly significant for children from socially disadvantaged backgrounds. Children have only one chance to go through the vital and formative early school years. We should put resources first of all into places where there is a demonstrable need for change and improvement.

With reduced class sizes there is a corresponding increase in teacher satisfaction, which means that talented people are more likely to come into, and stay longer in, the profession. Teachers then get to know well and understand all the children in their classes and have time to promote critical and creative thinking, which should be at the heart of the education process. Discipline is likely to improve in such settings, and communication with parents becomes easier and more productive. Indeed, the effects could reach even farther. We might help to raise levels of self-confidence, self-esteem and achievement in primary school children far beyond current levels. That can only be a good thing.

As Michael Russell said, the logic of the argument is obvious, and although people have presented contradictory research—and it has been mentioned a lot—nobody has been able to propose coherent arguments that suggest convincingly that reduced class sizes are not a good thing. The only difference between the parties here today is the commitment to implement the policy.

The Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs spoke a great deal about the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000 and the framework that Labour has put in place to support the education system. He may recall that there was considerable support from the SNP for almost all those initiatives, such as out-of-school care, new community schools and sure start. There was a huge degree of consensus. That is not the issue. The issue is having the desire to go further and do things even better—that is the next step.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

Irene McGugan talked about the next step. How much will the next step cost? How many steps beyond that does the SNP want to take? What will those steps cost? What is the full-year costed package of measures that you propose to the chamber?

Irene McGugan (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

If the minister will let me proceed, I will deal with those issues.

It cannot be denied that the SNP's policy will take time to implement. It will require major investment. More classrooms will have to be found and we will require to recruit and train additional teachers. I will give Mr Monteith one example. For the postgraduate primary teaching course during 2001-02 at Jordanhill, 1,000 people applied, only 350 were interviewed and a smaller number than that will be accepted; therefore, I do not think that we will have a recruitment problem.

We can achieve our aim by phasing in the scheme incrementally as resources allow. We will begin in deprived areas, where smaller classes have been shown to have the greatest effect. We should not forget that some of the cost of implementing smaller classes can be offset in the longer term by the resulting decrease in secondary school exclusion and the diminished need for learning support services. The commitment has been made in the full knowledge that it can be achieved only if we recruit additional teachers and make the necessary improvements to school infrastructure. We will do it. We make no apology for being more ambitious for our young people than anyone else in the chamber.

Many members alleged that we are making spending commitments without considering what can be afforded. All spending is a matter of priorities. The SNP will always afford priority to our young people's education. That is where we differ from our unionist opponents, whose education spending commitments will always compete with spending on nuclear weapons, London infrastructure, millennium domes and suchlike.

At its peak, the commitment will cost £100 million a year, taking account of the additional improvements that are needed. As the implementation is incremental, the cost in the early years will be lower. The Scottish budget is to increase in real terms by about £4.75 billion in the three years, and much of that money has yet to be allocated. We would be prepared to commit at least 5 per cent of that increase to education. That will more than pay for our commitment to reduce class sizes. We should not forget that, over this year and next, we will send £8 billion more to London than we will receive back in public spending. Anyone who suggests that Scotland cannot afford first-class schools is lying and letting Scotland down.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

That is unparliamentary language.

Irene McGugan (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I did not accuse anyone of lying.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

No one was named.

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

Order.

Irene McGugan (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I will talk about the research and its origin in the United States. We expect the findings of that research to be relevant in this country because the benefits that smaller class sizes bring, such as more opportunity for teachers to respond to pupils, tend not to be culture- specific. As Michael Russell said, the first major UK study to examine class sizes produced results that were generally consistent with those that were reported in America. The Institute of Education's study confirms the link between class sizes and academic progress. Overall, smaller classes allowed more teacher support for learning, to the benefit of pupil attainment.

Giving children the best possible start in formal education pays enormous dividends in their levels of attainment later. It also reduces the need for additional learning support later, improves behaviour and reduces stress on teachers and schools. Accordingly, we will invest heavily in that priority. Professor Neil Kay of the University of Strathclyde said:

"It is not often we find a programme that promises to deliver outcomes both more efficient and more socially equitable than the status quo. This would be just such a programme."

Parliamentary Bureau Motions

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

I call Euan Robson to move business motion S1M-1962, on the suspension of standing orders.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees that Rules 9.5.3B and 9.7.9 of the Standing Orders be suspended on Wednesday 6 June 2001 for the purposes of the Scottish Local Authorities (Tendering) Bill.—[Euan Robson.]

Motion agreed to.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

The second Parliamentary Bureau motion for consideration is business motion S1M-1961, in the name of Mr Tom McCabe, to agree that stage 2 of the Scottish Local Authorities (Tendering) Bill be taken in whole by a committee of the whole Parliament.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees that in accordance with Rule 9.7.1(b) of the Standing Orders, Stage 2 of the Scottish Local Authorities (Tendering) Bill be taken in whole by a Committee of the Whole Parliament and directs that any vote to be taken shall be conducted using the electronic voting system.—[Euan Robson.]

Motion agreed to.

Business Motion

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S1M-1956, in the name of Mr Tom McCabe, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a business programme.

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Before I move the motion, I would like to inform members of the change to members' business on Wednesday 6 June. Members' business motion S1M-1867, in the name of Dorothy-Grace Elder, on the "Freedom from Pain" campaign, is replaced by motion S1M-1783, in the name of Mr Brian Adam, on prescription charge exemption for severe and enduring mental illness.

With that minor change, I move,

That the Parliament agrees

(a) the following programme of business:

Wednesday 30 May 2001

2.30 pm Time for Reflection followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by Stage 3 Debate on the Convention Rights (Compliance) (Scotland) Bill

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business - debate on the subject of S1M-1927 Des McNulty: Chester Street Insurance Holdings Ltd Thursday 31 May 2001

9.30 am Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by Stage 3 Debate on the Regulation of Care (Scotland) Bill followed by Business Motion

2.30 pm Question Time

3.10 pm First Minister's Question Time

3.30 pm Continuation of Stage 3 Debate on the Regulation of Care (Scotland) Bill

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business - debate on the subject of S1M-1932 David McLetchie: Proposed Cuts to the Scottish Regiments Wednesday 6 June 2001

2.30 pm Time for Reflection followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by Business Motion followed by Committee of the Whole Parliament:

Stage 2 Debate on the Scottish Local Authorities (Tendering) Bill followed by Stage 3 Debate on the Scottish Local Authorities (Tendering) Bill followed by, no

later than 4.00 pm Question Time followed by, no

later than 4.40 pm First Minister's Question Time

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business - debate on the subject of S1M-1867 Dorothy-Grace Elder: "Freedom from Pain" Campaign and (b) that the Justice 1 Committee reports to the Justice 2 Committee by 28 May 2001 on the Sex Offenders (Notification Requirements) (Prescribed Police Stations) (Scotland) Regulations 2001 (SSI 2001/173) and that the Justice 2 Committee reports to the Justice 1 Committee by 28 May 2001 on the European Communities (Service of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents) (Scotland) Regulations 2001 (SSI 2001/172).

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

The question is, that motion S1M-1956, in the name of Mr Tom McCabe, be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Question Time — SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

To ask the Scottish Executive what progress is being made in reducing the amount of freight that travels by road. (S1O-3483)

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

Freight facilities grant awards made by the Scottish Executive during the past six months will remove a further 5 million lorry miles from Scotland's roads each year.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

I welcome the minister's positive answer.

What steps are being taken to restore business confidence in the rail system with regard to some large customers withdrawing from the use of rail as their primary means for transporting goods? Is the minister also committed to the reduction of track charges by 50 per cent in order to grow rail freight by 80 per cent?

The minister will be aware of the huge bureaucracy that surrounds access to freight facility grant applications and the delays in the system. Has she considered trying to reduce that time lag?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

We are conscious that it is an uphill struggle to persuade people to move off the roads and on to rail. Everyone in the chamber will be aware that in the months since Hatfield there has been immense strain on the railway network, which has been a particular problem for freight hauliers who use it.

We are keen to restore confidence in the rail network. Over the next three years, we are doubling the amount of money that is available under freight facilities grants.

It is important, however, that we process every grant properly. The Executive is taking steps to ensure that it can process grant applications as efficiently as possible and that we have accurate, hard information when we hand out Executive money for new rail projects.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it has made an assessment of how many patients with multiple sclerosis would take beta interferon if that drug were readily available on prescription. (S1O-3462)

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

No such assessment has been made. Whether an individual would take a specific drug in any given circumstance is a matter of conjecture. Treatment decisions are influenced by the clinical needs of the patient, the clinical judgment of the specialist concerned and the views of the patient.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

Is the minister aware that multiple sclerosis sufferers are not receiving the same access to beta interferon throughout Scotland? Does she agree that a postcode lottery is neither socially inclusive nor acceptable? Will she give top priority to making certain that the drug is made more readily available throughout Scotland?

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

The Executive has made clear its determination to remove the postcode lottery of care that has, over many years, been allowed to develop across the NHS in Scotland.

Several measures have been taken on drug treatment and on postcode prescribing specifically. The measures include the creation of the Health Technology Board for Scotland and the National Institute of Clinical Excellence in England. The two bodies work closely together. As Lord James Douglas-Hamilton will be aware, both bodies are currently considering beta interferon and are expected to report later this year.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

In recent written answers, the minister has stated that the Executive has no plans to find out how many people are being deprived of beta interferon, even though they have been clinically assessed as needing it. When will the Executive end the misery of the postcode lottery and the cost limits that determine whether an MS sufferer can get the drug?

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

As Tricia Marwick is aware, this is not a question of cost limits. It is misleading to suggest that. I want to ensure that we take practical and positive steps to improve the care, treatment and services available to people with MS—and many other conditions.

The measures that I have outlined are the proper way of evaluating the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of different therapies to ensure that the best possible clinical advice is available to the NHS, based on the widest possible evidence. That is exactly what we are doing.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

To ask the Scottish Executive what action it plans to take to improve the education of looked-after children. (S1O-3495)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Support for educational attainment should be at the heart of care planning for every looked-after child. The recent joint inspectorate report, "Learning with Care", showed that that was not happening. We have asked each local authority for information, by 30 September, on their looked-after children and the action that they are taking to address the report's recommendations.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

I know that the minister shares my concern about the poor educational prospects faced by young people in care. What further steps could be taken to provide the educational support that such children need?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

A number of basic steps could be taken, such as ensuring that there is care planning for every looked-after child in Scotland. In too many cases that is not happening. Children in care need more, not less, education and the best, not the worst possible services. That requires a set of clear expectations, particularly with regard to special schools that service children in care, clear guidelines to local authorities and schools on looked-after children in mainstream schools who need that level of support and very close interagency working to ensure that the different services that those children need are being properly co-ordinated. That is, and will continue to be, a priority for us.

Lloyd Quinan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive when it intends to publish its policy on external affairs. (S1O-3468)

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

The Executive is committed to developing its strategy to build mutually beneficial links with other nations and regions in Europe by the end of 2001.

Lloyd Quinan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I thank the deputy minister for his reply. The question of an external affairs policy also throws up the question of scrutiny. Although I welcome the development of an external affairs policy, will the minister tell the chamber whether that will be the Executive's policy and which section of the Scotland Act 1998 stipulates that? Furthermore, should we not have a debate on an external affairs policy for the Parliament, which would include a discussion of scrutiny, instead of accepting the current suggestion that the European Committee should scrutinise external affairs?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

I can speak only for the Executive, but I am aware that Hugh Henry and other members of the European Committee have discussed these matters. I will say, however, that the Executive and the Parliament can play an important role in these issues.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Executive how it will ensure that all health professionals play a full role in NHSScotland. (S1O-3481)

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

NHSScotland has a strong track record of involving staff, not just health professionals, through partnership working. The new unified NHS boards, which will be established by 30 September, will provide a further opportunity to strengthen the role of health professionals in planning, managing and delivering services in NHSScotland.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Does the minister agree that nurses and doctors who work on the frontline of health care are more than equipped to help with any decisions on the future priorities of NHSScotland? Furthermore, will she ensure that those health care professionals are involved in decision making, so that patients' needs are adequately addressed?

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

I absolutely agree that the staff of the NHS are the backbone of the service. As part of our programme of investment and reform, we are ensuring that staff on the frontline are being given the opportunity to do what they do best: caring for and looking after patients.

However, I will not agree with one of Rhoda Grant's comments. It is important to remember that the 136,000 people who work for NHSScotland are not just doctors and nurses. Physiotherapists, occupational therapists, pharmacists, cooks, cleaners, radiographers and many others provide a service day and daily. We want all of them to have a voice in the service of the future.

Margaret Ewing (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Will the minister tell us what mechanisms are in place to take account of public health concerns raised by professional health representatives? In that context, will she tell us exactly when the screening and vaccination of schoolchildren for tuberculosis will resume? When does she expect that programme to return to pre-1999 standards?

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

I am pleased to announce that, as Margaret Ewing is aware, arrangements are in place to recommence the BCG programme in our schools. I am happy to write to her with full details of the dates of and plans for resumption across the country.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Given that last year eight trusts had financial deficits and that this year 13 trusts have projected year-end deficits, will the minister encourage trusts to delegate more power to health professionals such as optometrists, whose skills and training could be more fully utilised in monitoring eye care for people with diabetes? That would free up consultants to do more surgery and provide more care in hospitals.

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

It is worth remembering that the year-end financial position of the NHS in Scotland last year was within 1 per cent of its budget, which would be an excellent outturn for any organisation, not least one with a budget of more than £5 billion.

However, I take this opportunity to agree strongly with Mary Scanlon—it will not happen often. One of the main priorities for the NHS, and it must continue to be so, is that the best and most appropriate use must be made of all the skills that are available. Far too many practices in the NHS owe more to the 1940s than to the 21st century. In providing a modern, patient-centred service for the future, we must ensure that we employ the full range of skills available in the work force and that people are not moving from pillar to post in the system because that is how it worked in the past. There are better ways for the system to operate in future.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

To ask the Scottish Executive what new action it is taking to increase the number of available women's refuge spaces. (S1O-3479)

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

The Scottish Executive will put £10 million into the Scottish Homes budget over the next three years, both to increase and to improve refuge provision for women and their children. On Monday 14 May, I announced 10 projects that will begin this year. Forty-two new spaces and 21 improved spaces will be provided. Further projects will be considered following a review of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities' recommendation that there be one refuge place per 7,500 of the population.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Is the minister aware of the concerns that have been expressed by some women's aid groups—including Glasgow Women's Aid, which raised the matter with me—about the level of revenue support that is required to meet need while more refuge places are being created? Will the minister assure us that the Executive is committed, not only to providing an increased number of safe places for women who are fleeing violence, but to tackling the underlying causes of male violence against women, which make refuges necessary?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I will address Johann Lamont's two questions separately. First, local authorities are responsible for providing funding for women's aid refuges on the ground, either directly through their core grant, or through housing benefit. We specifically ask local authorities and their partners to demonstrate that revenue funding is in place before capital funding is released for refuge provision. That requirement has COSLA's full support. We recognise that there are difficulties, and the issue of revenue funding is being examined by the national group to address domestic abuse.

Secondly, Johann Lamont is right to say that the real aim is the prevention of violence against women. The Executive will work to address its underlying causes, so that women and children in Scotland will be able to live safe from the fear of domestic abuse.