Scottish Parliament, 7 February 2002

599 contributions from 91 members. The official report.

Introduction

Scotland's Road Network

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

The first item of business is a Scottish National Party debate on motion S1M-2703, in the name of Kenny MacAskill, on Scotland's road network, and two amendments to the motion.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I start by quoting briefly from Shakespeare:

"Now is the winter of our discontent"—

not, I should add,

"Made glorious summer by this sun of York"

but made a shambles by Ms Boyack.

From the Borders to the Highlands and from the A1 to the A9 we have a winter of discontent for the traveller and for our economy. There has been a catalogue of complaints and anecdotal evidence, from individuals, elected representatives—including many on the Executive's benches—motoring organisations and even entire councils.

We were put on standby when, as a result of a manhole cover collapsing on the M8, the economy of the whole of the west of Scotland ground to a halt. Such an absurdity has not been heard of since a kingdom was lost for the want of a horseshoe nail. That was even before the winter snows and ice, which are a difficult period for all in Scotland, when individuals require to take care, for their own safety and so as not to jeopardise the safety of others by their actions. During that period, those charged with the care and maintenance of roads must ensure that all adequate and appropriate steps are taken to keep roads clear and traffic moving.

That has not happened. We have had complaints about ice on the A1 and lack of gritting and we have had the first closure of the snow gates on the A9 at Blair Atholl for many a year, despite the fact that this has not been the most inclement of winters. There have been complaints that the M90 at Kinross is more reminiscent of an ice rink than the main highway from Lothian to Tayside and the north. The Kessock bridge—the artery from Inverness to the Black Isle and beyond—was shut down. I could go on and on. The tragedy for the economy and the traveller is that they cannot get on, never mind go on.

As I indicated, many of the complaints emanate from elected representatives in the chamber. Righteous indignation, they will claim; sanctimonious twaddle, say I. We do not need their pious press releases, for they were well warned about the effect of the privatisation of trunk road maintenance.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Will Mr MacAskill take an intervention?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Not at the moment.

Elected representatives have had the opportunity in previous debates to register their vote against the folly of splitting up and hiving off trunk road maintenance, selling off the work force and selling out the public. Action not rhetoric was needed then and action not rhetoric is needed now. When the privatisation of trunk road maintenance was debated just over a year ago, members were strident in their rhetoric, but reticent when registering their vote.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Is it the policy of the SNP to tear up the contract and return to the status quo?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

If Mr Lyon would listen to my speech, he will hear my suggestions. We should never have got into this situation in the first place. The Executive sold out the work force and the local economy by signing a contract and signing away good care and maintenance of our roads.

Let us take the former convener of the Transport and the Environment Committee, the illustrious Mr Andy Kerr, who said:

"We are on the edge of making one of the Parliament's worst decisions in its short life. It is a personal and political embarrassment that we find ourselves arguing over such issues in the Parliament. Allowing the management and maintenance contracts to go ahead as planned would be one of the worst decisions we could possibly make ... the private sector will make our roads worse".—[Official Report, 25 January 2001; Vol 10, c 579-580.]

He was absolutely right. The pity is that while he was given licence to moan he did not have the guts to vote. Instead, for his cowardice, he was promoted onwards and upwards to become Minister for Finance and Public Services.

Now that he is in a position of power, what will Mr Kerr do about the situation? Mr Lyon should perhaps take note. Mr Kerr has an opportunity, as the problem is not simply trunk roads but all roads. As was forewarned, privatisation has not only created a worse service on the trunk roads but has undermined the ability of local authorities to deal with non-trunk roads. A previously integrated service has been rent asunder.

That manifests itself in two ways, the first of which is the loss in economies of scale. Councils' grant-aided expenditure allocations were insufficient and had, in any case, been cut year on year. Now, without compensation or allowance, councils are expected to cover the same distance at lower cost. It just cannot be done. Our largest council, Highland Council, has had cuts of 13 per cent in its roads maintenance allocation and 5 per cent in its winter maintenance allocation. The City of Edinburgh Council has less now than it did four years ago to maintain the same, if not a greater, number of roads and pavements. There has been a cut in real terms. That is not offset by the removal of trunk roads from the council's domain, as trunk roads were previously funded from another budget. The budget has been slashed and economies of scale have been cut without compensation. Councils are short of cash and have now been short-changed.

Secondly, there is the lack of an integrated network. Previously, local authorities collaborated for the public good. Now, in many instances, there is not only disunity but disharmony between councils and the private contractors. Moreover, there are total absurdities. One example is the area where the A1 meets the Edinburgh bypass. Until last year, East Lothian Council dealt not only with the A1 trunk road but with the non-trunk sections in both its own and the City of Edinburgh Council's jurisdiction. All was well and the roads were clear. Even in inclement weather, Mr Home Robertson saw no need to complain.

Now what do we have? Well, Amey Highways Ltd has the contract for the trunk road, so it grits up the A1 to the junction at Old Craighall and stops. East Lothian Council then grits the next 1.5km, up to the City of Edinburgh Council boundary, and stops. The City of Edinburgh Council then grits the last 1km, to the Asda roundabout, and stops. Where, oh where, are the cost savings in that? It is organisational lunacy. No wonder Mr Home Robertson was complaining bitterly about Amey and the A1. Three organisations separately maintain three stretches that were once maintained by one.

That is but one example of the absurdities created by the fragmentation of the network. There are many more. Pavements, adjacent footpaths and trunk roads were once maintained collectively, but now a second machine from a separate organisation is required, as the contractor maintains only the road, leaving the council to return to maintain the footpath. Does the Executive not realise that roads do not exist in isolation?

The people of Scotland do not want excuses from the minister, never mind BEAR Scotland Ltd or Amey Highways Ltd; they want action. They want their roads gritted and their pavements cleared, just like they used to be before privatisation and cuts. That is not too much to ask; the public sector delivered it before. As my party predicted, and back benchers—including the Executive's current Minister for Finance and Public Services—echoed, the Executive's privatisation has spelt disaster. The Executive got us into this snow-hole; it should now get us out of it.

At the very minimum, the Executive should ensure forthwith that BEAR Scotland Ltd and Amey Highways Ltd shape up or ship out. Taxpayers' money is paying for their profits, while the companies provide a poorer service than the public sector did before. There are contracts that they must adhere to—the Executive must ensure that they adhere to them. There may be the performance audit group report, but surely the Executive department with responsibility for transport can ensure that action is taken. Just when will the PAG report be available? Will it address service and an integrated network or will it be yet another whitewash—of the accountants, for the accountants, by the accountants? Is it really worth the millions that will be spent on it, when we have an army of civil servants? Would not the money be better spent on roads?

We want the matter assessed from the point of view of road engineers and road users, not faceless financiers who count the pennies and look at the bottom line, not the road ahead. Will the Executive ensure that BEAR Scotland Ltd and Amey Highways Ltd subcontract to the councils to ensure best service, best practice and an integrated network? Let the road engineers run the road network, not the private financiers.

There have been bad days this winter but the weather has been by no means the worst or the most inclement that we have ever faced, yet, as a result of the privatisation forced through by Labour and its Lib Dem colleagues in the one-party coalition, we have a winter of discontent—and it is still not finished. The Executive would do well to recall that a winter of discontent was the prelude to the ultimate demise of a former Labour Administration that was propped up by the Liberals.

The Executive may have sold out the public sector, but it still has a responsibility to the general public. New Labour and agricultural Labour—for the Liberal Democrats are but country cousins—must ensure that action is taken against BEAR, in particular for the benefit of our travellers and economy.

There are no excuses. When it comes to rail, the Executive blames the situation on the Tory privatisation. There is merit in that, although the Executive's handling leaves a lot to be desired. When it comes to road maintenance, the privatisation is Labour's and the Liberals'. They know the price of everything and the value of nothing. Labour members have no one to blame but themselves and their lapdog partners. They claim that they make the difference and claim all the success of the coalition—although that is not much to boast about—but they cannot run from this. The Lib-Lab privatisation is causing havoc and will cost lives.

The buck stops with the Executive. The Scottish public will not grin and bear it. The Executive must get it sorted out or get out and hand over to an Administration that recognises the benefits of public service, not private profit, and which realises that public service is precisely that—it is worthy and meritorious in its own right and it is about doing things collectively for the common good, not privately for individual profit.

I move,

That the Parliament notes with concern recent dangers and problems affecting travellers and the economy and caused by a deteriorating winter roads maintenance service; believes that the privatisation of trunk road maintenance is a false economy, resulting in loss of efficiencies of scale, knock-on increased costs to local authorities for clearing non-trunk roads and an overall cost in the form of reduced standards of service; further notes that BEAR Scotland Ltd and Amey Highways Ltd have failed to deliver a quality of service necessary for the safety of road users and the movement of goods, and condemns the Scottish Executive for its actions in ignoring warnings regarding privatisation and in failing to address the current problems.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

I am glad that Kenny MacAskill has found time in his schedule of tireless campaigning to come and join us in Parliament and spend time doing what the taxpayers pay him for. It is a pity that, having begun with Shakespeare, he decided to play it for laughs and showed his complete ignorance of developments in trunk roads maintenance over the past 12 months.

It is also a pity that he did not take a little more time to produce a clear and coherent motion for debate. However, with a little work, I have been able to disentangle the mesh of accusations and allegations and work out that Mr MacAskill is putting five basic propositions before us. Perhaps the most serious is his accusation, ventilated only at the end of his speech, that BEAR and Amey are somehow putting in jeopardy the safety of road users and causing danger to travellers. That is not an accusation that should be made lightly. Of course our roads can be dangerous places, and of course there are extra risks in travelling in severe winter weather—those are facts. However, Mr MacAskill's claim that those dangers have increased as a result of the award of the trunk road maintenance contracts is one that he ought to be able to measure against the evidence.

Let us be clear that the terms of those contracts are in all essential respects identical to those that went before. There is an overriding obligation on the trunk road operating companies—and on councils, which maintain local roads—to ensure the safety of travellers. We expect the operating companies to work with local councils and the police to ensure road safety and we will act vigorously on any evidence of failure to do that or to meet contractual standards.

Margaret Ewing (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Does the minister recall an occasion, when the councils were responsible for road maintenance, on which sandbags were used to fill gullies as a temporary remedy for specific problems? That practice continues in Moray constituency.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

I recall many things that have happened during the years that I have lived in the north-east of Scotland. I assure Mrs Ewing that every fault that is identified and that is brought to us is acted on, including the case of the sandbags to which she referred.

Kenny MacAskill referred to Glasgow and accused BEAR and Amey of failing to ensure the movement of goods and of jeopardising the economy. It is fair to say that, even by his usual standards of doom and gloom, that represents a new depth of self-deluding despair. The trunk road contracts indeed oblige the operating companies to do all in their power to keep roads clear and open, but not at the expense of the safety of travellers or their own staff. We have yet to hear any substantial evidence of the alleged economic disruption, but I make it clear that, in any case, safety comes first.

The fact is that, in the final year of the old contracts, trunk roads were closed for more than four hours because of weather conditions on 12 occasions. In the first 10 months of the new contracts, that has happened on four occasions. It may happen again before winter is over, but the evidence hardly suggests an economic crisis caused by the closure of roads.

Mr MacAskill's third accusation is that the award of the contracts has increased the costs to councils of clearing local roads, lowered standards and sacrificed economies of scale. I do not dispute the claim that some councils have found it harder than others to adjust to the consequences of disaggregating local road and trunk road responsibilities. A council such as Highland Council, where the proportion of trunk roads in the road network is double the national average, faces greater challenges and difficulties than city and suburban authorities.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

The minister's local council, Aberdeen City Council, wrote to me expressing concern

"about the obvious lack of resources that have been attributed to the trunk road by Bear Scotland. In actual fact, this Council had to divert gritters to assist with the snow clearing operations on the trunk roads throughout the city."

Does the minister accept that BEAR Scotland failed his own constituents?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

No, I do not. Councils may have concerns and complaints, but those—such as Aberdeen City Council and Highland Council—that see a future for themselves in road maintenance, and that recognise the importance of that task, are increasingly considering how they can work with the operating companies. I am greatly encouraged that Highland councillors decided last week to work more closely with BEAR and to share their resources and expertise.

At the beginning of last week, I met chairs of transport from all Scotland's councils. I am keen to continue talking to councils to assess what they need to do to carry out their duties on local roads. We will continue actively to promote effective partnership working between councils and operating companies to maximise the rational use of resources, to secure the benefits of economies of scale and to ensure transparency and accountability in the use of public money.

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

Will the minister accept an intervention?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Not at the moment. I am aware that I do not have much time left.

I do not want to waste too much time on Mr MacAskill's claim that ministers ignored warnings about privatisation. A one-time enterprise spokesperson such as Mr MacAskill ought to know a privatisation when he sees one, but clearly, in this case, he does not. There was an open tendering process, with both private and public sector bidders. Private companies were involved in previous successful bids, along with local councils, and I fully expect there to be private and public sector bids again at the end of the contracts. Ministers did not, and could not, wilfully choose whichever bids they wanted. They followed European Union procurement rules, as they had to do, and awarded the contracts to the bidders who offered the best value for money.

I come now to Mr MacAskill's claim that ministers are failing to address the current problems. Nothing could be further from the truth. BEAR and Amey are obliged to adopt quality management regimes. They are contracted to deliver the same level of service as was expected under the previous contracts. Their delivery is monitored day in, day out by the performance audit group, which is independent of both the contractors and the Executive, but which reports to us on the operating companies' performance.

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

Will the minister give way?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

No, I will not. I am in my last few moments.

The performance audit group audits the companies' records and procedures, deploys its own field engineers to check performance on the ground and investigates any incident that gives cause for concern. Where an operator fails to comply with the contract, the performance audit group reports to us. We issue default notices, where that is necessary, to secure compliance, and we withhold payments if a default notice does not achieve its objective.

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

No. I am aware that I am in my final moments.

We have imposed those penalties a number of times, and we will do so again whenever the terms of the contract are not met. The contracts are monitored as never before. That is a benefit, not a disadvantage. Many of the problems in the early months of the contract have been resolved and should not arise again. We will ensure that the same is true of any deficiencies in winter maintenance—they will be identified, assessed and put right, and they will be put right at the expense of the operating companies if they are at fault. We will be absolutely vigilant and will insist on effective delivery. Not only will we address problems, but we will resolve them and will work with the operating companies and with local councils to make the contracts work. I was struck by the fact that Kenny MacAskill did not say what his party would do, given the choice.

We will make the contracts work and we will deliver them in the best interests of road users and taxpayers alike.

I move amendment S1M-2703.1, to leave out from "with concern" to end and insert:

"the actions taken by the Scottish Executive to ensure that the trunk road maintenance contracts deliver the prescribed level of service; calls upon the Executive to continue monitoring the performance of the operating companies to ensure compliance with their contractual obligations, and further invites the Executive to enter into dialogue with local authorities to assess the effects of the contracts on local roads maintenance."

David Mundell (Conservative, South of Scotland)

If Kenny MacAskill wants to quote Shakespeare, he should take some advice from the late Sir John Gielgud, who said, "Less is more." Yet again, an SNP-inspired debate has contained much ranting about how bad everything is, but nothing about what the SNP would do about the situation. The SNP seeks to seize on legitimate public concern about the operation of trunk road maintenance and turn it into the old-style Labour argument that everything public is good and everything private is bad. Even John Prescott does not subscribe to that.

Those of us who have the misfortune to live in local authority areas in which the SNP has a degree of control, such as Dumfries and Galloway, know that, when given the choice, SNP councillors vote to reduce winter maintenance and oppose measures that would result in more investment in the local road network. We should be clear: roads are no more a priority for the SNP than are the myriad issues that it brings to the chamber that are of the political flavour of the moment.

There are many legitimate complaints about how the trunk road maintenance contracts are bedding in, particularly about BEAR and Amey's customer service arrangements. I have raised with the Deputy Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning a number of serious concerns about Amey's lack of responsiveness on the A7 and its failure to respond to police requests to carry out gritting after a series of accidents on the A701.

As Conservative members have warned in previous debates, disaggregation has adverse effects. I draw members' attention to one example from my experience of the A7 concerning the removal of snow from Langholm High Street pavements, which took place a full two days after the rest of the town had been cleared. On the A7, Scottish Borders Council is Amey's subcontractor, but the town is the responsibility of Dumfries and Galloway Council.

Such issues have cost implications and must be sorted out, not only in Langholm, but throughout Scotland. That is why, as the Conservatives have requested previously and as our amendment states, the Scottish Executive should

"review and report to the Parliament on the implications of disaggregation of trunk and local services for local authorities".

That is particularly significant in rural Scotland, although I believe that the worst fears about job losses have been mitigated by council organisations becoming the contractors' agents.

We must assuage legitimate public concerns and proceed with the report that the Auditor General recommended. Audit Scotland's most recent report on the matter concluded that the Scottish Executive development department is well placed to monitor the performance of BEAR and Amey and recommended that the department issue a report that details the first year's performance.

In a debate about Scotland's road network, it would be wrong to highlight only the problems on our trunk roads. Anyone who uses Scotland's network of non-trunk roads knows that they are in a dire state. They are used by heavy lorry traffic that was never envisaged and they have potholes, surface erosion and verges that are the equivalent of ditches. There is no sign of significant improvement.

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Does David Mundell accept that the local problems to which he referred might be the result of the 18 years of underinvestment in which his party indulged during its term in office?

David Mundell (Conservative, South of Scotland)

As ever, that intervention was about the past and did not propose a positive solution, which is what I am about to do.

Members who raise with ministers concerns about local roads are told that the matter is for the local authorities, which are being given record sums to deal with the issue. Ordinary members of the public who challenge their local authorities are told that the Scottish Executive does not provide enough money. The public should be given an objective view. Vital work should be identified on non-trunk roads so that repairs can be carried out before some of the roads deteriorate to such an extent that they are beyond use.

The Conservatives propose setting up a national roads inspectorate in Scotland, which would carry out an on-going audit of the state of Scotland's non-trunk roads. The inspectorate's work would form an objective basis for discussion between central and local government about the resources that are required to bring the roads up to an acceptable standard. The inspectorate would act as a warning mechanism to identify roads that are in such a poor state that they are on the verge of deterioration and are almost beyond repair.

The public are sick and tired of being battered from pillar to post by the Scottish Executive and local authorities on roads issues. Everyone recognises that there is a problem; instead of talking up the poor state of our roads for political ends, as the SNP does, we should do something about the problem. On that basis, we offer the constructive proposal of a roads inspectorate.

Margaret Ewing (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Will the member give way?

David Mundell (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I must move the amendment, which unfortunately brings me to the end of my speech.

I move amendment S1M-2703.2, to leave out from first "notes" to end and insert:

"supports the principle of competitive tendering in relation to public works contracts, such as the contract for trunk roads management and maintenance, in view of the paramount importance of securing best value for the taxpayer at both local and national levels; notes concerns raised in respect of the operation of the trunk road maintenance contracts by BEAR Scotland Ltd and Amey Highways Ltd; calls upon the Scottish Executive to produce a report on the performance of each company, as recommended by the Auditor General for Scotland; further notes concern about the level of non-trunk road maintenance being carried out by local authorities, and further calls upon the Scottish Executive to (a) review and report to the Parliament on the implications of disaggregation of trunk and local services for local authorities and (b) set up a system for (i) monitoring and reporting the level of maintenance required on non-trunk roads and (ii) measuring the actual level of maintenance achieved on such roads."

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

There is no doubt that during the recent spells of wintry weather Scotland's road network was dangerous and that individuals and businesses were, at least, inconvenienced. That has happened in the past and will no doubt happen in future, but Kenny MacAskill's conclusions are premature. A number of questions arise, the answers to which we should pursue by all means, but we should wait until we have the answers before we draw conclusions.

The fundamental question is whether the contract for trunk-roads maintenance is adequate and, if so, whether it has been delivered to the required specification.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Nora Radcliffe's colleague Jamie Stone said in a previous debate on the matter:

"this process is tragic for rural areas ... It means rural job losses"

and

"Worse than that, the process will be irreversible, because it will be impossible for councils to return to roads maintenance once it goes to the private sector."

He went on to say that the

"two amendments that are before us this morning are an obituary for council-run maintenance".—[Official Report, 25 January 2001; Vol 10, c 569.]

Does Nora Radcliffe agree with Mr Stone?

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

I agree that he was right to have those apprehensions, but the reality has not been as it might have been. We must start from the present position and move forward; it is not constructive continually to hark back to the past.

More questions arise. Are robust monitoring and evaluation mechanisms in place for the trunk roads maintenance contract? Can sensible comparisons that are based on good evidence be made with former standards of service? How do the local authorities' standards of good service compare to their previous performance? Have local authorities put the same resources into winter maintenance, pro rata, as they did previously? Is communication and co-ordination between BEAR and Amey and the local authorities, the police, emergency services and weather forecasters up to the job?

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

Is the minister—sorry, the member, although perhaps she should be a minister—aware that the Clyde Solway Consortium, which was formerly the south-west unit, has taken its case to Europe and that that case has progressed to the second stage? Has the minister told Nora Radcliffe what the basis of the Clyde Solway Consortium's case is? Has she asked the minister what contingency plans exist for the event that the Clyde Solway Consortium wins its case against the Executive?

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

The simple answer is no.

There were difficulties in my area when irresponsible drivers ignored "road closed" signs. Did that hamper the road-clearing effort? Do we take weather conditions into account and make fair comparisons? There have been two fairly severe storms—the worst that we have had for some time—one of which was during a holiday period. It is easy to look at the halcyon days of yore, but we should be honest; I can remember times when lorries could not get up North Anderson Drive in the middle of Aberdeen and in the middle of the day because the road had not been gritted.

As have other members, I have had a stream of complaints about road conditions. I have written to BEAR, the police, the Scottish Executive and the two local authorities that cover my constituency to ask the questions that I listed. The replies that I received from the police and the local authorities lead me to believe that, given the conditions, effective service provision has not diminished hugely. Deep snow and high winds make it physically impossible to keep roads clear. Even in this age of high technology, we do not always get the better of the elements. There were difficulties in keeping the notorious Glens of Foudland open, but they were relatively minor and can be put down to inexperience. I am satisfied that there was not a major problem and that the experience that was gained—and local advice—will deal with the difficulties.

Margaret Ewing (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Is the member aware that the equipment that BEAR was instructed to use was not sufficient for the Glens of Foudland and that drivers were told to keep the ploughs high because lifting too much snow would make matters worse?

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

That was the result of inexperience. As I say, the experience that has been gained and local advice means that that will not be repeated. Both my constituency's local authorities now seem to have good lines of communication with BEAR, although it obviously takes time to build a good working relationship. They are working to ensure effective co-operation.

On the non-trunk roads, given the severity of the storms and the fact that it was the holiday period, the local authorities did a reasonable job in most cases. I do not think that their effort was less than I have seen in previous years. The staff worked to their physical limits to get roads cleared and gritted. Many of them sacrificed their holidays and having Christmas and new year with their families to do that. We should not forget to acknowledge their efforts and unselfishness. From the tenor of the amendments to the SNP motion it seems that most members feel, as I do, that sweeping condemnation is not the appropriate response to recent events; the appropriate response is to take a close look at the contract specifications and how they are being met.

It is too early to judge the effectiveness of the contract and its delivery. On paper, it seems that we have the tools to do that, but I await with interest the monitoring reports, after receipt of which we can make sensible decisions on what, if anything, needs to be done.

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

We move now to open debate. Speeches will be of four minutes plus time for interventions.

Margaret Ewing (Scottish National Party, Moray)

What I have heard so far from members on the unionist benches is very much an apology for what has happened over the past months. I say to them that it is indeed easy to blame BEAR and Amey, but the issue comes back to the responsibility of the Executive for the nature of the contract that was issued. This is not about the responsibility of the contractors; it is about the nature of the contract. The contractors are asked to work on behalf of the Scottish Executive and that is where the buck has to stop.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Will the member give way?

Margaret Ewing (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I am in my first minute; I will give way to Lewis Macdonald later. I will refer to him, so no doubt he will use that opportunity to intervene.

I will pick up on three specific points. The first is the accountability of the contractors for their local responsibilities. Last year, during the October recess, I phoned the BEAR depot in Keith about making a courtesy visit. Keith is not in my constituency but serves my constituency and connecting roads. I was faced with horrendous complications when I asked to pop in to say, "Hello, I am your local MSP, if you would like to raise any problems or issues." I was refused access to the depot. After various phone calls, I eventually managed to procure a meeting down at Leith Walk, which was attended by endless civil servants and representatives of the Executive. It was a very expensive meeting at which to say hello to providers of the service.

When I asked for the winter maintenance plan I was told that MSPs and MPs were likely to take advantage at policy level if they had access to it. The police and local authorities were to be given a copy, but not MSPs or MPs. Finally, as a result of continuous pressure from myself, one copy has been placed in the Scottish Parliament information centre. Hallelujah: 129 of us can now read that document.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Does Margaret Ewing accept that, as a result of that, the winter maintenance plans for all four units are publicly available, available to elected members and available to all those working with the operating companies on the winter roads contracts?

Margaret Ewing (Scottish National Party, Moray)

At the same time, MSPs do not have the right to meet with those people. I could quote letter after letter. The response that I am about to quote was in relation to disabled access in connection with potholes in Forres High Street:

"I am obliged not to reply directly to you on any matter regarding trunk road maintenance".

That diminishes the role of elected representatives.

It used to be easy to phone the director of roads in the local council or deal with Scottish Office ministers and receive a response and a reaction. Elected members now have to go through a tortuous process. The Parliament may talk about freedom of information and Lewis Macdonald said that he was going to be "extremely vigilant", but I say to him that an iron curtain has come down on the rights of elected members and the people who they represent. I challenge him to say at the end of the debate that he will make public all performance audits, so that we can read them and make comparisons.

On maintenance and safety, in a constituency such as Moray—whose population base contributes well above the average to the Chancellor of the Exchequer—we have joke roads. The A95, which is our main link to the south, has bridges on it that were probably built by General Wade. The A96 should be dualled all the way to Aberdeen. Everywhere, potholes give visitors such a bumpy ride that the roads could rival the ride on a big dipper. Sandbags are thrown in the potholes as a solution.

Lighting repairs on the main roads in Moray were previously dealt with on a three-day turnaround by Moray Council, but now take more than six weeks. I could take Lewis Macdonald to a standard lamp in Lhanbryde that has had exposed wires since April of last year. As of Monday this week, it had still not been repaired. That endangers people's safety, be they drivers or pedestrians.

On Christmas day, one of my constituents drove from Elgin to Inverness. She witnessed 10 accidents, although fortunately none of them were serious. During the whole journey, she saw only one clearance vehicle moving in the opposite direction, the quality of the machinery was inadequate in the Glens of Foudland. I am told that the road clearance vehicles that are used by BEAR are being asked to undertake journeys of 100 miles before they turn around. Previously, in places like the Glens of Foudland or Drumochter pass, they cleared for 7 to 8 miles then immediately turned around in order to keep those key areas open. I believe that the responsibility lies clearly with Labour and their Liberal allies in the Executive, who have brought in a contract that has diminished the improvements to our trunk roads and failed the people of my community and the north of Scotland.

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

It is sad that not one word in today's motion on Scotland's roads acknowledges the excellent work that has been done to improve Scotland's road infrastructure, or the significant levels of investment in infrastructure and public transport, even though those will have a significant impact on our ability to compete, our ability to move freely and timeously and our ability to create sustainable enterprise. If the SNP had a genuine interest in facing up to the task of providing Scotland with world-class physical infrastructure, this petty and backward-looking motion would not have been lodged.

The SNP's interest seems to be in talking down the good work that has been done and in taking the same short-sighted and opportunistic approach that it has taken in most debates in the Parliament. It is crucial that we do not pretend that all was rosy before the maintenance of the road network was undertaken by private contractors.

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

rose—

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

I will not take an intervention at the moment.

No one would have liked more than I would to see our local authorities win the work. However, the critical point that the SNP ignores is that the work was awarded on the basis of open tenders. SNP members talk as if they could ignore the open tender requirements. They have no such ability and their comments during the debate mislead the workers in Scotland's local authorities and Scotland's road users.

As a former council leader, I am well aware of how previous contracts were operated. Mistakes were made, as they will be made under this contract. Our priority should be proper contract monitoring and proper objective assessment of the work that is done and of any lessons that can be learned. That is what will provide Scotland's road users with the best possible service and it is what could allow our local authorities to reassess their approach and perhaps be more competitive in the future. Scotland's road users can see for themselves where improvements have been made and where things could have been done better. They will not be duped by rhetoric from the SNP.

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Although we understand the necessity for Mr McCabe to engage in a bit of political knockabout, we are trying to be constructive in analysing a serious contract strategy. I point out to Mr McCabe— [Interruption.] —if the empty vessels can contain themselves, that his party colleague, Kate MacLean, said:

"It is about the fact that there has not been a level playing field. If the differences in prices had occurred under a fair tendering process, I would have accepted that."—[Official Report, 25 January 2001; Vol 10, c 589.]

The SNP would have accepted that as well. If Mr McCabe's own party does not agree that the process has been fair, how on earth can we?

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

If an attempt to be constructive is to desist from using William Shakespeare's prose, I suppose that the SNP has attempted to be constructive. However, if that is as good as it gets, I will just carry on.

The fact is that an additional £70 million has been invested in our roads as a result of the contract. Why cannot the SNP acknowledge that? Why cannot it acknowledge the major improvements that are being made throughout Scotland? All over Scotland, local transport strategies have been prepared and are making a difference. Projects such as the Garrion bridge improvement scheme in South Lanarkshire, costing £6.6 million, are complete. That is not a promise or an announcement; that is a completed project. Economic viability in the Clyde valley has been transformed and the quality of life for thousands of people has improved. That demonstrates the positive approach of South Lanarkshire Council and the commitment of the Executive to ensuring that finance is available for investment in our roads infrastructure.

We have a rapidly expanding budget for investment in our motorway and trunk road network. Over the next three years, the budget will be £680 million, which represents an increase of almost 40 per cent by 2004. We also have the innovative partnership between councils in Glasgow, South Lanarkshire and Renfrewshire on the project to extend the M74. That is a £250 million project towards which the Executive is providing £214 million. The extension will create an economic corridor that will regenerate one of the most important areas in the west of Scotland and will significantly ease pressure on the Kingston bridge. It will make a significant contribution to establishing a physical infrastructure that will allow our economy to compete with the best economies anywhere in the world. Additionally, Glasgow airport will receive a significant boost as journey times become far more predictable. That is what the coalition regards as a physical infrastructure that will improve opportunity, quality of life and economic competitiveness.

Why cannot the SNP take the opportunity in a roads debate to expand its thinking on those important issues? The answer is simple: the SNP has no thinking on those important issues. It has no clue about the way in which we will revolutionise the transport infrastructure in Scotland. I am thankful that it also has no chance of ever holding the reins of power.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Once again, we have heard the forever-transferable rant from Mr MacAskill—all he does is change its title. We have heard about no constructive model from the SNP, yet it is the SNP's debate. SNP members never offer any solutions, alternatives or costings; they simply say, "You guys don't do it well." The Conservatives are supposed not to have done the job well for 18 years, but I recall that in the days when Mr McCabe led a council, he got the money from the then Scottish Office—the problem was what he did with it.

We heard some interesting—to an extent—comments from the SNP. We heard that only nationalised systems work. We have heard that before. There was no mention of open competitive tendering, never mind value for money, in the SNP's key speech. I presume that Mr Wilson will get round to mentioning that. The SNP would introduce central control for everything and would allow no local decision making. I do not doubt that we will hear later that, if the SNP achieved independence for Scotland, it would ban snow.

However, I agree with Margaret Ewing that we need roads infrastructure upgrades, especially for the A96 and the potential Aberdeen bypass, which would at least provide manageable routes for business. That brings us to the Executive's denial of the resources that are required.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

Bearing in mind the fact that the Conservatives had 18 years in which to deal with the A96 and the A95, I hope that Mr Davidson will remind us exactly what improvements to those roads they carried out during that period.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

During that time, the local authority was given money to carry out some side works on that road, and there was an investment programme for the main road. The Kintore bypass was built, out towards Inverurie. Perhaps Fergus Ewing used to fly into Inverness in those days and did not use the road. I do not know.

We are not discussing the principles behind the contract—whether it is privatised or in the public sector—but performance and co-ordination and the links between the local authorities and the contractors which, in some cases, are the same. All the roads that are being treated should connect carefully and sensibly.

The road safety issues that have been raised are very serious. During the recent bad spell, getting access to schools in parts of rural Scotland was difficult, emergency services were caught on the hop and were unable to get through and the continuation of business—especially in areas that have no rail support—was a great challenge. I cannot understand why, if the BBC and ITV could warn us about the snow that was to come—all the long-range forecasts predicted it almost to the hour—the contractors, councils and those in tendered operations were caught out. David Mundell's proposal for an independent roads inspectorate would take that situation on board and investigate not only what the contractors did, but what the Executive's role was. I presume that the Executive received the same weather forecasts as everyone else. Did it issue any warnings? Did it put anything out through the contract system? I suspect that it did not.

I got caught one night when Aberdeen was covered in ice, following a big snowfall. The main trunk road through the city—Anderson Drive—was impassable. The only gritter that eventually got out to it managed to crash and damaged about three cars on its way through the system. The taxi drivers in Aberdeen went on strike because it was unsafe to go out in a car. That has nothing to do with BEAR Scotland or Amey; it is to do with Aberdeen City Council's operation. In Aberdeenshire—where I live—many communities were cut off for some time. Even the emergency services that attend to the hydropower stations could not get through. The minister must consider not only who delivers the services, but the range of the services. The solution that my colleague attempts to offer—which is more than we have got from the SNP—is a possible way forward.

It we are to keep Scotland on the move safely, it is vital that early investment is made in the infrastructure that Tom McCabe talked about. There must be proper investment in road maintenance. Roads that are merely tracks with tar laid on them are now being used by heavy goods vehicles. That should not be happening. We need targeted routes that are properly maintained to move goods around safely.

Once again, I am bitterly disappointed by the SNP's waste of parliamentary time. It has initiated a debate but offers no answers or constructive comments on anything. I look forward to hearing a more constructive response from the minister, regarding the way in which he will implement our proposal.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I am interested to know why it is the responsibility of the SNP to fix every major disaster that is caused by the Executive.

We debated the roads issue just over a year ago, on Burns day, when the then Minister for Transport told us that Labour had decided to go along Labour's new way by privatising roads maintenance. Although I was appalled at the attitude that was shown by the ministers that day, I was heartened by some of the constructive criticism that was offered by Labour back benchers, but that changed pretty rapidly. I was worried about whether the level of service given to our roads would be the same once Labour had sacked the public service workers. I had to ask repeatedly—eventually I had to resort to asking parliamentary questions—to see the performance assessment criteria before bits of the contract were placed in the Scottish Parliament information centre. Margaret Ewing asked for that information too. It is ridiculous that the elected representatives of Scotland could not see the criteria for safety provisions on our roads. That is an absolute disgrace.

I was not the only member who expressed concern in that debate. A Labour member who was not a minister at the time said:

"Allowing the management and maintenance contracts to go ahead as planned would be one of the worst decisions that we could possibly make. A flawed process has led to a flawed result".

He went on to say that the process

"does not, in any way, offer value for money and it does not provide best value. The process is a shambles."—[Official Report, 25 January 2001; Vol 10, c 579-80.]

Andy Kerr cannot come on down, as he is not in the chamber today. However, those were the words of the member who is now Minister for Finance and Public Services. He condemned his party's Executive and became a local hero—at least in his own lunch time—in the constituency of East Kilbride, where I live.

In the East Kilbride News, Mr Kerr said:

"We are on the edge of making one of the Parliament's worst decisions ... It is a personal and political embarrassment."

There are questions to be answered. Is Mr Kerr now bringing his fellow Cabinet member round to that sensible point of view? If not, is Wendy Alexander now the very lonely minister with no support from anyone in the chamber, as Sarah Boyack was quoted as saying? I am sorry, but I see that it is poor Lewis Macdonald now—what a shame.

What is Andy Kerr doing to ensure that roads in his constituency are being serviced to the same level as before the maintenance contracts were privatised? Not a lot is being done. The trunk roads that run through East Kilbride constituency are a disgrace. Residents of East Kilbride have been agitating for the service to return to the level that they used to know. In particular—I think that the minister will back me up on this—local people have long highlighted their safety concerns about damaged roundabouts. As members will know, we have many roundabouts in East Kilbride. Damaged roundabouts have been left for months with temporary barriers and rusting ironwork.

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

For how long have local people been expressing concern about those roundabouts? The member said that they had been doing so for a long time.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I have in my hand many newspaper cuttings and photographs, which go back over the years. I take that back, as I meant to say months rather than years. When Mr McCabe was in charge of South Lanarkshire Council, we had a wonderful service on roads and roundabouts in East Kilbride. Now we have a terrible service. I am aware that I am running out of time, so I will move on.

Lewis Macdonald was quick to have a go at the SNP's motion. Let us look at the Executive's amendment, which is specious. We are asked to note

"the actions taken by the Scottish Executive to ensure that the ... contracts deliver the prescribed level of service."

It seems to me that every Executive action is reactive. If the Executive had carried out the process properly in the first place and had properly assessed what was going on, we would not be in this position.

The amendment wants Parliament to call

"upon the Executive to continue monitoring the performance of the operating companies."

If Parliament did not call on the Executive to do that, would the Executive not bother its shirt? Would it just let the situation go on? That part of the amendment means nothing.

The Executive amendment also calls on Parliament to invite

"the Executive to enter into dialogue with local authorities".

Does that mean that the Executive has not been doing that? Can the outcome of that dialogue—the proper monitoring and results—be placed in SPICe? That would allow us to see those results. I ask members to support the SNP motion.

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

I want to keep speeches tightly to four minutes from now on.

John Farquhar Munro (Liberal Democrat, Ross, Skye and Inverness West)

Like many members, I am delighted that we have been given the opportunity to debate winter road maintenance and highlight the dismal performance of the private contractors that were given that responsibility by the Executive.

As we heard, we have not had a particularly bad winter. Conditions have not been extreme and we have not had extended periods of hard frost or heavy snowfalls. However, there has been an unprecedented level of dissatisfaction and complaints from the travelling public, particularly from the business community, which has recently experienced dangerous and unreasonable conditions on long sections of trunk roads throughout the Highlands.

The response from the Executive to written and oral questions on the matter has been that the contractors are complying with the terms of the contract. That might seem strange to many people. However, if that is the case, the contractual obligations must be closely monitored to ensure that the service that is provided is appropriate and sufficient to ensure that we return to the degree of excellence in winter road maintenance that was provided previously by the local authorities.

I speak with experience on that subject. Over many years as a private contractor, I operated snowploughs and gritters in the west Highlands. More recently, I was convener of the roads and transport department of the Highland Council. I was well aware of the high levels of service that were provided and of the travelling public's confidence and satisfaction.

It has been suggested of late that seeing a BEAR snowplough operating on Highlands trunk roads is about as unusual as meeting up with the abominable snowman.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The last time that I travelled up the A9 I saw three snowploughs.

John Farquhar Munro (Liberal Democrat, Ross, Skye and Inverness West)

If the member saw three snowploughs, they must have belonged to the local authority. I doubt whether they were BEAR snowploughs. I travel the A9 as much as anybody here and I have yet to see a BEAR snowplough operating on that section of our trunk roads.

The Executive told us that a strict audit will be undertaken and reported on in due course, but that will be too late as we need action now. If the contract is found to be inappropriate for the service that we expect, let us have the courage to admit that error and amend the contract accordingly.

I note that Wendy Alexander's amendment asks the Executive to undertake to monitor contractual obligations and ensure that they are met, and to engage in dialogue with local authorities. That is a welcome step. The Executive should do that

"to assess the effects of the contracts on local roads maintenance."

That is a step forward and I hope that the current monitoring will ensure that we have an efficient, effective and appropriate road maintenance programme in the years ahead. I am pleased to support the Executive's amendment.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

As a former teacher of English, I was pleased to hear Kenny MacAskill quote Shakespeare at the start of his speech, considering that his motion is not grammatical. I cannot understand why somebody cannot have a grammatical motion and yet think—

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Go back to school.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Mr MacAskill should go back to school. I would not have accepted the first clause of his motion from a first-year English class. As I always said to my classes, woolly syntax reflects woolly thinking and a failure to research the issue. How true that is of the SNP.

The SNP's motion, apart from being ungrammatical, is misleading and disingenuous. The SNP surely knows that, under European Commission procurement rules, contracts as large as the road maintenance contracts must be put out to tender. The contracts were tendered in the mid-1990s. Some contracts were won at that time by the local authorities, but others were not. The Highland Council happened to win the contract for its area.

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

No, thank you.

The tendering process was also driven by EC rules that are not within the Executive's power to change. John Farquhar Munro indulged in special pleading, as he is the former convener of transport in the Highland Council. However, I am sure that he will confirm that in the previous bidding process the Highland Council formed a partnership with a private consortium to put in an area bid. If the council had won, there would have been a private company gritting the roads in the Highlands. I am sure that any complaints about that private company would have been referred to the Highland Council, in the same way as complaints against BEAR are referred to the Executive. It is a well-known process. Complaints go to the people who are responsible, whether that is the Executive or the Highland Council.

The Highland Council and the private consortium were unsuccessful. In the Highland area, there is general acceptance that the council's bid was inflated by the need to part fund the local roads budget from it. The same personnel who worked on the local roads worked on the trunk roads. It was difficult to separate out the work force, the depots and the equipment.

There was consternation when the contract was lost. We did not expect it to be lost. We assumed that the Highland Council, with its knowledge of the area, would put in a bid that would easily outstrip any bid from a private company.

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

The Highland Council lost out because it knew the proper quantities of materials to do the job. It did not use the fantasy figures that were made up in such a flawed process.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

That is not true. If the Highland Council inflated its bid because of what was not in the specification, that was up to the Highland Council. It should have bid on the specification as it stood.

There was consternation as to whether BEAR would cope with the Highland winter and what would happen to the local work force. I believe that the worst fears for the work force have not been realised. The trade unions locally will endorse that view.

There was concern in the Highlands that the specification would not be adequate, in particular with regard to gritting and salting. I have pursued that matter with the Executive. The Highland Council would have had to work to the same specification as BEAR does now. The bottom line is that the specification sets out that the roads must be cleared of snow.

Unlike John Farquhar Munro, I remember plenty of times in the past when the roads in the Highlands were not kept clear of snow. The SNP, none of whose members has ever lived in the Highlands, does not have a true idea of the situation in the Highlands pre-BEAR. Even some Highland councillors admit that there is no substantial difference between trunk road maintenance then and now. The Executive is keeping as close an eye on BEAR as the Highland Council ever kept on its roads department. I agree that there have been problems, but they are being overcome.

Fortunately, at last, the Highland Council and BEAR have realised that it is better to be co-operative than oppositional. They are examining ways of working together so that anomalies, such as local roads not being gritted until BEAR grits the trunk roads, are in the past. It is important that that happens quickly because real safety issues are involved.

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

The member should wind up.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The worst safety issue is untreated footpaths, which are extremely dangerous for older people, pregnant women, children and disabled people.

I am concerned that, because the Highland Council is not working in co-operation with BEAR, it is unable to treat footpaths. I look forward to footpaths in the Highlands being made safe again, through co-operation and not through the destructive attitudes of the SNP.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I have a wee message for Maureen Macmillan. I know a lot about the Highlands. My father comes from the Black Isle and my wife is from a rural part of the Highlands, where she was halfway through secondary school before her family got electricity.

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

And then the war came. [Laughter.]

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I should point out to Andrew Wilson that that is the single most dangerous act that he has committed in the Parliament. He will now have to answer to my wife—something that I fear and he should dread.

Maureen Macmillan should not lecture SNP members about ignorance of the Highlands.

I congratulate General Motors on its achievements. Not only do ministers' Vauxhalls transport them from A to B, they successfully insulate the occupants from the everyday reality of other people's roads experience. Next time I am looking for a car, I must buy a Vauxhall.

Let me relate to the experience of the people. What honest and acceptable answer could I give to mourners at a funeral I attended on 26 December, when they witnessed a continual stream of people arriving throughout the service? BEAR's snow-clearing operation in Aberdeenshire meant that some mourners were unable to attend.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

indicated disagreement.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

It happens to be true. If Lewis Macdonald had been there, he would have seen it to be so.

I represent what is almost the only mainland constituency that has no railways. We also have no dual carriageway connection to the core of Scotland's road network. In the north east, the issue of roads, their maintenance and their winter care is vital. Tom McCabe spoke graphically of the Executive's investment in roads, but his speech was all about the central belt.

To be fair, the minister visited Maud in my constituency recently and saw what the dial-a-bus scheme is succeeding in doing there. However, the minister would also have seen the state of the roads. Because of the state of the roads, I am regularly visited by businesses at my constituency surgeries. Most recently, I was visited by a haulier who suggested quite convincingly that it costs his company £50,000 a year to be based in Peterhead rather than in Aberdeen, where he could relocate.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

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

The member has one minute.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

David Davidson is too late.

The haulier's problems arise from the state of the roads throughout the year and from the state into which they have been put by BEAR's inefficiencies and ineffectiveness. If even my backside can tell, as I drive up to my constituency, that there are potholes in the road, BEAR, too, should be able to do so.

The minister said that he was in his "last few moments". If his prescience is to prove misplaced, it will only be because he insists on effective delivery—David Mundell referred to that. The minister should ditch the dogma and promote the public sector. Let us get effective maintenance of our roads in winter.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

As Tom McCabe said, the debate is disappointing, narrow, negative and carping. When I saw that the SNP had initiated a debate on Scotland's road network, I hoped that it would give members an opportunity to examine the SNP's vision for our transport infrastructure. The SNP often accuses the Executive of lacking vision for the infrastructure that is required to develop Scotland's economy.

Today, the SNP has betrayed its own lack of ambition and vision by its narrow and carping approach to the debate.

The SNP motion scaremongers irresponsibly about safety. The motion states that the contracts put at risk

"the safety of road users"

but Kenny MacAskill's speech included only innuendos about safety and did not provide evidence to substantiate his comments.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

What about John Farquhar Munro's speech?

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

If Kenny MacAskill wants to intervene, he should stand up and not try to do so from a sedentary position.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Did the member listen to John Farquhar Munro, who is the member for Ross, Skye and Inverness West and the former convener of roads for the Highland Council? Mr Munro made it clear that although the weather has not been the worst that there has been, we have experienced one of the worst winters—possibly the worst—for getting the roads cleared. Does the member agree with Mr Munro that there is a crisis in the Highlands and Islands, in particular?

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

I noted an equal lack of evidence from Mr Munro and Mr MacAskill.

Mr MacAskill also claimed that the movement of goods in Scotland was not being facilitated by the contracts. That, too, is completely unsupported by evidence and is contradicted by the evidence that the minister gave about the number of road closures to date.

It is essential that we monitor performance and that we check that the contracts are working. I ask the Executive in its response to the debate to make it clear that it will make available to the Parliament a detailed report setting out how the contracts have worked in their first year.

The SNP's contribution to the debate was narrow in its focus because the SNP cannot make up its mind on transport policy and roads. I have looked back through a number of the SNP's recent election manifestos. Looking through the SNP's 1997 election manifesto, I realised why Alex Salmond returned to London: it is so that he can be the songwriter for Bob the Builder, as the manifesto says "Yes We Can". Sadly, it looks as if Bob the Builder has become the SNP's economic guru. In the 1997 manifesto, the SNP's fantasy fiscal surplus with the UK grows from £1.9 billion in 1997 to £5.4 billion in 2000.

That is an easy way for the SNP to avoid saying how it would raise money to fund its spending plans. Its 1997 manifesto said that overall car and lorry usage needed to be reduced. In 1999, the position was the same and the SNP manifesto still sought to encourage a move away from car use. However, by 2001, the SNP's manifesto said:

"Our early priorities for investment ... are:

M74 ... Aberdeen City by-pass A8000 link ... A75 M8 ... Upgrading of the A9".

Those are only the early priorities. The real reason why we are not having a broader debate about the SNP's transport plans is that it does not have any. The SNP has a series of uncosted wish lists that it does not want to lay before Parliament for scrutiny. The real reason for the debate is that the SNP is running scared from exposing its policies to detailed scrutiny. That is why the people of Scotland will never trust the SNP.

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

My regrets to Ken Macintosh, who sat through the debate but who was beaten by the clock. [MEMBERS: "Aw!"] It happens that, when members squeeze an extra 30 or 40 seconds into their speech, they jeopardise another member's chance to contribute. Closing speeches will have to be tightly on time. George Lyon has four minutes.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Given the controversy surrounding the reward last year of the trunk roads maintenance contracts to BEAR and Amey at the expense of the local authorities, it was entirely predictable that the performance of those companies would be put under intense political and media scrutiny to find out whether they could cope with everything that a Scottish winter would throw at them. As my colleague John Farquhar Munro pointed out, the winter has been relatively easy; it has not been the worst winter of recent times.

Come every snowfall and big freeze, BEAR and Amey were sure to be under scrutiny. Of course, Mr MacAskill has been hurtling round Scotland in hot pursuit of every snowfall and big freeze, ready with his usual media soundbite of, "Ah told yese so!" That is why he never turns up for work in the Parliament. He is too busy chasing the storms.

There is no doubt that there have been genuine problems, which members have rightly mentioned in the debate. There have been reports of roads not being gritted properly. There are claims that, even when the roads have been gritted, there was no salt or insufficient salt in the grit. When it has snowed heavily, motorists have claimed that there has been neither sight nor sound of a gritter from either of the two companies. There has also been a climate of mistrust and little co-operation between local authorities and BEAR and Amey, yet all have a vital role in ensuring that our roads are kept open.

A number of problems in my constituency have been brought to my attention. Last Monday, for instance, a major snowfall occurred in north Argyll, bringing the place to a standstill. In the town centre of Oban, the roads and pavements were treacherous. Indeed, the whole town came to a standstill for a couple of hours. There were also major problems on the trunk roads. I still await explanations from Argyll and Bute Council and BEAR of why it took so long to get the traffic moving again.

The A83 suffered its annual landslide before the new year. BEAR was responsible for dealing with that serious incident and it did so reasonably efficiently, although it was criticised because it would not work 24 hours a day to ensure that the road was opened up as speedily as possible. I ask the minister to assure me—and the people of Argyll and Bute—that proper remedial work will be carried out on the hillside above Rest and be thankful to try to stabilise the hill to prevent such landslides occurring regularly. For the past three years in a row, every time that we have had a huge dump of rain, we have had a major landslide on that road and Argyll and Bute has been cut off for up to two days at a time.

There is no doubt that genuine problems have occurred this winter. Those problems must be resolved for the future.

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

You have one minute.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I ask the Executive, in its assessment of the performance of BEAR and Amey, to consider not only whether the contract specifications have been met, but whether the contract delivers a proper level of service to all our constituencies. That is a crucial issue. It is not good enough to say that the companies are meeting the contract. We must assess whether the contract meets the expectations of our taxpayers and local motorists. The contracts may need adjusted. I welcome the minister's commitment to examining all aspects of the contracts and the companies' performance.

We should not kid ourselves that the trunk roads never used to be snowed up or partially blocked. I will give two instances. On 6 March 1998, it took six hours to drive the A90 from Aberdeen to Fife. Articulated lorries were stuck at the side of the road because of the huge snowfall and the amount of ice. In January last year, the exact same happened.

All members should send a strong message about the need for BEAR and Amey to get round the table with the local authorities, put their differences to one side and start co-operating closely. Both groups have a role to play in ensuring that our roads are kept open.

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

Please close.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

The SNP has come to the debate with a litany of woe and disaster. The motion states that there have been "a loss of efficiencies", "increased costs", a "false economy" and "reduced standards of service", but is Kenny MacAskill proposing to tear up the contracts from hell and throw the companies out? No.

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

Wind up, please.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

All that Kenny MacAskill proposes to do is ask them to do a wee bittie better. In other words, the SNP is still fully signed up to the contracts as they stand.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

On 25 January this year, I was lucky enough to have been invited by my friend Dave Petrie, who has joined us in the gallery today, to speak to the Conservative party ladies of Oban.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Both of them?

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Oh come on, I have only four minutes.

I set off from Edinburgh by car on Friday morning with the intention of reaching Oban. I drove north to Stirling and it began to snow. I drove into Callander and it began to snow a lot more. By the time that I got to Lochearnhead, I could not get any further. I abandoned the trip and headed through Crieff to Perth to try to get home that day.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Was the member on a tractor?

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Indeed, I might as well have been on a tractor, because a journey of 170 miles—the total for the day—took more than six hours. During that time, I saw some of the worst weather that I have seen in years.

I also saw snowploughs. Workers from Tayside Contracts were on the road, clearing the trunk roads on behalf of BEAR that day, but they were unable to cope. I now discover that the reason why they could not cope was that what was falling was not snow at all; it appears that it was simply manna from heaven for the SNP.

What we heard from Kenny MacAskill today was political dogma. He was exploiting the unfortunate circumstances that have occurred on two occasions so far this winter to prove a political point. That point is, to put it in plain English: public good, private bad. It is very simple. It used to be Labour party policy, but not any more; Labour members have seen common sense. Kenny MacAskill's speech was a cynical exploitation of the situation to prove a point.

A number of points have been made in the debate. I first take up the suggestion, which David Mundell made, of a national roads inspectorate. The minister touched on the fact that a monitoring system is in place, but I suggest that that system needs to be beefed up substantially.

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Given that a monitoring system is in place, what would the Conservatives do differently? What does "beefed up" mean?

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The monitoring system needs to cover non-trunk roads as well as trunk roads, because we know all too well that the problems have not been exclusive to trunk roads.

I will progress quickly. I was interested in Nora Radcliffe's speech. She used the expression "halcyon days of yore". I was tempted to intervene at that stage and ask whether those halcyon days of yore fell during the 18 glorious years of Conservative Government.

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

Alex Johnstone might remember that I followed up that comment by saying that we had to be honest.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I will develop and back strongly the point that Margaret Ewing made.

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

You have one minute.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Margaret Ewing pointed out that communication with BEAR and Amey has been difficult for members of the Scottish Parliament and other representatives. I believe that the Executive simply does not wish us to communicate directly with those companies and has attempted to put a wedge between us to prevent such communication. I believe that much of the bad publicity that Amey and BEAR have had has been due to that lack of communication. Better communication could go a long way towards improving public relations with those companies.

David Davidson pointed out that we also need to think about the maintenance of our roads in conditions other than snowy ones. It is extremely important that the Executive should consider ways of making what would, to many, be relatively minor improvements to roads, as that could make a significant difference to road safety.

I refer specifically to the A96, which I believe one or two other members have mentioned, and to the benefit that could be accrued through the simple provision of deceleration lanes and other systems on that road.

The Executive must get a grip of the road contracts and ensure that they are enforced. It needs to apply a great deal more pressure on the companies to ensure that they co-operate in line with the contracts that they have signed.

Perhaps next time we could hear some real policy from the SNP.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

We are 10 months into the first year of the five-year contracts. Arguments about the awarding of those contracts lie in the past; the task now is to make them work. There are two key ways of doing that: first, through ensuring—by monitoring performance and acting to secure compliance—that the operating companies deliver on their contractual obligations; secondly, through promoting dialogue and partnership among all those with responsibilities for our road networks, including central Government, local government, contractors, subcontractors and the police.

Local authorities are responsible for the maintenance of 94 per cent of Scotland's roads. There is a challenge for councils to deliver on that responsibility and no doubt some hard decisions will have to be made in setting priorities and allocating budgets. My meetings last week with local authority chairs of transport from throughout Scotland confirmed that authorities were up to meeting that challenge. I met council representatives from the north of Scotland in Perth and I agreed that my officials would work with them on issues that they have raised regarding BEAR Scotland and the maintenance of trunk and local roads. Councillor Jimmy Doig, leader of the administration in Perth and Kinross and host of that meeting, welcomed that and offered to write to other councils

"recommending that we work in conjunction with the contractors to improve the situation as it stands".

It is fair to say that Councillor Doig is not a fan of the operating companies, but he recognises that his priority is to obtain the best possible service for the people of his area. Other councils have taken a similarly pragmatic view. In the south of Scotland, Scottish Borders Council and Dumfries and Galloway Council are doing good business as subcontractors to Amey. In the north of Scotland, Tayside Contracts, Highland Council and Aberdeen City Council have taken on work as subcontractors to BEAR.

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

On the south of Scotland road contract area, the south-west unit is pursuing a court case in Europe against the Executive. The case has now proceeded to the second stage, which means that there is a case to answer. Will the minister tell us what that case is and what contingency plans have been put in place if the Executive loses it?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

As I have made very clear, my priority is to ensure that the contracts work. That is our job. Local authorities have to make choices in deciding how to meet local priorities and it is for them to determine those priorities. Those councils that choose to remain involved in trunk road maintenance on a subcontracting basis, including Dumfries and Galloway, Aberdeen City and Highland, are the ones that are most likely still to be in the frame when the current contracts come to an end in four or five years' time. That also applies to companies such as Tayside Contracts.

Highland Council has decided to work with BEAR in a different way, sharing depots and supplies. That partnership has the potential to address some of the particular and well-recognised problems of looking after a network that covers many hundreds of miles of roads. In North Lanarkshire, the position is different again: Amey maintains trunk and local roads there, as they do in several other areas south of the border.

Those are different models of how to move forward, but they are all about making the contracts work. We recognise the case for close co-operation between councils and contractors. We do not agree with the Conservative proposition that the Executive should set up a system for monitoring the work of local councils on local roads, as we believe that that is a job for the councils. We will, however, continue to work with them and with the Society of Chief Officers of Transport. We will monitor performance and act to secure effective maintenance for the trunk roads, for which we are directly responsible.

We will ensure that problems that have been raised today, such as that at Rest and be thankful, are speedily addressed, and we will continue to ensure that local elected representatives are able to meet representatives of BEAR and Amey. Many MSPs have already done so.

We will ensure that the findings of the performance audit group are published in a report following the first year of the new contracts and we will not hesitate to highlight failings that are not effectively addressed by either of the operating companies. BEAR and Amey should not expect an easy ride from the monitoring process. They know that we will be vigilant and will act, that we will publish the report and ensure that public scrutiny continues, that we will issue default notices wherever a fault occurs and that we will withhold moneys—as we have done already to a substantial degree—where faults are not remedied. That is how we will ensure that standards are met. Partnership working will also help in reaching that objective. On that basis, we will continue to seek the best possible value for money and the best possible service for those who depend on our road system.

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

At the risk of flogging the dead horse of the bard of Avon, I am tempted to open with a Shakespearean reference to please Maureen Macmillan:

"Stands Scotland where it did?"

Unfortunately, as Alex Johnstone would confirm, yes it has been, for hours on end, due to the chaos in the transport infrastructure.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Will Andrew Wilson take an intervention?

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

At 18 seconds into my speech, I would be over the moon: wire in.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Could the member perhaps repeat his last sentence, but this time make it grammatical?

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The arrogance on the Labour benches has broken new bounds. If an English teacher from the Highlands is criticising William Shakespeare for being ungrammatical, we have little hope for humility. That was a direct quote from "Hamlet". If Maureen Macmillan does not recognise it, I suggest that some more reading would be appropriate.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

rose—

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Take your seat.

I believe that the Parliament has a serious job to do. We cannot allow ourselves to slip into complacency—as we are at risk of doing—in the face of the severe problems in Scottish society, be they in the health service, in the economy, which is in dire straits, or in transport.

It is the job of the SNP, as a constructive Opposition, to banish that complacency and to bring to the debate the problems across Scottish society that have been cited. If Labour members are unwilling to listen to the people of Scotland, as appears to be the case, that is one thing, but if Lewis Macdonald is unwilling to listen even to his own party's members, that is another. I am thinking of those Labour members who have chosen not to show up today, including, as ever, almost the entire front bench. The total isolation of Ms Alexander inside the Cabinet is emphasised by the failure of any of her colleagues to show up for debates such as this one.

If Labour ministers are unwilling to listen to those on their own side, they should at least listen to the people of Scotland. The total discontent with the transport system is palpable, whether that concerns the railways, the roads or any other aspect of our failure to get Scotland moving. The problem is serious and the Parliament exists to deal with such problems. It must be seen to act. If we do not act, we will all be culpable.

We are now in the 21st century and are richer today than at any point in our history, yet our transport system is in total crisis. People are in a position to ask why that is, but the Executive is not in a position to deal with the problem, because the Cabinet is fundamentally and totally split when it comes to personalities and to transport policy.

The Minister for Finance and Public Services, in the shape of Andy Kerr, cannot show up for the debate because his position is untenable—he has spent the past year criticising the contract negotiations. He is now in a position of influence over those contracts, but he cannot adopt a credible position, because he is on record as having repeatedly criticised the contracts.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

rose—

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

If Mr Macdonald has something constructive to add to the debate, I will be delighted to give way to him.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

In the spirit of debate, I ask Mr Wilson, who said that the Parliament should act, what he thinks we should do.

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The minister has had the entire debate to hear about that. The most important thing that we should do— [Interruption.] If some members could try to bring a degree of decorum to their misbehaviour, that would be appropriate.

The first thing that the Executive should do is accept that there is a problem. Ministers have spent the past two years with their heads in the sand on a whole range of issues. They must accept that there is a problem. If they do, we can deal with it.

Let us take transport in general. The Executive has been roundly and rightly criticised for abandoning a 10-year transport plan. Ms Alexander, who guises as the transport minister in the Cabinet, did not publish a transport plan, but revealed in a lobby briefing to Labour's house journalist, Catherine MacLeod, that she would today unveil the first step of plans towards a Scotland-wide integrated transport policy. That has not happened, of course. Incidentally, a year ago that journalist published an article based on another of Ms Alexander's briefing, claiming that Scotland was entering an economic golden age, despite the fact that in the same week Scotland entered recession.

Ms Alexander would do well to speak to Ms Boyack. What has the Executive been doing for three years given that we have no integrated transport policy and that Ms Alexander, in a private briefing to someone at Westminster, announced that we would now have a first step towards one? The sad fact is that we do not have a Cabinet voice on transport at present. Until we do and until there is a serious acknowledgement of the problems in transport, we will have nothing but mediocrity in our solutions.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

Will the member take an intervention?

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

No thank you.

We have nothing but mediocrity in performance, focus and leadership. That is not a function of personality; it is a function of faction fighting inside the Cabinet, and the country is not well served by it.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

rose

—

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I give way to the woman who is the subject of it all.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

We await with interest the transport plan of the SNP. When will Andrew Wilson publish it?

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

We brought our proposals to the electorate in a manifesto. We will also bring forward the next lot of proposals. The Executive has been in power for three years with the backing of an entire civil service machine and we have yet to see a 10-year transport plan. If the Executive opens up the transport divisions of the civil service to the SNP and gives us access to its civil servants, we will give it a plan within three weeks.

We cannot hope to deal with the problems until the Executive accepts that those problems exist. Our job in opposition is to assert that fact. We have brought our solutions to the debate and to the electorate. We have plans to tackle underinvestment through a number of imaginative measures.

George Lyon said that we have to rip up the contracts. Contracts are contracts; a course in contract law might be appropriate for him. We have suggested that the Executive hold the organisations to their contracts and ensure that relationships with local authorities are improved. That is important. In due course we can replace the contracts with something that Andy Kerr might be able to accept as right-headed, rather than wrong-headed.

The most interesting part of Ms Alexander's lobby briefing to Catherine MacLeod, which has yet to see the light of day in Parliament, reveals that the minister believes that transport investment should increase faster in Scotland than in the rest of the United Kingdom. I might agree with that, but the question for the Executive is how it delivers it, given that the Barnett formula settlement is producing a relative contraction in our transport spending compared to that in the rest of the United Kingdom.

We cannot have solutions until the Executive opens its eyes and mind to the problem and to its ability to do something about it. Until we equip the Executive with proper investment functions, it cannot hope to deal with the crisis of underinvestment in local roads or the trunk road network.

On the simple day-to-day management of maintenance, which is essentially what we are debating today, why cannot we have a sensible solution? The question is not one of dogma; we are utterly pragmatic about the issue.

If Kate Maclean, a former council leader and respected Labour back bencher, cannot say that the contracts were awarded fairly and on a level playing field, how can the Labour party hope that an Opposition party would go further than its own side?

The simple fact is that transport infrastructure is in crisis and the contract is not working. We need a solution and we need the Executive to unite behind the transport minister, rather than faction fighting with the future of Scotland's transport infrastructure. We need an Executive that is united, not split. We need vision from the Parliament, rather than the utterly derisory approach to serious problems. If the Executive accepts that there is a problem, we can find a solution.

Schools (Class Sizes and Pupil Attainment)

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

We come to the Scottish National Party debate on motion S1M-2697, in the name of Michael Russell, on class sizes and pupil attainment, and two amendments to that motion. I ask those members who wish to participate to press their buttons now. If members are leaving the chamber, they should do so quickly and quietly.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Let me put the argument very bluntly at the start of the debate. We need to get the most bang for our buck in education. We need to target resources where they will have the most effect for the longest period of time. We need to invest, as a nation, in the best prospects for our future. To do so we must take radical and direct action to reduce class sizes in the early primary years to 18 pupils or less. That policy has shown its benefits elsewhere and could show its benefits here: it leads to better attainment, more help for the disadvantaged, has long-term effects and, in economic terms, it pays for itself.

The great advantage of the policy is that it is not a new policy. As long ago as 1943, the Educational Institute of Scotland committee on education reconstruction—a committee that was looking to rebuild Scottish education after the war—proposed that no class in the infant department should have more than 20 pupils on the roll. That was an expectation in 1943; it has not been fulfilled almost half a century later.

The policy has wide public support. In the "British Social Attitudes Survey, 1999" smaller class sizes was the top choice for expenditure on primary education from parents.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member give way?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

No, please let me get under way. When people were asked to name only two things that they wanted to change in primary education, 55 per cent wanted smaller class sizes. It is worth noting that in the same survey, only 1 per cent sought more emphasis on testing, yet that has been a constant refrain from the Labour and Tory benches.

Since Labour came to power in 1997, it has claimed that its first educational priority is the reduction of class sizes. Brian Wilson, just after the 1997 election called it

"one of the Government's key manifesto commitments."

That phrase was repeated two years later by Peter Peacock. Helen Liddell, Brian Wilson, Sam Galbraith and Jack McConnell—and even the Minister for Education and Young People—have all trumpeted that intention. In "Working together for Scotland: A Programme for Government", the Executive even claimed that the target had been achieved for primaries 1 and 2. We have heard no more of that claim, because it was not true, as the school census showed.

The reality of today's situation can be seen in the Accounts Commission for Scotland's report on key performance indicators for councils for 2000-2001. With less than six months to the cut-off date, only five councils—the three island councils plus Argyll and Bute Council and Dumfries and Galloway Council—were able to report that none of their primary 1, 2 or 3 pupils was in a class of 31 or more pupils. Two councils—South Ayrshire Council and West Lothian Council—had to report that more than 15 per cent of their classes were of 31 pupils or more. In addition seven councils had an increase in the number of such classes compared to the previous year.

For the Executive, even a cosmetic target has been impossible to achieve, even with a declining school population. Over the period there has been a decline of almost 7,000 in the primary roll. The Executive might get there, late and by an accident of birth rate, but where is there? Classes of 30 are marginally better than classes of 35, particularly for the teacher, but there is no evidence that such small reductions in size are of any significant benefit to pupils or to their attainment.

I am more inclined to listen to the Executive's advisers than to the Executive on the matter. Its advisers have argued that some research suggests that:

"within primary schools (especially P1 to P3) a class size of between 20 and 25 pupils produces the best learning environment."

That is from page 35 of the Executive's publication "2001 Scottish Social Statistics". The Government's advisers say 20 to 25. I think that Mr Sheridan would say 15. The evidence supports 18—and I will look at that evidence in a moment. Whatever the figure is, it is not 30, no matter what the hype and spin from new Labour. Scotland needs a real target for class sizes, backed by real evidence, which can show real benefits and is implemented by real plans with real resources.

Talking about reality, here is Brian Monteith.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank the member for giving way. If he had read his speech correctly, he might have noticed that since 1940 is not less than half a century; it is in fact more than 60 years—more than half a century. I am sorry to pick him up on that small point.

The member talks as if all the research is a given and that it is accepted as fact. Does he accept that the evidence is inconclusive and that a great deal of evidence contradicts the evidence that he quotes?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

No, I do not accept that at all and I will tell him why; I am just about to cite the research.

The policy of reducing class sizes to 18 or less has its modern origins in the Student Teacher Achievement Ratio project in Tennessee. That project was designed not just to introduce smaller class sizes, but to scrutinise the effects of such reduction. Mr Monteith can listen to this. Professor Frederick Mosteller of Harvard University, probably one of the greatest statisticians of the past half century—and I accept half century as 50 years—called the Tennessee programme

"one of the great experiments in education in United States history."

Mr Monteith should listen to this. The US Department of Education's office of educational research and improvement—a Government agency—claimed that the programme was

"doubtless the all time most comprehensive controlled examination of the thesis that a substantial reduction in class size will, of itself, improve attainment."

Peter Mortimore, director of the well-respected Institute of Education in London described the Tennessee study as

"the most thorough research ever done on class size using the experimental method."

The words used to describe the research, Mr Monteith, are "thorough", "comprehensive" and "controlled". All that proves that the advantage of smaller class sizes stays with pupils right through their schooling, into adulthood and their entry into the labour market.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Will the member give way?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

In a moment. The evidence also suggests that the educational investment that I am advocating would more than pay for itself through strong, positive economic returns. I am about to address the issue of how much such investment would cost. If Rhona Brankin would like to make a point about that, I would be happy to take it.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

That is not the point that I want to make—I want to ask the member about research. Does he accept that research shows that much of the gap that exists between youngsters in school and in later life is created in the first few years of life? Does he also accept that an integrated approach to narrowing that gap—including measures such as early intervention, sure start programmes and the introduction of classroom assistants, as well as steps to reduce class sizes—works best? There is nothing about that in the SNP's manifesto.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

We have supported consistently all the measures to which the member refers. In this debate I am making the point that reducing class sizes is the single most important policy.

I want to talk about the cost of that policy. To implement our proposals in Scotland, we would need 3,115 extra teachers, taking today's pupil numbers as a baseline. At full operation, that equates to £105 million per year. Teacher training costs would need to be boosted by £56 million over seven years and maintained at an additional £3.1 million thereafter. The cost of additional school accommodation is more difficult to assess, but the Accounts Commission for Scotland noted that 31.6 per cent of Scottish primary schools were at 60 per cent capacity or less in the year 1999-2000, and it is likely that some space is already available. No building of new schools, however funded, that is in the pipeline at present should take place without accounting for a reduction in class sizes of the sort that we propose. The minister could achieve that with the stroke of a pen.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

No, I will not. I have a lot to get through.

The challenge as regards infrastructure is less great than it seemed even a year ago. Demographics help us.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Will the member give way?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I am sorry, but I will not. I must finish what I am saying.

Most observers have failed to note that the Executive projects a reduction in the number of teachers in Scotland after 2004. Its figures project a fall of 2,900 between 2004 and 2011. Simply by maintaining the present number of teachers and by taking advantage of the increasing availability of space in our schools, we could ensure that much of the programme could be funded from present resources.

Of course, not all of it could be funded from those resources. The SNP is a practical party, so we have had to argue that, in addition to meeting costs from present budgets and from cancelling planned reductions, we should meet them through an incremental implementation plan. We should work first in the areas of social deprivation, because in those areas the impact of our policy would be most obvious.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Will the member take an intervention?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I am sorry, but I will not; I want to finish what I am saying.

One might argue that the costs of the programme could be met from the underspend in education year on year by the Executive. Given its record of failure on expenditure, the Executive could learn much from the way in which the programme is planned and costed.

There is a final reason for us to implement this policy, based on naked self-interest. The chamber is full of baby boomers. The majority of us and the majority of our fellow citizens—

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

rose—

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The Parliament includes some aging baby boomers who are experts on Shakespeare, but only one or two of them.

The majority of us and a large number of our fellow citizens are from the baby boom generation. We are moving inexorably towards a situation in which hundreds of thousands of people who are now economically active—bizarrely, MSPs are classed as economically active—will be dependent, not on themselves, but on the smaller and smaller number of people who succeed them in the labour market. As the birth rate falls, the number of those on whose shoulders we will have to lean becomes smaller by the day.

The shrinking number of school pupils means that there will be a dwindling number of people to support their elders, who want to live longer and better. Those people will have to sustain not just that liability, but the massive public-private partnership liability that the Executive has produced.

For reasons of naked self-interest alone, it is absolutely essential that the present generation of school pupils and those about to enter school are equipped and prepared to the highest standard for their working lives. We in Scotland know that we have an underperforming economy. We are the generation that will have to plan to make it perform for the future, if we are to go to our old age able to sustain our standard of living, our standard of health care and our standard of welfare. Not only do we owe to our children the best education that we can give them; paradoxically, we owe it to ourselves.

When we see the chance of significantly improving education, of guaranteeing higher and longer-lasting achievement, of reducing learning support intervention and of assisting the most vulnerable in our society, we have an obligation to take it. When that opportunity means a better-educated work force that is capable of powering a better-performing economy, we would be fools to reject it. I want a better Scotland, and this policy would pave the way towards that. I also want the best Scotland—this policy would be the guarantor of that. A better Scotland, leading to the best Scotland—that is the aim of the SNP and of this policy. I ask the chamber to support that aim and the means of achieving it.

I move,

That the Parliament notes increasing research that indicates considerable short-, medium- and long-term benefits from reducing early primary class sizes, preferably to 18 or below, and the particular impact that such reductions have on children living in poverty; further notes the performance indicators 2000-01 report by the Accounts Commission published on 24 January 2002, which shows that the Scottish Executive has not yet achieved its own class size targets, and therefore calls on all parties in the Parliament to support the SNP's radical initiatives on this matter as an important step in not only assisting individual educational attainment and individual lifetime achievement, but also bringing collective economic benefit for Scotland as a whole.

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

It will come as no surprise to anyone in this chamber that I am not interested in naked self-interest—I am interested in the future of Scotland's children. I want to concentrate on that in my speech this morning.

I want to deal with some of the issues that Mr Russell has put before the chamber. Our programme for government includes a commitment to reduce class sizes in primary 1 to primary 3 to 30 pupils or less. Let me put the scale of that task in context. Returns for the 1998 school census showed that 939 P1 to P3 classes had 31 or more pupils in September of that year. For that reason, we adopted a staged approach, with the target applying to primary 1 from August 1999, to primary 1 and primary 2 from August 2000 and to primary 1 to primary 3 from August 2001. We backed up that policy with the resources needed to deal with the problem: £47 million was provided to education authorities to employ additional teachers and to fund classroom adaptations. The school census results in 1999 and 2000 showed that we were making progress. Preliminary evidence for 2001 suggests that that is still the case.

In August last year, the Executive asked authorities for an update on progress. From their returns, it is evident that, of only 90 primary 1 to primary 3 classes with more than 30 pupils, 53 of those met the regulations by having two teachers involved in the class. Twenty-four classes had excepted pupils, as defined by the regulations underpinning the commitment—for example, pupils who enrol in schools after the end of the placing round. Only 13 classes did not meet the regulations that underpin the programme for government commitment. I understand that, in four of those classes, the problem has now been addressed through the provision of two teachers.

We know that definitive results will only be available when the school census results are published in the spring. However, there has been significant progress and we are well on the way to meeting our target. I take this opportunity to congratulate education authorities on that impressive achievement—an achievement that is already benefiting children in schools across Scotland.

There is a body of research opinion that links class size with attainment, particularly in early-years education. However, within that body of opinion there is a range of views. Some researchers question whether a reduction in class sizes is the only or the best way of improving attainment levels.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I quoted three out of many studies in support of my view, and I would be happy to provide the minister with more. Will the minister say what studies she is quoting, as I would be delighted to read them? It is very difficult to find any studies that support her position.

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

If Mr Russell had read nothing other than the Scottish Parliament information centre research briefing on class sizes and pupil attainment, he would have found that there are a number of contrary opinions.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Is the minister aware of the study by the Heritage Foundation in the United States, which assessed whether small class sizes influence academic achievement and concluded that the effects of other factors not included in the data, such as teacher quality and teaching methods, were more significant than the effects of class sizes?

Is the minister also aware of the US Department of Education study of the issue and of a widely cited review by Glass and Smith entitled "Meta-analysis of research on the relationship of class size and achievement", which found that research

"does not support the expectation that smaller classes will of themselves result in greater academic gains for students".

In case Mike Russell is not convinced by those studies, I point to a report by the Thomas B Fordham Foundation, which reached similar conclusions. Does the minister accept that there is evidence to support the conflicting positions on this issue?

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

I want to move on to deal with some of the points that Mr Monteith makes—I thought that he was going to read out his whole speech there. I hope that he will allow me to intervene when the time comes.

This morning the SNP has provided members with some costings, but we must question whether its proposal is the best or the only way of dealing with the issues that we want to address. The research that has been cited on the effect of class sizes on attainment focuses on how pupils perform in standardised tests.

Mike Russell raised that issue, but everyone who is involved in education knows that education is about much more than performance in standardised tests. Ultimately, education is about giving every child the opportunity to reach their full potential and about producing young men and young women who can play a full part in society. Education is not just about providing people for the work force—that is one aim of education, but it is not the only one.

I remind members of the national priorities for education that the Executive set out and that the Parliament endorsed. Those priorities described what we want for all our young people. Education should raise the standards of attainment and achievement; provide a high-quality learning environment; promote equality and inclusion; involve parents; help to develop values and citizenship for young people; and equip pupils with the foundation skills, attitudes and expectations that they are going to need throughout their lives. We are investing to bring about the changes that we need to make.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will the minister accept an intervention?

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

Yes.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I wonder how the minister's priorities are going to be achieved, given the paucity of last week's local government settlement, which led to a cut of £17.2 million for Glasgow and a cut of 79 teaching posts. How will the council improve the education of Glaswegian youngsters if there are 79 fewer teachers?

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

I will move on to address some of the investment that has been made. [Interruption.] Perhaps Mr Gibson and other members of the SNP should listen to my answer. The Executive has given local authorities specific grants of £137 million for pre-school education in 2001-02. That sum is part of our overall investment in pre-school education of £467 million over the period 2001-04—Rhona Brankin emphasised the importance of early-years intervention. We have also invested £36 million in special educational needs projects.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will the minister give way?

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

No. I want to move on.

We are investing in modern information and communications technology equipment and training. A further investment of £23 million from the new opportunities fund has been made for ICT training for teachers, librarians and others, and £90 million is being invested in infrastructure and support. More money—a further £40 million—is coming in the period 2002-04 to sustain and renew the existing infrastructure. We are considering the existing problems with the school estate and what we can do with that money. Mike Russell needs to understand that although there are schools that have spare capacity—we can all identify those schools—some of them are not in locations that best meet the needs of the changing population.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

rose—

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

I will not take any more interventions, as I need to move on to talk about real schools, real people and real priorities.

As Minister for Education and Young People, I have visited a number of schools and have been impressed by initiatives that are making a positive contribution to children's education. On Monday, I visited a primary school in Prestonpans in East Lothian that has adopted an innovative use of the classroom assistants programme. At that school, the classroom assistant follows children from primary 1 through a number of classes in order to give a degree of consistency. All the primary 7 pupils whom I met could give me a definition of what the attempt to promote social inclusion meant to them in their daily work with other young people in the school. Teachers and children felt that the approach of having additional adults in the classroom had helped to give some pupils—particularly those who are most vulnerable and those who lacked confidence—greater reassurance and support. The school was working hard to take that initiative into secondary education.

That initiative has been welcomed as another positive step towards improving the quality of education. Our overall aim is to reduce the pupil to adult ratio across authorities. In 1999, we estimated that that would require around 5,000 classroom assistants. Feedback from people who are involved in education tells us that the initiative not only helps to reduce teachers' work loads, but allows teachers to teach children, which is what they do best. We know that teachers value the initiative because it allows them to reduce the time that they spend preparing materials and resources and gives them the opportunity to deal with individuals and groups who need help and support. In some instances, teachers have reported another positive outcome: they find a greater enthusiasm for the work that they have been trained to do and that they want to do.

I do not have time to develop some of the themes that I wanted to spend more time on. I put on record a final reminder: we believe that reducing class sizes is an important feature of education policy—we are well on the way to meeting our policy commitment—but it is not the only feature. We must examine the other initiatives, such as new community schools, that give the most disadvantaged young people opportunities to boost their attainment levels to the level of those who are at the top of the academic structure.

I move amendment S1M-2697.2, to leave out from first "notes" to end and insert:

"believes that class size is an important aspect of educational provision; notes that the performance indicators recently published by the Accounts Commission relate to the financial year 2000-01 whilst the targets in the Programme for Government relate to the financial year 2001-02; welcomes the progress that the Scottish Executive and local authorities have made in reducing the size of Primary 1 to Primary 3 classes; recognises that education is about developing individuals to their full potential, and considers that the Scottish Executive should continue to promote the raising of standards in education through the implementation of the National Priorities for Education at national, local authority and school level."

Kay Ullrich (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am sure that Brian Monteith would like to join me in congratulating Ayr United Football Club on reaching the final of the CIS Insurance cup last night.

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

That is not a point of order.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I have no problem in congratulating the three members of Hibernian Football Club who play for Ayr United on reaching the final of the league cup—it is just a pity that they had to beat Hibs to do so, but there we go. I am, as usual, magnanimous in defeat.

I am pleased to take part in this debate as it gives us an opportunity to lay to rest one of the great myths of modern politics: that the class size that a teacher teaches is crucial.

In the 1997 election, one of Labour's five big election pledges was its claim that it would reduce class sizes. That pledge was repeated in the 1999 Holyrood election, when the Labour party said:

"We are investing £52 million to reduce the numbers of pupils in primary classes 1 to 3 to 30 or below by August 2001, while maintaining parental choice."

Of course, that pledge was misleading—it was a gesture towards a problem that was far greater in England than in Scotland. Some members may disagree, but if Mike Russell wanted a better example of how a London-centric media reports an English view during a general election, I cannot think of one.

When the Tories came to power in 1979, classes of up to 40 pupils were commonplace at primary stage in Scotland. We negotiated an agreement with the trade unions to put in place a limit of 33 and, by 1997, there were only 2,685 classes of more than 30 pupils—I say "only" to stress that 2,685 is too many. However, it was no mere accident that the situation had improved markedly. During the Conservatives' all too brief reign of 18 years, we increased expenditure on education by 15 per cent in real terms. It is important to note that the trend was towards a continuing reduction of class sizes and an improvement in pupil to teacher ratios—not pupil to adult ratios. The reality of the situation that Labour inherited was that it was improving.

Irrespective of that reality, Labour pushed the idea that class sizes were too big. Although it is not yet August, I can tell from current information and from schools' likely intake that the Scottish Executive will not meet its target. The reason for that failure is quite simple and exposes Labour's fundamental political weakness. The Labour party is completely out of touch with the needs and desires of ordinary, everyday Scottish parents. The truth that the party cannot fathom is that parents would rather send their children to a school that has classes of 30 or more pupils, if that school has a good reputation, than send them to a school that has classes of 15 or 18 pupils, if that school has a poor or bad reputation.

Parents are interested in the academic performance of pupils, which, at primary level, is chiefly about building a foundation in numeracy and literacy. The minister was right to point to the importance of a more rounded education, but it is just as important for parents to believe that their children will learn respect for their elders, discipline, a sense of teamwork and individual endeavour and character. That approach may be reflected in the wearing of uniform, punctuality, creativity and spontaneity. It is important that those values are encouraged in schools.

Whatever parents may take from their local schools, the truth of the matter is that they want to make their own choice of school. I argue—

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Will Brian Monteith give way?

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Certainly.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I am interested to hear that the Tory party is continuing to ignore public opinion and public demand—that is what led the party to its sorry state. Fifty-five per cent of people who were asked want smaller class sizes and the teaching profession has been arguing for smaller class sizes since 1943. Why does Brian Monteith think that he knows better?

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

If Mike Russell listens to the rest of my speech, he will find out that I do not believe that I know better or that there is an ideal in education. I recommend that he read my article in The Times Educational Supplement on what education is, where he will find an explanation.

I repeat that whatever parents take from local schools, they want to make their own choice of school. Therefore, the most important educational reform that the Conservative party made in Government was not self-governing schools or changes to the curriculum, but the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, which enshrined in law Alex Fletcher's desire to give parents a right to choose their son's or daughter's school. It was at that time that the debate about school class sizes became irrelevant, because the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 meant that parents began to dictate class sizes by exercising choice. In the light of the gradual reduction in class sizes and the growing power of parents, for Labour—new or old, tankie or Trotsky—to suggest that it could or should reduce class sizes was nothing more than a political gesture, which it sought to use to help it win the general election in 1997.

We are faced with a motion that is laughable in its simplicity and dangerous in its naivety, for the Scottish nationalists say that we should go further and cut class sizes to 18 pupils or fewer. Mike Russell is Scotland's gesture politician par excellence. Before he takes that as a compliment, let me remind the Parliament that his gestures are all empty. His soundbites are as lasting as his erstwhile moustache and they have about as much attraction. We should not worry about Mike Russell, for—as Magnus Linklater has noticed—his arguments

"might be dismissed as the rantings of a second-rate polemicist."

If some schools believe that they should operate with smaller classes, we should let them. I do not believe that there is an ideal way to teach children, because every child is an individual who requires a different approach.

We should seek to empower our schools with greater powers, so that, if parents choose smaller classes, or boy-only or girl-only classes, or Gaelic-medium classes, or set or streamed classes, they are able to do so. Politicians can cite every piece of research that has ever been produced, but in the final analysis only parents should decide how their children are taught. That is why the reform of our education system must start from the pioneering work of Alex Fletcher in 1980.

I move amendment S1M-2697.1, to leave out from "increasing" to end and insert:

"that the reduction in class sizes in Primary 1 to Primary 3 to 18 would involve a substantial revenue cost and an unquantifiable capital cost together with a removal of parental choice; acknowledges 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."

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

I am not sure whether I qualify as a very aged baby boomer, but I remember 1943 well.

It is some time since I have said nice things about Mike Russell in the Parliament. Members know that I enjoy doing that. He is a man of great urbanity and wit—[MEMBERS: "Vanity."] To be truthful, I dictated my speech to my personal assistant about 10 minutes ago and, although I said "urbanity", she wrote down "vanity". Mike Russell's debating skills are widely acknowledged. His formidable forensic style of questioning in committee is equally admired. He displays an easy charm, which verges on the oleaginous from time to time. That charm is usually tempered by a zest of lemon that prevents it from being cloying.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I am slightly concerned that Ian Jenkins is perhaps not a member of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee.

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

I am not quite a paid-up member of the Mike Russell fan club; I am an associate member of the branch that is chaired by Magnus Linklater. We realise that our hero is a flawed character.

Mike Russell has shaved off his moustache, so I suppose that I could use the word "barefaced" about him. However, I would not say that he was a barefaced liar. Since he shaved off his moustache, we have been able to see his nose a bit more clearly and it is not yet of Pinocchio-like proportions. I would not say that he is a stranger to the truth, but perhaps his acquaintance with the truth is occasionally more fleeting than we would wish. He does not tell lies, but—like members of all parties in the Parliament—he tells half-truths and twists the truth to suit his arguments.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I had been enjoying the member's speech up until now. My enjoyment has just fallen away.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I think that "vanity" was right.

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

Like almost everyone in the Scottish National Party, Mr Russell appears to be afflicted periodically by jaundice; he seems to be unable to recognise a good-news story when he sees one.

The fact that the number of classes with more than 30 pupils has fallen from almost 1,000 in 1998 to only 13 represents a good-news story. As Mike Russell well knows, the statistics that he quoted do not reflect the present situation. In any case, the trend is clear and the commitment on class sizes is on the point of being realised. Similarly, the primary 1 to primary 3 attainment levels are improving—progress is being made.

To be honest, the provision for our youngest children is massively better than it has ever been. We should take into account the increase in pre-school and nursery provision; the sure start scheme; early intervention; more classroom assistants; reductions in class sizes; and the rise in attainment. All that represents a good-news story at this stage. It is surprising that Mike Russell should pick class sizes and pupil attainment as topics for debate, because we seem to be making good progress on them.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

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

Not at the moment.

Although the record on class sizes and pupil attainment is good, everyone would recognise that in many other areas much improvement needs to be made.

I do not disagree totally with Mike Russell about class sizes, which are important. There should be a drive across the board to reduce class sizes and to maintain them at a reasonable and manageable level. We could debate what that means, but that is the principle. There are too many large classes at standard grade and higher level. It should be recognised that teaching methods and the demands of the assessment system that is in place mean that subjects that used to considered as classroom subjects, for which the numbers did not matter, make different demands on teachers and pupils. The gap that used to exist between practical and classroom subjects has been reduced and there is now a maximum classroom number in secondary schools of 20.

I am delighted that research projects show the effectiveness of smaller class sizes, which always used to be a bit nebulous and difficult to prove. Incidentally, I was a bit worried that pieces of research had been published by someone called Galton and someone called Simpson—Galton and Simpson did not seem to be the best source for information.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member take an intervention?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

No, the member is in his final minute.

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

Am I? Crikey!

Small class sizes are important not just for measurable attainment, but for other important aspects of education such as relationships within classes; the kind of attention that teachers can give to individual pupils; and the kind of formative marking and assessment that can be undertaken.

In that context, I want to mention the proposals to amend or remove the "Schools (Scotland) Code 1956", on which consultations are being undertaken. If the code is scrubbed—which I am not saying is the wrong thing to do—I urge ministers to ensure in some other way that there are clear and binding statements about maximum class sizes. If possible, it should be stipulated that classes should be smaller than they were before.

For all the reasons that I have outlined, I support a movement towards smaller class sizes. However, for reasons that are alluded to in the Conservative amendment, I fear that Mike Russell weakens the case by setting a target that is unrealistic in the present situation. National priorities will be served if we can establish class sizes at a reasonable level. All parties in the Parliament will recognise that that is only one factor in the promotion of the national priorities. We should work together on all fronts to give all our children the educational opportunities that they deserve.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

My attainment target is to shoehorn too many members into the time available. Please keep speeches to a maximum of four minutes.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I am pleased to say that I am probably too young to call myself a baby boomer. However, I declare an interest in that I am a mother of a son who was born weeks after the 1997 general election to the echoes of the mantra, "Education, education, education." That young son is due to start primary 1 later this year.

Nothing is as precious as a child. Nothing holds as many prospects as a child's mind and their capacity to learn. The Parliament should have no greater sense of responsibility than in how it develops policies to nurture and develop the minds of our young children. A debate on education provokes passions—a passion for education and the passion of anger. I will address both aspects.

The SNP is passionate about education because it affects the life chances of our constituents. We are passionate about education as parents and as Scots who are conscious of our educational tradition. Why do I get angry when we have a debate about education? The situation that my constituents in West Lothian face makes me angry. What has the Executive's education policy achieved in that area? West Lothian should be the cockpit of the knowledge economy—it needs to be. In the interests of a better Scotland, the children of West Lothian should have the education and skills to drive us forward. West Lothian should be the cockpit of the knowledge economy, but in the latest report from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education, our schools come 24th for reading, 30th out of 32 for writing and 29th for mathematics. More than 15 per cent of West Lothian schools have not met the target for reduction in class sizes.

Let me explain what has happened in West Lothian. To meet the artificial target that class sizes should be not greater than 30, pupils were shoehorned into composite classes. For 2001-02, composite classes account for 23 per cent of all primary 1, primary 2 and primary 3 classes. There are now composite classes in 78 per cent of all primary schools. In the past year, the number of composite classes for primaries 1 to 3 has increased by 9 per cent. All of that has been done simply to meet the target.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Does the member think that the target that was set in Mike Russell's opening speech would be achieved by any less artificial means?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Absolutely. Our target would be met by investment in teachers. Whereas the Executive will reduce teacher numbers by 2,900 between 2004 and 2011, the SNP wants teachers to be available to ensure that we achieve our pupil-teacher ratio.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Will the member give way?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

No, I will continue to develop that point.

We should listen to what teachers and head teachers say. Head teachers have told me that they would prefer the flexibility of making their own choices, rather than the dislocation and disruption of composite classes, which result from the requirement to meet the class size target. Where is the evidence that the target is working?

When Jack McConnell was Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs, I asked him repeatedly to explain the educational value to schools of shoehorning pupils into composite classes, when the reduction that was being achieved was only from 32 to 30. Where is the value in the Executive's education policy? Mike Russell cited the evidence that shows that reducing class sizes to 18 can make a real difference.

If we want the best for Scotland, we should examine the education system that we had in the past, which was built on a passion for education and learning. The system was built with boldness and vision, and by radical but effective policies.

Tinkering about will not make the major difference that we desperately need for young people.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Will the member give way?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

No, the member will not.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I am in my final few seconds.

We must decide whether we have the courage to take up the challenge of building our education system on the boldness and vision of the past. We must decide whether we will carry the torch of innovation and excellence. The SNP has the vision and a policy that can achieve that. If members are up to the challenge, they should come with us; if they are not, they should not praise what is mere tinkering with the system.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Today's debate on attainment is important, but we must not lose sight of our broader social inclusion agenda. A debate on education cannot take place in isolation. We must never forget that some of our children cannot improve their attainment because factors outside school prevent them even from getting to the stage at which they are ready to learn. That is why education needs to be addressed alongside housing, problems with addiction, domestic abuse and crime. Those issues need to be addressed in the round, because tackling them will also improve our young people's attainment and opportunities.

I want to acknowledge the hard work that has been done in pre-school and early school learning to address the inequalities in our communities. Members may be aware of the improving early-stage attainment figures for numeracy and literacy in Glasgow schools. That is a positive trend. We must congratulate Glasgow City Council and the staff and pupils involved, because such improvement gives us hope that the Scottish Executive's strategy is beginning to work. There is no opportunity for complacency, but there are grounds for hope. We need to build on that.

Two things affect my perspective: first, I was a teacher for 20 years; secondly, I am a mother of two, who has one child in primary 2 and one who is a pre-schooler. Both of my children have benefited from the investment that has been made in early-stage learning. I am sure that they will benefit more.

I would be foolish to argue that class sizes have no impact on the general capacity to learn, but I contend that reduction in class sizes is only one lever by which attainment can be improved. As a teacher for 20 years, I taught classes of 30, of 20 and of 15. I also sometimes taught classes of only four or five. It depended on how complex the needs of the youngsters were but, in certain circumstances, the group of four or five could be the most troublesome. Even if there were only four or five in the class, the support of someone else was needed. The levels of attainment did not necessarily depend on how many were in the class.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The evidence that is available that suggests that small class sizes can work also suggests that teachers would be required to change their teaching practices to suit those smaller class sizes. Therefore, if we introduced class sizes that were as small as those that Mike Russell has suggested, we would need not only more classrooms and more teachers but a large amount of in-service training, so that teachers were equipped to deal with small classes. Would not extra training be needed to deal with the very difficulties that Johann Lamont has highlighted?

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Teaching practices may indeed need to be changed, but in some cases that could also bring benefits. Some subjects benefit from a different approach. Teachers may need to move away from the teacher-talking, children-listening approach. My view is that class sizes should depend on circumstances. It is not always the case that teachers should not be able to teach a larger group. It is significant that, although the education unions have always argued for smaller class sizes, they do not argue that the policy should be loaded in the way that Mike Russell has suggested. We should not use only one lever.

For a number of reasons, I am anxious about the SNP's position. There is a lesson to be learned from the targets that were set for things such as waiting lists. The targets ended up driving policy and priorities, without necessarily achieving what was sought. There is a danger that concentrating on class sizes will overwhelm everything else without doing what is intended. We might end up resourcing something that does not deliver. [Interruption.] Had Mike Russell been in one of my classes during my 20 years of teaching, he would not have got away with the behaviour that he has got away with today.

Flexibility is essential. We need to consider what happens at different times in our classes. We need proper support for youngsters with special educational needs. We need support to integrate youngsters with disabilities into mainstream education. At times, teachers should be able to work one to one with a troubled child, which would not be possible if we were to invest in only one element. To use only one lever would be to deny ourselves the flexibility that must be available.

I have only a short time left, but let me make one more point. The SNP has said that it would provide significant investment to bring down class sizes. I would not demur from the idea of investing in education, but I would need to be convinced that such investment would be effective.

Mike Russell said that his policy would help the disadvantaged. My fear is that the bulk of the money would come from the transfer of resources towards magnet schools and away from schools that are under capacity. The latter may have fewer pupils, but they certainly do not have fewer problems and difficulties. The SNP's one-size-fits-all strategy would have a serious impact on flexibility and on our capacity to narrow the gap in equality of achievement in education. For Labour members, that equality of achievement is as important as anything else.

Colin Campbell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Having gone to school for the first time in 1943, I am a pre-baby-boomer. I am glad that, when my class was 40 in number, someone was predicting that class sizes would come down to 30 some time in the future.

From time to time, I resent the way in which the Administration debates with a rather patronising tone, as if it was the fount of all knowledge and wisdom. I dispute that the Executive knows everything about education, as I spent the last 16 years of my career in education in deprived areas. Every teacher knows that having small classes creates a far better teaching atmosphere. Large classes seem to work only with well-behaved docile pupils who have been rigidly disciplined. Children are not universally docile and, fortunately, fear-based rigid discipline with its attendant repression has gone.

I mention those things because of my previous experience with Strathclyde Regional Council, whose administrators and budget holders were very quick to say that small class sizes were not an issue. I am pleased that the representatives of the party that controlled the Strathclyde Regional Council that I worked for now believe that reducing class sizes is a good idea. Their views have moved on a little. However, I have two complaints: first, the Labour Executive has not quite achieved its objective of having class sizes no greater than 30; secondly, that objective is quite under-ambitious.

Let me put the argument at its crudest. If a child is in a class of 30 for three hours and the teacher divides the time evenly, the child can only demand six minutes of the teacher's time. In a class of 18, the child would get 10 minutes. Of course, we all know that teaching does not work like that. The teacher's time is consumed variously by activities such as group supervision and listening to reading. Teachers need to diagnose problems and solve them in class, or establish the evidence to call in the further help that was mentioned earlier. The opportunities for doing that are manifestly greater in a class of 18 than in a class of 30.

The hard evidence is available. In 1991, a sample from 800 Texas districts, which contained over 2.4 million children, produced this conclusion in the Harvard Journal on Legislation:

"student achievement fell as the student/teacher ratio increased for every student above an 18 to 1 ratio."

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Will the member confirm that the SNP, in its 1999 manifesto, said that it would have class sizes of 25 only when it had achieved independence? What will the SNP have to achieve before it has class sizes of 18?

Colin Campbell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

As Rhona Brankin knows, achieving independence would be the answer to most of our troubles. It would unleash the wealth of this nation—wealth that currently runs off to the south to subsidise it.

North Carolina experimented with smaller classes in 1995-96. Its target was 15, and its evaluation was that:

"Compared to a matched group of students in classes that had not been phased into the smaller class initiative, students in the smaller classes outperformed the comparison group in first, second and third grades on both reading and mathematics tests."

A primary head teacher told me recently that his teachers had said that, if the class size went beyond 26, they were not in academic control of the class. Being in academic control—and, indeed, in disciplinary control—is the acid test.

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

I acknowledge Mr Campbell's experience at the coalface—or the chalkface, I am not sure which. Does he agree that the classroom assistants programme has offered the opportunity to do exactly the thing that he is talking about—to give teachers more time to be directly involved with pupils? Does he agree that the adult-pupil ratio is the crucial factor?

Colin Campbell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

No. I am sorry, but as a teacher I can accept that having classroom assistants has a value—in tying laces, wiping noses, sharpening pencils— [Interruption.] Labour members should let me finish and not take the chance to snipe. It does them no good. Having classroom assistants has a value in those ways, and in all the other important supportive tasks that assistants do in class. However, having assistants is not the same as increasing the ratio of teachers to children. That is the acid test in all this.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

What would Mr Campbell do with the assistants?

Colin Campbell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Look. Education is education, right?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Mr Campbell, you are running out of time. Come to a conclusion please.

Colin Campbell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

The crunch point is that every child who slips through the educational net at the start—because classes are too big, because the teacher is harassed or unsupported, or because the psychological services cannot be accessed—is a child who is likely to have little self-esteem, to be under-ambitious and to become downright anti-social.

As has been said, education is about preparing children for life. To do that well, schools have to give individual pupils opportunities to build on small successes, developing their self-esteem and their hopes for the future. That is unquestionably more achievable in classes of 18 than in classes of 30. I agree that 30 is better than the previous 32, but, as Michael Russell said, we want the best for Scotland and a target of 18.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

I am tempted to ask whether my tie is fixed straight for Colin Campbell, just to be sure that I am okay to make this contribution.

None of the speeches so far has disputed that reducing class sizes is an important aim. What is being debated is the scale of the change, whether it will fit in with other economic, social and educational objectives, and whether it will be practicable in the period of time that has been suggested.

The problem with Michael Russell and the SNP's approach this morning—which has been reheated from a previous debate on educational attainment—is that we still have not heard the fine details of how the £100 million will be put together. As Johann Lamont asked, where will that money be targeted? From memory, I think that the SNP said that the money would be targeted on priority areas, but it is interesting that no one in the SNP has reaffirmed such a commitment.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

It was in my speech.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

Thanks very much—but Michael Russell can remain seated rather than intervening at the moment.

Michael Russell has been quoted in the past as saying that testing is positively harmful for children and that we should look to the Soviet Union. I do not know whether that is the exact model that he now has in mind—in fact, the only person here who is modelling for the Soviet Union is Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, who is on the Conservative front bench this morning. Michael Russell also spoke about going backwards rather than forwards, which is similar to a saying of Lenin's about taking one step forwards and two steps back.

As Johann Lamont said, many factors—including class sizes—impact on children's education. Children's social environment is important. Colin Campbell alluded to that, albeit rather indelicately.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Does the member recall that other saying of Lenin's—that we cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs? Clearly, the SNP's policy will require a great many eggs to be broken, certainly among classroom assistants.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

I want to touch on that issue. Many factors impact on education: social class; attendance at school; supportive family environments that ensure that attendance; and, more important, the quality of the teaching environment. Evidence from Glasgow has shown that there is no doubt that classroom assistants have transformed education. They have done that not by doing the minor things in class that many teachers initially thought they would do, but by being a key adult in the classroom who genuinely assists the qualified teacher, with the teaching expertise, to develop young people's skills. Assistants are now vital members of any classroom and school community.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will Mr McAveety take an intervention?

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

I thank Mr Gibson for wanting to intervene. He has reminded me that he referred to 79 posts being cut in Glasgow. Let us get the facts clear. Those posts will not impact on the curriculum or the teaching environment. Mr Gibson omitted the facts about the situation in Glasgow—perhaps that is indicative of the kind of contribution that SNP members make. The increase in Glasgow's education budget has been more than 10 per cent this year, as a result of the local government settlement over the next three years. Labour members in that authority, unlike SNP members, have identified education as the fundamental priority.

Earlier this week, Michael Russell and I were at the Education, Culture and Sport Committee. An esteemed professor of education, when asked, said that there had never been a golden age of Scottish education. I agree. The central problem with Michael Russell's motion is that it tries to create a new myth that class size is the only, or the central, way of increasing educational attainment levels in Scotland. I therefore say to Michael Russell that, as with his ego, size is not the only thing that matters.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

I welcome the Executive's amendment because it is less self-congratulatory and more balanced than some of the things that I have been asked to vote for in the past. I am happy to support it; it is reasonable.

We all agree that education needs more investment. The Executive deserves credit for having increased our expenditure on education, but we must all acknowledge that there is still a long way to go.

The SNP motion raises the question of how we can concentrate the available money. The SNP suggests a radical reduction in class sizes. We should work towards reducing class sizes as well as towards making other improvements. However, I feel that we should concentrate on increasing the staffing that is available in schools. If I were running a school, I would use the extra staff in one-to-one tuition for pupils who have, or cause, difficulties, rather than in simply reducing all class sizes by so many. Other people may take a different view, but I feel that we should concentrate on improving the staffing and on letting the schools get on with teaching more efficiently than they are doing at the moment.

I repeat a suggestion that I have made before. We should have an anti-bumf tsar in schools and Government departments. The weight of paperwork involves teachers in far too much activity that is not teaching. If there is no anti-bumf tsar, I am happy to volunteer for the job. The administrative overload on teachers is an important point to consider.

Another argument against a rapid decrease in class sizes in primary 1 and primary 2 is that it would have a serious effect in schools that are full and popular. We would have to put up lots of huts and go back to where we were 30 years ago; or, instead of, say, 60 pupils from a local area entering a school, there would be only 36—based on the class size of 18 that the SNP proposes—which would deprive 24 pupils whose parents wanted them to go to that school. We must consider that issue carefully.

We all want to improve education. Class sizes are part of that. However, the SNP is mistaken to focus so much on that particular issue, rather than on promoting a balanced programme of improvement.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Brian Monteith has pointed out, using valid statistics, that the situation regarding class sizes in Scotland improved under the Conservatives. We also left a legacy of improving teacher-pupil ratios. However, Labour will not achieve its much-trumpeted targets by August, because in a democracy it cannot dictate to parents where they should send their children to school. Labour likes to dictate its own agenda and dogma, but woe betide Labour if it starts to interfere with the rights and choices of parents.

Parental choice is perhaps most important in rural schools, which are often under threat of closure. It seems extraordinary to me that parents in remote rural areas are put through the hell of having to fight repeatedly to keep local primary schools open, when those small primary schools often have small classes—the very thing that the Government wants.

Two summers ago, I campaigned in Argyll and Bute, alongside valiant parents and teachers, against the closure of six primary schools. Their commendable efforts prevailed and all the schools were saved. However, the schools remain under threat, because, as I was told by the board of Glassary Primary School at Kilmichael, the latest consultations on safe school buildings and what to do to develop and upgrade them is fast becoming a school rationalisation programme that will close smaller schools and move pupils to larger centres.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I remind the member that members of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee were involved in that campaign too and helped to achieve a change of mind in Argyll. I pay tribute to Cathy Peattie, who was the reporter on that issue.

Does Jamie McGrigor accept that one of the inevitable consequences of the Executive's desperate rush to private-public partnership projects is the closure of small schools? That is quite unacceptable. Does he agree that there should be a presumption against closure in most circumstances?

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

In England, the Department for Education and Skills has put aside and ring-fenced large sums of money to protect small rural schools that are threatened by closure. Different councils can bid for money for that purpose. I urge the Executive to do the same thing in Scotland, where the problem is far more acute.

Labour is happy to blame councils but, in the case of Argyll and Bute Council, that is unfair. Education costs are very high because there are 26 inhabited islands and island education is 1.5 times more expensive per pupil. The report from Dr Arthur Midwinter—a Labour man—entitled "The Mismatch Effect on Council Tax Levels in Argyll and Bute", underlines the mismatch whereby Argyll and Bute taxpayers pay £100 more per head than they should for increasingly poor services.

The report also makes a point of highlighting a disparity in education. In paragraph 16, Arthur Midwinter says:

"we would expect a remote rural authority such as Argyll to have fewer pupils per teacher because of the incidence of small schools."

He goes on to say that Argyll and Bute's position in relation to class sizes is close to the Scottish average because of the deliberate decision to increase the pupil-teacher ratio in larger schools to compensate for the lower ratio in the small schools. That is shocking and shows a regard only for figures and budgets and a complete disregard for the welfare and good education of the pupils. I sincerely hope that that policy will be abandoned at once and, forby, that the Executive will follow Dr Midwinter's recommendation to grant a further £3.5 million to Argyll and Bute Council to redress the council tax imbalance.

Small class sizes are desirable because they should lead to more individual attention for each pupil. Brian Monteith is right when he says that that is not the whole answer. Scotland needs good teachers in good schools with more power to decide how best to provide an education that will give Scotland back the reputation that it once had for excellence in education.

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I want to talk about evidence. The SNP has quoted extensively this morning the evidence that supports our proposal for class sizes of 18 pupils. I want to point out to Brian Monteith that we were quoting from qualitative research, not meta-analysis. There is a difference.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Will the member give way?

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I am 25 seconds into my speech. I am sorry if the member did not get on the Labour speakers list, but she cannot keep intervening on SNP members to find the time.

The evidence is that the minister has missed the target. In her opening remarks she attempted to slide the dates for the Executive's targets and say that they would still be met and that they remained the same. I will quote the Executive press release of August 1999, when the regulations on small class sizes were introduced:

"Regulations which came into force this month will ensure the Scottish Executive's commitment to reduce class sizes in the first three years of primary school will be met by the target date of 2001."

The minister attempted to imply that that meant 2001-02. The press release from 1999 goes on to say that the target for primary 3 will be met in August 2001. The Executive has failed to meet those targets and the evidence is there to show it.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Will the member give way?

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I am sorry, but I have already told the member—I am beginning to sound like the member of the education profession that I used to be.

I want to turn to a report from the Scottish Council Foundation and Children in Scotland, entitled "Children, families and learning: A new agenda for education". The report says:

"we need to develop and pursue a policy agenda that is rigorous and evidence-based."

Everything that we do should be evidence based. I would like to give the minister the evidence that the Executive's policies are not producing. The problems of large class sizes can be seen in the increase by 20 per cent in 2000-01 of unauthorised absences from Scottish primary schools. That is evidence of unsettled pupils not receiving enough pastoral care from the overburdened teachers of classes of more than 30 pupils.

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

The focus of my opening speech was on how we raise attainment levels for all pupils. I stressed that the Executive takes very seriously the problems, such as those that Fiona McLeod has identified, in engaging pupils. We have provided the education, resources and back-up to meet the targets. Does the member accept that?

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

How can I accept that when I have just provided the evidence that the Executive has failed to meet its own targets? They are not my targets, but those of the Executive.

The Scottish Council Foundation report "Children, families and learning: A new agenda for education" pointed out that we need the evidence. I have more evidence from the HMIE report "Standards and Quality in Primary Schools: Mathematics 1998-2001". That report finds that, in 50 per cent of primary schools, there is weakness in problem solving and inquiry work in maths; in 45 per cent of primary schools, there is a significant weakness in scientific investigative skills. That is evidence that we are failing to teach our pupils how to learn and how to think.

If we do not have thinking schools, we will not be able to meet the commitments of the new job market, which is always looking for retraining and reskilling. That is based on being taught to think and learn at the earliest stages of school and to take that throughout one's life. Lifelong learning begins at school—it is not a corrective for when school lets people down. The key to delivery of such information handling skills is small classes, where pupils have the space to think and support their development.

I must draw the minister's attention to the HMIE report that shows that in secondary 1 and secondary 2 we are coasting. We are not helping pupils in those years to match their information skills to the wider world of information. I would like to comment on the importance of school libraries to that key skill, but I do not have time.

The evidence shows that small classes lead to information handling skills and abilities in pupils that make them lifelong learners. Scotland's pupils deserve nothing less than to become lifelong learners from the day that they enter education. Scotland can afford nothing less.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

I thought Mike Russell was getting a bit personal when he started talking about baby booms. I am only doing my bit for Kenny Gibson's drive for a greater population. I realised later that he was not talking about me; he was talking about himself being a 1960s baby boomer. I think he is kidding himself.

Yes, I have a vested interest in securing the best possible education for our pre-school, primary and secondary children. I tell Fiona McLeod that lifelong learning does not start when people go to school. Lifelong learning starts on the day we are born and inequality begins on the day we are born. We need to consider all those factors. Parents are one of the most important factors in what children become.

I benefited from a great education in Jedburgh in the Borders.