Scottish Parliament, 13 June 2002

450 contributions from 78 members. The official report.

Introduction

Youth Justice

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

Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S1M-3194, in the name of James Douglas-Hamilton, on youth justice.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

Last Friday, I had the good fortune to meet representatives of the children's panels of Edinburgh. They raised a number of issues. In particular, they confirmed that they would have no problem with the idea of the children's panel system being given more powers and resources to underpin panels' jurisdiction. In their view, there is nothing wrong with examining the deeds and the needs of young offenders at the same time.

From their standpoint, something has to be done, and it is their conviction that the interests of children are paramount, but the public interest is also very important. That interest must be properly taken into account. In making disposals, an appropriate balance must be struck between the interests of the child and the need to protect the public.

Youth justice is a critical subject, and we have sought to set the agenda and highlight what is needed in that connection.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Will Lord James take an intervention?

James (Conservative, Lothians)

I have only just begun. The member will get plenty of chances before the debate is finished.

We have repeatedly warned that a shortage of secure accommodation places prevents children's panels from making the disposals that they would wish to make. That cannot be in the public interest. It is not in the public interest for a young offender to be sent to prison because of a shortage of secure accommodation, and it is not in the public interest for young offenders who have committed persistent and serial offences to be dealt with leniently on the ground of lack of accommodation. The need for more resources for secure places, whether they are provided under the education budget or the justice budget, is of the utmost importance.

Dissatisfaction with the present situation is not restricted to our own representations. Youth crime is a growing problem and accounts for 40 per cent of all offences. When a young person is arrested by the police, they cannot be detained unless they are unruly. Because of that, as young offenders learn to work the system, they quieten down when arrested and are consequently released, leaving the police to complete the paperwork while they go free to commit more offences.

In approximately 80 per cent of cases involving young offenders, the reporter to the children's panel takes no action on the offence. That is often because the child has been referred on other grounds, including social grounds, which can obscure the gravity of the offences.

I understand that places have had to be found in Liverpool and Newcastle because of a shortage of secure accommodation in Scotland. Police officers have had to be taken off the streets to escort young offenders. The lack of secure accommodation simply must be tackled.

At a time when a great many people feel that the powers of the children's panels should be strengthened, the Executive is seeking to pass a bill that would enable 16 and 17-year-olds to be sent to children's panels. Those provisions have caused considerable alarm among the children's panels themselves. They believe that the present resources could be inadequate and that the panels might well need more powers.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Will Lord James clarify whether he supports the proposals contained in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill to refer 16 and 17-year-olds to the children's panel system?

James (Conservative, Lothians)

Most certainly not. I wish to make it absolutely clear that we regard such a step as the wrong signal to send. The children's panels have many extremely difficult cases to deal with as it is. Furthermore, it is not unknown for panel members to be assaulted. They believe that it is undesirable for them to give their addresses out, as that practice has led to exchanges of a disagreeable nature. Those who appear before panel members know their home addresses. That matter requires to be addressed.

In the Scottish Daily Mail on 2 May, Jackie Baillie MSP said this about 16 and 17-year-olds being sent to children's hearings:

"These sorts of cases must end up in courts - they cannot just go to Children's Panels. Local communities are really concerned about youth disorder and vandalism. By all means give youngsters a chance - but we need to get the right balance. I don't think the Bill does that as it stands."

Similarly, Paul Martin MSP was quoted as saying—

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Will Lord James take an intervention?

James (Conservative, Lothians)

Just let me finish. I am quoting Labour MSPs. George Lyon has yet to join the Labour party, but I can tell him that Labour MSPs speak with a great deal more authority on this issue than members of his party.

Paul Martin MSP said:

"I don't think sending 16 and 17 year olds who repeatedly break the law to the Children's Panel will help."

Paul Martin and Jackie Baillie were right, as was Johann Lamont, who has referred to a meeting attended by some 700 of her constituents.

Jack Urquhart of the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents said on 14 April in the Mail on Sunday in Scotland:

"People aged 16 and 18 are adults ... fully aware of their circumstances. If they are put before a children's hearing, particularly those who are persistent offenders, they will simply laugh at the justice system".

Graeme Pearson, an assistant chief constable of Strathclyde police, said:

"Nobody likes to lock up children, but sometimes an offender needs to be taken out of the environment in which they have been offending to protect the community and him or herself."

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

So far, we have heard what Lord James is objecting to, but we have not heard what the Conservative party's proposals are. Phil Gallie is not here this morning, but two weeks ago he proposed

"a referendum ... on the issue of bringing back the birch."—[Official Report, 28 May 2002; c 12160.]

Is bringing back flogging what Lord James is now proposing?

James (Conservative, Lothians)

With the greatest respect, it is easy for the member to mention alleged quotations by Phil Gallie when he is not here, but I understand that he has made no such assertion.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

It is in the Official Report .

James (Conservative, Lothians)

If the member would exercise just a little bit of patience, I will come to our proposals in a moment.

On 3 May, no less a person than the First Minister chose to raise the matter in an interview with the Daily Record. He said that there are

"Youths out on the street causing violence, causing disorder, causing vandalism, graffiti and terrifying not just older people but other young people. I am absolutely determined to tackle that and we will be putting in place the policies that will deal with it."

We have chosen youth justice as the subject for this debate because we think it right that the First Minister and the Executive should have the opportunity to clarify their policies.

When we last called a debate on youth justice, on 20 September last year, the current First Minister was the Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs. He chose not to participate and to leave it to his Liberal Democrat colleagues, so we look forward to the contribution of Cathy Jamieson, the Minister for Education and Young People. We would like to know, for example, whether all the talk about youth courts was merely a bit of sabre rattling—with an impending election in mind—or whether the Executive will actually introduce appropriate amendments to the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill.

It is somewhat preposterous that the Executive is willing to amend bills to cover wildlife crimes but seems less interested when it comes to youth crime. What is the point of pledging to act later if the Executive has the power to act now? Perhaps it comes down to the First Minister's difficulty in getting his ideas past his Lib Dem deputy who appears to be considerably softer on crime.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Does the member agree that his motion pre-empts the serious debate that is being held in the Justice 1 Committee and that it might be appropriate to reflect on what it has to say on the serious issues that he has to address, particularly those relating to 16 and 17-year-olds?

James (Conservative, Lothians)

That debate is being held by the Justice 2 Committee. I very much hope that the question whether the Executive intends to lodge appropriate amendments, or at least support them, will be clarified in due course. That would offer a healthy way forward.

We have put forward a number of clear and unequivocal proposals, and I will now proceed to answer Mike Rumbles's question. We have made it clear that we strongly support an increase in the number of secure accommodation places, so that children's panels can make the disposals that they wish to make effectively.

Detention is a punishment that is widely used in schools. Similarly, children's hearings could order a young offender to attend a school or similar establishment in the evenings and on weekends, with parents being responsible for picking up their children afterwards to take them home. Children could be encouraged to bring school books with them and could be denied the use of computer games and television. Although resources would be required, supervision could be carried out by retired police officers, for example.

We also suggest that young offenders be required to work on a similar basis to those subject to adult community service orders and supervised attendance orders. We are attracted by the notion of restitution of damaged property. That is particularly appropriate in cases of vandalism and graffiti. We propose an amendment to legislation that would require parents to keep children in the house or have children accompany them when they go outside. We support more substantial policing of neighbourhoods where that is appropriate. We have argued that far more police officers should be available for community policing and that they should have a visible presence in neighbourhoods that are badly affected by youth crime and disorder. Their role would be to detect and deter crime and to work with parents, young people, schools and ethnic and community groups to encourage a greater sense of citizenship and good behaviour among young persons.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Does that mean that the Conservatives now accept the SNP's proposal on the introduction of an extra 1,000 police officers in Scotland?

James (Conservative, Lothians)

We believe that there should be a substantial increase in the number of police officers wherever they are needed. The size of the increase would be dependent on local circumstances. After the 1997 general election, the Labour Government reduced substantially the number of police officers. It has only just restored—and marginally exceeded—the level of policing that obtained in 1997. We say that that is insufficient. In recent years, there have been far too few police officers. In neighbourhoods where there is a need for a visible police presence, that should and must be provided. Many police officers have to attend courses and have other duties, so they are not necessarily on the beat and visible in neighbourhoods, as is required.

We want a return to safer communities, safer streets, safer homes and peace of mind for everyone. We want to establish in Scotland a way of life free of crime and the fear of crime.

I move,

That the Parliament notes with concern that there are youths out on the street causing violence, causing disorder, causing vandalism and graffiti and terrifying not just older people but other young people; acknowledges that the problems of youth disorder must be given a high priority if the right to peace and security at home and in the community is to be protected; further notes that diverting 16- and 17-year-olds to the Children's Hearings System will only defer effective deterrents and place an extra burden on a process which is already overstretched and not respected by the young offenders, and therefore calls upon the Scottish Executive to introduce an increased range of disposals, including weekend and evening detention, expansion of supervised attendance orders and community service and grounding, coupled with an increase in secure accommodation and a substantial increase in the number of community police officers to help make our streets safer.

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

I welcome the fact that Lord James Douglas-Hamilton is looking forward so much to my speech. I remind Parliament that last December, in the first speech that I made as Minister for Education and Young People, I launched the youth crime action plan. It is not true that nothing has happened on this issue since Jack McConnell was responsible for it.

The Parliament should have no doubt that the Executive is determined to reduce youth crime. We are also determined to tackle the problems that are associated with youth disorder. However, first we need to recognise that the majority of young people in this country are not involved in crime. Only a minority of young people are involved in serious disorder. Many young people are the victims of crime. The vast majority of young people in Scotland want to be valuable members of their communities and are critical of young people who take part in criminal activities. I want us to be absolutely clear about where the problems lie.

We know that only a small proportion of young people are involved in offending behaviour. Each year, less than 2 per cent of Scots children under 16 are referred to the children's hearings system on offence grounds. That is lower than the figure from three years ago and significantly lower than the figure for youth offending at the time when the children's hearings system was established.

We need to ensure that, either through children's hearings or the adult courts—I recognise that there is overlap between the two—the youth justice system can deal effectively with young offenders before their behaviour becomes entrenched. The evidence shows that minimal intervention will lead many young people to stop offending. If young people get involved in trouble and steps are taken to divert them from that, they will not continue to offend.

We know that some young people do not stop offending, and we should focus our action on that group. There should be a particular focus on the 800 or so young people who were referred to children's hearings in 2000-01 because they had committed at least 10 offences. Only one young person in 1,000 falls into that category, but that small minority causes mayhem in local communities and people really fear the consequences of its actions. It is right that our top priority in tackling youth crime should be to ensure that actions against persistent offenders are effective. That will have an impact on how safe our communities feel and will reduce the economic and social cost of crime. It is not acceptable that elderly or young persons in a community should feel that they cannot walk the streets safely.

This debate also relates to activity by some young people that does not amount to serious offending but causes considerable disruption in local communities. From responses to the Scottish crime survey, we know that, overall, fewer people than before have concerns about youth disorder, which is a good start. However, that is not the situation in all communities. I am concerned about those communities in which the fear of crime is highest, in which people's lives are being made a misery and at which effective action must be targeted, so that they are made safer.

Youth disorder is not an issue for the youth justice system alone. As Lord James Douglas-Hamilton recognised—although his focus was different from mine—making some of the changes that we want will require effort from parents, schools, the health service, local authorities, local communities and young people themselves.

We know that there are factors that can make a difference. Sometimes physical environment and lifestyle play a part. The Executive needs to take a strategic approach. We need to take action on community safety. Social inclusion partnerships and the better neighbourhood services fund have a role to play. The physical design of communities can make a difference. Tackling social exclusion can make a difference. The introduction of closed-circuit television and making police officers visible in local communities have helped in the fight against crime, especially in the most disadvantaged communities.

Innovative projects are under way. In Alloa, for example, the social inclusion partnership has implemented an award-winning community police project that aims to cut crime and the fear of crime. Recently I visited Aberdeen where, in conjunction with the police, Northfield Academy has come up with the innovative solution of having a community police officer based in the school, to work alongside young people and to tackle some of the issues that I have mentioned.

We must also consider taking action to reduce truancy. There is concern that, if young people are not in school, as they should be, they will be on the streets, which is not appropriate. We are implementing the recommendations of the discipline task group.

We know that we need a range of measures to provide constructive activities to divert young people from hanging around the streets because there is nothing better for them to do.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The Justice 1 and Justice 2 Committees received evidence that the budget for diversion from prosecution services is just under £1.5 million for each of the three years from 2001-02 to 2003-04. However, in evidence, representatives of South Lanarkshire Council said that it would cost them £250,000 simply to deal with substance misuse. How can £1.5 million deal with Scotland's problems when South Lanarkshire Council alone requires £250,000?

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

As I have already indicated, we are not tackling youth offending simply through one strand of the justice department's budget. Through joined-up working, we are attempting to ensure that all the programmes that deal with young people and children—whether in schools or in the justice system—focus on youth offending. I want to talk about the things that we need to do as part of that strategy.

At the end of January, the First Minister and I launched the action programme to reduce youth crime. That programme established the key priorities that we need to pursue. A top priority is to tackle persistent offending. We recognise that the best way of doing that is to ensure that effective disposals are available to the children's hearings system.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Does the minister agree that there is a problem with non-referral to children's panels and with cases' being marked "no further action" when they reach panels? Does she agree that there is a huge lack of trust in the children's hearings system, and that it is necessary not just to say that the system is working, but to have a review that proves that, so that where it is not working its failures can be addressed?

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

Johann Lamont makes a relevant point about the way in which information is passed back to local communities and to victims about what happens as a result of referrals to the children's hearings system. We will consider the issue. It is important to ensure that members of the children's panels have confidence that programmes exist on to which they can put young people, that those programmes will be effective and that they will be evaluated. We can get more from the existing principles of the children's hearings system by being more focused on specific requirements added to supervision orders. I could give a list of projects that are currently under way, but other members will do that.

People are concerned about secure accommodation. For some young people, secure accommodation is the correct place, because they are a risk either to themselves or to others in their community. We must recognise that there are problems in the system.

An issue in which Roseanna Cunningham takes an interest is the difficulty of finding systematic data on the use of secure units. The secure accommodation advisory group found that to be a problem, as we have in the Executive. We know that panels made 194 recommendations for secure accommodation last year. On average, young people stay in secure accommodation for between 14 and 16 weeks. We also know that we have almost twice the proportion of young people in secure accommodation in Scotland as there is in England, and almost three times the proportion that there is in Wales. We know from local government that, by and large, the required number of places has been available when they have been needed during the past couple of years. However, we know from anecdotal evidence—which does not always match the statistical evidence—that places are not always available at the time that they are required. In some cases, young people wait for places when there are other young people in secure units who cannot move on because no appropriate place has been identified for them. It is not good enough.

I want to wait to examine more fully all the recommendations in the secure accommodation advisory group report to ensure that, when we introduce proposals to tackle the provision of secure accommodation places, we have the right number of places available in the right locations. It will be part of an overall strategy. That is the right way to proceed rather than grabbing quick headlines. The strategy will put in place effective measures that will reduce the fear of crime, reduce crime and make our communities safer places.

I move amendment S1M-3194.2, to leave out from first "notes" to end and insert:

"recognises the problems faced by those local communities where a disproportionate amount of crime and disorder is caused by a small number of persistent offenders; considers it a priority to reduce youth disorder and youth offending; welcomes Scotland's Action Plan to reduce youth crime and the establishment of Youth Justice Teams in each local authority; believes that effective disposals and programmes must be available to the Children's Hearings System which make young offenders face up to the consequences of their behaviour; supports all parties involved in the youth justice system to play a full role and be accountable for their actions, and welcomes the Executive's continuing focus on improving the youth justice system in order to reduce youth crime, the fear of youth crime and build safer communities."

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

The motion in Lord James's name was hysterically worded and a little inappropriate.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

rose—

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

They are Jack McConnell's words.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

If David McLetchie wants to impress in Parliament, he should use more parliamentary language than he used in that rant. There is scope for populist appeals, but we must be careful, because youth crime and disorder tend to be in one's face.

We must deal with that difficulty. We are talking about the graffiti scarring our urban environment, the groups of under-age drinkers or drug-takers losing their inhibitions and respect for the law in public places and the petty vandalism that people see daily. It is not behind closed doors; it is out on the street and that is the biggest problem with which we are dealing. We have reached the stage at which any group of youths, however law-abiding, causes emotions ranging from basic nervousness to genuine fear and alarm in passers-by. We must accept that that is the response of ordinary people.

The sight of police on the street restores confidence. It is a rare sight, as many of our constituents tell us, yet visible policing is the most effective deterrent to disorder and we must return to it. I suspect that all members who are present agree. We must address the perception in society that youth crime is on the increase, despite what the statistics might tell us, and that the system is not dealing well with young offenders, if at all. That is another apprehension of ordinary people.

So what is being done? As ever, there has been much talk but little action. There has been a ministerial committee and there is now an advisory group on youth crime, an action plan—10 months late—and another ministerial committee. What all that has produced amounts to precious little—a great deal of talk but few practical results.

I know that people from urban areas have particular concerns, but even small rural towns simply do not know how to cope with the problem. The children's hearings system seems to be so under-resourced that there has been a complete collapse of confidence in the system—among the public and the police. That is damaging. While concern about the resourcing of children's hearings remains, the Executive's current proposals are a little premature. If we have a children's hearings system that is not coping, giving it more work will not help. Again, there has been much talk, but no action.

The Executive's confusion on youth crime appears to go right to the top. On 15 May, Jack McConnell suggested the creation of a juvenile courts system for 14 to 18-year-olds—an idea that was rejected the next day by the ministerial group on youth crime. Of course, children can already be prosecuted from the age of eight and special provisions already exist for juvenile courts for under-16s. However, as a matter of Executive policy, decreasing numbers of children are sent to juvenile courts.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

As Roseanna Cunningham has mentioned juvenile courts, will she tell us her party's view on them? Has the party assessed their effectiveness in England and Wales, where they now operate?

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

Juvenile courts are probably a very good idea indeed, but the point that I am making is that Jack McConnell did not seem to realise that we can have such a system right now. We do not need to introduce the idea as a brand new policy.

While the Executive dithers, a real problem faces the youth justice system—the problem of secure accommodation, which Cathy Jamieson spent a little time on in her speech. From time to time, but with increasing regularity, I am contacted by the press for a comment when a child, perhaps as young as 14, has been held in an adult jail because of insufficient places for young people in secure accommodation. Ministers have repeatedly acknowledged the problem and, before the Parliament even existed, it was pledged that sending children to adult prisons would be a thing of the past. However, here we are, still having to talk about it.

The lack of places means that children under the age of 16 are being sent to secure units in England, placed in adult prisons, or given other wholly inappropriate disposals. That is not good for them and it is not good for society. On 29 April this year, Colin MacKenzie, the convener of the Association of Directors of Social Work, while talking about 13 children awaiting places in secure accommodation, said:

"This does not simply translate into a need to have 13 new places. What is required is a range of residential placements with the capacity to provide varying levels of security depending on the particular needs of the child."

That is precisely what the SNP is calling for.

In the longer term, the focus surely has to be on intervention—long before placing a child in secure accommodation seems the best option. That is why the SNP has proposed the option of parental compensation orders. That would put responsibility for the actions of a child on his or her parents as well. It would also introduce an element of restorative justice to the system. That is a workable idea and one that is already being made to work in many other countries.

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

Does Roseanna Cunningham accept that one of the key points in our youth crime action plan was to ensure that every local authority in Scotland had a youth justice team to ensure that, in each local authority area, there was a restorative justice project or some form of reparative project? Does she accept that such projects are being put in place across Scotland?

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

That is an interesting comment, but the reality is very different. Again we have the difference between talk and action.

The parental compensation order idea is being made to work in 10 other countries—from Canada right through to Italy. The idea has not simply been pulled out of nowhere. It would make a difference in Scotland, especially to the perception that, when a young person commits a crime, no one seems to take any responsibility—neither the young person nor their parents. Responsibility is the key to the issue—getting young people to take responsibility for their actions and getting their parents to take responsibility too. That does not seem too much to ask in 2002.

I move amendment S1M-3194.1, to leave out from first "notes" to end and insert:

"recognises continuing public concern about the levels of youth crime; regrets the failure of the Scottish Executive to take effective action to tackle such crime; believes that tackling youth crime effectively and appropriately is a key element in reducing overall levels of crime and fear of crime, and calls upon the Executive to introduce practical measures to prevent youth crime and to ensure that there are sufficient places so that those young offenders who, for their own sake, need to be looked after in secure accommodation are held in conditions appropriate to their age."

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

On behalf of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, I welcome the opportunity to debate the serious issue of how to tackle youth crime in Scotland. The past few weeks have seen youth crime become part of a bidding war that our Opposition parties, the Tories and the SNP, have entered into. Their only interest in the issue would seem to be in winning votes rather than in proposing solutions to the problem.

We should examine the facts. According to the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration, youth crime has fallen in the past 30 years. In 1974, there were 28,184 referrals. By 2001, the figure had dropped to 26,766. Those are the facts. During the past 10 years, the figure for the number of children with one to three offences coming before the children's system has remained almost constant. The Scottish Liberal Democrats recognise that there is a real problem in the area of children and youths with more than 10 offences. That area has grown by over 40 per cent.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Does the member accept that there is a problem of hidden offending in our communities? The police have told me that often cases are not referred to the panel. No matter what the statistics show, the problem for our communities is that the issue is not being addressed.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

We have to use the statistics that the Executive presents to us. If there is a problem with the statistics, Johann Lamont should highlight that so that we can get better reporting of them.

There is general agreement—

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Will the member take an intervention?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I am going to make some progress. I do not have a lot of time, but I will get back to the member.

There is general agreement that the real problem area is the small number of habitual offenders. We want to see action taken to tackle that problem. The crime that is committed by youngsters who are constantly in trouble is not a problem that is confined to our major cities, as some have suggested; it is a problem that also exists in rural Scotland. Roseanna Cunningham rightly made that point. We should not get lost in thinking that the problem is one only for Edinburgh or Glasgow; it is also a problem throughout our rural communities.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I am glad that George Lyon has made the point that the problem is not only an urban problem, as was articulated by Johann Lamont and other members, but a rural problem. On Tuesday evening, I met more than a hundred people in the small village of Newtyle in my constituency. Although the village has a low level of recorded crime, there is a high perception of unease in the community because of an insufficient visible policing presence. If Mr Lyon contributed something to the debate, rather than simply condemning those who are bringing ideas to it, the Liberals might have something more to say for themselves.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I agree that there is a general perception of fear in our communities, but that is not helped by politicians who engage in bidding wars and talk the issue up and out of proportion.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

Will the member give way?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I have taken quite a number of interventions and I need to make some progress. I hope that the Presiding Officer will allow me additional time for those interventions. However, seeing that it is David McLetchie, I will give way.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

Can Mr Lyon tell us whether the First Minister is or is not a participant in what he calls the bidding war?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I cannot speak for the First Minister—I will allow others to do that. [Interruption.] I would like to make some progress. What I will say is that I welcome the statement from the First Minister and Cathy Jamieson that they have ruled out some of the more ridiculous propositions that were made by Mr McLetchie's party and others.

I will move on to the subject of solutions. The Tories say that the answer to the problem is to lock up young offenders, throw ever greater numbers of them in jail and get rid of the children's hearings system. However, according to evidence that was given by Kelly Bayes of Barnardo's:

"There may be a perception that the children's hearings system does not work and that custody does, but that is a myth and we have a duty to the public to explode that myth. ... We also have to explode the myth that custody works. It takes young people out of circulation ... However, when they are taken back out of secure accommodation or custody the reoffending rate is phenomenal".—[Official Report, Justice 2 Committee, 22 May 2002; c 1406-08.]

In other words, to throw youngsters in jail for three months increases the reoffending rate; it does not decrease it. The Tory answers to youth crime would make matters worse and not better.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

Will the member take an intervention?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I will allow the member an intervention, but I hope that the Presiding Officer will allow me more time.

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

I have already done so.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

One of the strong criticisms of the present system is that young offenders are sent to prison because secure accommodation is not available. Will the member tell us whether in all seriousness he thinks that that is right? I do not think that it is.

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

Mr Lyon has another three minutes remaining to him in his speech.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

In her speech, the Minister for Education and Young People indicated that she was tackling that problem and that she would be proposing solutions to it.

We have heard from the Westminster Government that the parents of youth who commit crime should be thrown in jail. The SNP has restated that it wants to see fines for the parents of youth offenders. Those policies were described recently by Barnardo's:

"'Sending parents to jail is ridiculous and fining people already in poverty smacks of stupidity.'"—[Official Report, Justice 2 Committee, 22 May 2002; c 1404.]

At a recent meeting of the Justice 2 Committee, Barnardo's, Save the Children and Children 1st condemned the fining and jailing of parents as a proposal that would make matters worse and not better. I am glad that, following the first meeting of the ministerial committee on youth crime, the Scottish Executive decided to shy away from such policies. I welcome the enlightened view that the Executive is taking.

The Scottish Liberal Democrats believe that the Executive should give a high priority to tackling youth offending. Solutions exist and they can be used to tackle the problem. Those solutions include the new directions project, the Freagarrach project and the challenging offending through support and intervention—CHOSI—project. All of them are run by Barnardo's, in partnership with local authorities.

The Justice 2 Committee heard evidence that the projects tackle offending through support and intervention. The project evaluations show a reduction rate in offending of between 50 and 80 per cent. The Scottish Liberal Democrats want to see such projects extended to other areas of Scotland. The problems are serious and we do not need to hear the silly slogans that we have heard from the Opposition parties. I challenge all the Opposition parties to engage in a serious debate on the issue. They should stop trying to outdo each other for electoral advantage.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

It is symptomatic of how out of touch the Executive is that it has only just woken up to the fact that, for many people living in many of Scotland's communities, life is being made intolerable by young hooligans and thugs who are committing acts of vandalism, theft and disorder. Indeed, the Executive has become seriously interested in the problem of youth crime only because certain Labour back benchers have been made aware in no uncertain terms by their constituents that they want to see action on the issue. For the past three years in the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Conservatives have, of course, been demanding action on the problem. However, it is typical that Labour has woken up to the fact only when an election looms on the horizon.

To try to hide the fact that the Scottish Executive has not done enough to address the problem of youth crime, the First Minister is now going around making a lot of noise on the issue. However, his Executive will remain the proverbial empty vessel until it ditches the ludicrous proposal that is included in the Executive's Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill to extend the children's hearings system in certain areas to 16 and 17-year olds, at a time when the system is patently failing to cope with younger offenders.

I repeat my claim that Scotland would become the only country in the world where a 17-year old could be sent to a children's panel for assaulting his wife.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

That is a lie.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

Let me explain. In a previous debate in Aberdeen, Dr Simpson loftily dismissed the statement. He is at it again today. In Aberdeen, Dr Simpson said that the statement was stupid, utterly absurd and utter nonsense. However, it was telling that he was afraid to take an intervention from me on the subject. Let me explain the line of reasoning to him today.

Point number 1: I have in my hand a list of the top 40 categories of offences that are committed by under-16s, which are referred to the children's reporter. The list was obtained from the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration. For the information of the Deputy Minister for Justice, assault is at the top of the list and is followed by breach of the peace and vandalism. Those three categories represent just over 50 per cent of the 26,766 offence referrals made last year. I note, however, that the list includes robbery, serious assault and rape.

Point number 2: Section 44 of the draft Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill deals with the youth crime pilot study and not one of the categories of offence is excluded specifically from referral. In essence, every offence committed in the pilot areas for which a 15-year-old can be referred to the children's reporter will apply to a 16 or 17-year old.

Point number 3: In Scotland, people of 16 can get married. Point number 4: a 17-year-old assailant could be married to his victim. Sadly, such cases of domestic abuse are all too common. Ergo, under the minister's plan, a 17-year-old could be sent to the children's reporter and then to the children's panel for assaulting his wife. If that line of reasoning is wrong, perhaps Dr Simpson or Cathy Jamieson will tell us why. I am happy to give them an opportunity to do that.

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

I have a point to which Mr McLetchie will perhaps want to respond. Domestic violence is a serious issue. It should not be trivialised in the way that Mr McLetchie has done. We are talking about proposals to examine how to deal with domestic violence. It is not helpful to take a scaremongering approach and to suggest that 17-year-old people who beat their wives will be referred to the children's hearings system.

Lyndsay McIntosh (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Will the minister take an intervention?

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

Order. The minister is intervening.

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

Is Mr McLetchie aware that the courts have the power to deal with offenders who are under 16 and who commit particularly serious offences? The courts regularly sentence young people, while taking into account the advice of the children's hearings system. Will Mr McLetchie take those issues seriously and withdraw his scaremongering about 17-year-olds who beat their wives being dealt with by the children's hearings system? That is not the intention and it never has been.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

If it is not the intention, will the minister introduce an amendment to section 44 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill to exclude offences of that category from referral to the children's panel system? If she will not amend that section, will she exclude such offences in one of the regulations that she has the power to make under section 44? While she is excluding referrals in cases of domestic violence, will she also exclude them in cases of rape, assault with intent to ravish, indecent assault, serious assault, robbery and assault with intent to rob, all of which are offences for which 15-year-olds can be referred to the children's panel system? How many of those categories of offence will the minister exclude from referral, either in the bill or in regulations? Please tell me that.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

The Lord Advocate will review the matter and ensure that serious cases are treated appropriately. Cases must be considered individually to determine whether they should be referred to a children's panel. For example, an individual with severe but temporary mental health problems might be sent to a panel. Is David McLetchie saying that such cases must go to the courts? Should not the family be involved, as happens in the children's hearings system? David McLetchie's point is spurious.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

My point is not spurious, it is substantive, and neither of the ministers has refuted it. Not one line of argument has been given to counter the reasoning that I set forth earlier.

Brian Fitzpatrick (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

Will the member give way?

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

No. I have taken loads of interventions and I must move on.

Some of Mr McConnell's ministers will not back up his rhetoric, never mind try to turn it into meaningful action. It comes as no surprise that most of those ministers are Liberal Democrats. That party has always adopted an attitude of high-minded disdain for the concerns of ordinary people. George Lyon's speech epitomised that attitude.

It is unfortunate that a Labour minister—Dr Simpson—seems to have more in common with the Liberal Democrats than he does with some of his Labour colleagues such as Jackie Baillie, Johann Lamont and Paul Martin, who, to their credit, recently voiced concerns that are similar to those of the Conservatives. Of course, those members represent an older Labour party—the one that knew the difference between mushy peas and guacamole. Dr Simpson does not know the difference.

It is Scotland's misfortune that our two justice ministers seem more concerned with the interests of young offenders than with those of their victims, who are often the most vulnerable members of society and who live in our most vulnerable communities. I urge the ministers to take a reality check and to think again.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

I do not intend to have a go at Mr McLetchie during my speech. We will see whether I can resist the temptation.

Youth crime and disorder is a complex and serious issue; it is not a laughing matter. The issue is fast becoming one of chest beating for many members, who want to appear to be the toughest on youth crime. Sadly, many commentators also assume that the issue for members is whether their party or their constituency think that they are doing the right thing. I genuinely believe that MSPs from all parties listen to what is happening and that the Parliament will provide a solution.

We must move away from some of the jargon that we have heard during the past few months. That jargon comes not only from politicians but from professionals, who should know better when they are trying to explain clearly why the system must be changed. The freedom to examine the problem as Parliament sees it is fundamental to finding a solution that is free of slogans, jargon and statements that are not backed up by evidence.

I have a point for Mr McLetchie about the mechanics of section 44 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill. I will not comment on whether that section should be amended, as that will be dealt with in the Justice 2 Committee's stage 1 report on the bill. As I understand the matter, procurators fiscal will decide whether it is appropriate to refer particular offences to the children's hearings system. I do not believe that procurators fiscal will refer cases like the one that David McLetchie mentioned to the children's reporter. If fiscals do that, I will want to know why.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

Will the member support an amendment to section 44 that will preclude referrals to the children's panel in cases like the one that I mentioned, so that we can be absolutely certain that that will not happen?

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

Mr McLetchie will see from the Official Report of Justice 2 Committee meetings that I have expressed concerns to the Executive and asked it to clarify which offences should be referred. That is not a secret.

I turn to the real issue, which is tackling the causes of youth crime. That is fundamental to providing safety for our communities. Many ordinary young people are alarmed that their entire generation is written off in the debate. Members know that we are talking about only a small number of people. As well as discussing our attitude to youth crime, we must consider a proper strategy for all young people of all ages. I have written to the First Minister to demand action on that point.

I do not hold up my hands in horror at the thought of young people going to prison. Sometimes that is appropriate. However, I agree with Roseanna Cunningham's point—which both the justice committees have also made—that young people who are under 16 should never be in prison. Correctional work has a place and we should commend the work of HM Young Offenders Institution Polmont.

The figures tell us something about the need for joined-up thinking in our approach to youth crime. In 1997-98, 82 per cent of prisoners had played truant from school, 83 per cent had been suspended from school, 41 per cent had been to special schools and 63 per cent had committed a crime while under the influence of alcohol. Literacy rates are also extremely poor. We must analyse the statistics to discover the extent of the problem.

There are no easy answers to the complex problem of youth crime. I urge more cross-party work on the big issues such as whether Parliament should take more powers and review offenders institutions. The way in which our criminal justice system treats victims is revolutionary. That should be no different when it comes to victims of youth offending.

There should be a review of all accommodation for offenders and not just of secure accommodation. I do not support a doubling of secure accommodation, because we often put the wrong people in such places, but there should be an increase in that accommodation. Also, places of safety for young people and getting young people away from children's homes are fundamental to the system.

Many members believe in the children's hearings system. As Johann Lamont said, although a lot of time and resources are rightly spent on dealing with children who are at risk, appropriate resources must also be available to tackle children's offending. If we get that right, that will be an important start.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

We should refer to the debate as one on youth issues—which is how the police asked me to refer to it—because most youngsters are not involved in crime, even though at times they appear threatening, as my colleagues have said. As we get older, we forget what it was like to assemble in large numbers and make a lot of noise, although I am afraid that some members, such as Bill Aitken, did not do that. The police are taking practical measures such as providing skateboard parks, dry dock facilities for youngsters and youth shelters in certain areas. Although such measures should be commended, I do not see why the funding for them should come out of the police budget.

I want to talk about secure accommodation, because there is some confusion about this issue. I understand that there are two categories of placements in secure accommodation. A small number of placements are funded through the justice budget and are for young people who have been convicted of serious crimes. However, the vast bulk of placements in secure accommodation are funded by local authorities through the social work budget. As evidence given on the budget at the joint meeting of the Justice 1 Committee and Justice 2 Committee made clear, that is not a happy way to organise funding. Extreme pressure was placed on local authorities that did not have any secure accommodation. It is my information that six or seven secure places are needed in the Borders, and the area does not have them.

Sometimes such accommodation is for a youngster who is simply not getting on at home and runs away. For example, a youngster from Penicuik ran away to Edinburgh and was not seen for four days. The police in Edinburgh managed to pick them up and, although it was a social work referral, five hours of police time was spent trying to find secure accommodation. None could be found, not even in England, and in the end the police had to persuade the runaway to go back to the home that they had left in the first place. The youngster then moved back into that particular cycle.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

If runaways have committed serious offences, they should be put into secure accommodation. However, I am concerned by the member's suggestion that runaways should go into secure accommodation. That is not what it is for.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I am coming to that point. We seem to talk about secure accommodation as though it is one particular thing. Instead, we should have a range of secure accommodation with different facilities. The Association of Directors of Social Work told the justice committees:

"We do not just need the kind of secure accommodation that we have already; we need secure accommodation that incorporates health and social care as well as containing the youngsters. We need a different kind of secure accommodation."—[Official Report, Justice 1 Committee and Justice 2 Committee (Joint Meeting), 1 May 2002; c 171.]

As the witness pointed out, we should not have a one-size-fits-all accommodation.

As for the youngster who had run away to Edinburgh for four days, the police wondered how they had managed to survive in that time. They might have committed petty crimes simply to keep going. Such problems can be exacerbated: the child who is deprived or has trouble at home might become a criminal. We know that there is a link in that respect.

In the very short time that I have left, I want to highlight another serious point that the ADSW raised about the range of secure accommodation. The association said:

"The needs of young women in secure accommodation are not well met at the moment and we often have vulnerable young women in with young men who have very aggressive and sometimes abusive behaviour."—[Official Report, Justice 1 Committee and Justice 2 Committee (Joint Meeting), 1 May 2002; c 172.]

If that is the case, why has such a situation been allowed to continue throughout the three years of this Parliament? That issue has never been raised with me before, and I want the minister to address it. It is disgraceful.

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

Will the member give way?

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

No, I am on my last few seconds.

The budget report by the justice committees recommends that the budget for secure accommodation come through the justice budget and that it then be designated to other departments to ensure that we have a clear funding stream. I hope that the minister will take up the point. Local authorities that deal with the bulk of what people loosely term as secure accommodation do not have the funding. If we had one clear funding stream, we would know how the money was operating and would perhaps be able to prevent children who have been put in secure accommodation for their own good because they are runaways from going into the other kinds of secure accommodation because they have committed serious criminal offences.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

In 1847, a House of Lords select committee inquired into the treatment of juvenile offenders. The great majority of committee members favoured imprisonment with hard labour and whipping. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Conservatives do not appear to have evolved much beyond that kind of hardline rhetoric, which even 150 years ago was associated with the "hang 'em and flog 'em" brigade. However, I am deeply disturbed by the ease with which the other political parties, except the Liberal Democrats, appear to have adopted that draconian theme.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

Will the member give way?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I will come back to the member in a moment.

Two weeks ago in Aberdeen, Phil Gallie continued the "hang 'em and flog 'em" theme when he called for a referendum to bring back birching. I asked David McLetchie then and Lord James Douglas-Hamilton this morning whether that was now Conservative party policy. However, even though they see the absurdity of such an approach, they repeatedly refuse to reject Phil Gallie's demands.

The Tories have lodged the motion because they seem content to play on the worries and concerns of ordinary people who day after day see politicians exaggerate and peddle myths about the success of our youth justice system in Scotland. Indeed, we have seen the same thing today.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Will the member give way?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

No, I will not.

Let us examine a few facts. Over the past three years, the number of children referred on offence grounds to children's hearings has fallen by 19 per cent. I should repeat that figure: referrals fell by 19 per cent. Moreover, the average number of offences for each of those children fell from just over three to just under three between 1990 and 2000.

I accept the evidence that suggests that a few young people are responsible for a significant proportion of offences and that the number of young people committing several offences is increasing. Indeed, the number of children who have committed more than 10 offences has increased 40 per cent within the same period. That narrow group of people is causing the problem, and it is quite wrong to imply that a particular rise in youth crime is not being addressed.

I want to turn to the issue of youth courts. It has been suggested that if adult courts were given the same powers of disposals as children's hearings, they could offer the same kind of service through youth courts. I am not convinced that we need youth courts. The ethos behind the children's hearings service is the best way of dealing with the needs of young offenders precisely because it is child-centred. There is no suggestion that so-called youth courts would be as effective in addressing offenders' behaviour. That is the issue.

Although there is no doubt that there is a difficulty in resourcing the children's hearings system, we do not believe that that is a justification for changing or scrapping it. Indeed, I wonder whether scrapping the system is the hidden agenda of the Conservatives and the SNP.

It is worth repeating some of the evidence that George Lyon mentioned and that was given by a witness from Barnardo's to the Justice 2 Committee. She said:

"There may be a perception that the children's hearings system does not work and that custody does, but that is a myth and we have a duty to the public to explode that myth. We need to shout about the success of community options and the hard work that young people have to do in that regard. We also have to explode the myth that custody works. It takes young people out of circulation for a short while and that is all."—[Official Report, Justice 2 Committee, 22 May 2002; c 1408.]

The Scottish Liberal Democrats support a sympathetic yet effective approach to youth crime. We are the only mainstream political party not to have succumbed to the populist bidding war that has escalated between the other three parties and that we saw again this morning. That is because we are not afraid of putting principles and pragmatism before cheap headline-grabbing stunts. Youth crime is too important an issue to be used in such a way by the Tories and we have no hesitation whatsoever in opposing their neanderthal and ignorant motion.

Lyndsay McIntosh (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I speak in support of my colleague Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's motion, which notes concerns about youth justice. Not unexpectedly—given that we are less than a year from the elections—politicians from most parties are upping the ante. I hasten to add that some are coming to the debate a little later than others; indeed, some are not coming to the debate at all, including the unnamed Liberal Democrat MSP who was quoted as saying that the coalition partner's policies were "absolute and total rubbish" and that they "can get stuffed". Oh, really? As I told the Minister for Justice in Aberdeen, it is possible to have too much of some people's company; perhaps that realisation is dawning on the coalition partners.

It has been clear to me for some time that the problem lies with hardcore repeat offenders—the mini crime waves who account for so much misery and destruction. Every one of us will have a story about them. A couple of weeks ago, I spent some time on a vehicle patrol shift with Strathclyde Police in Motherwell. I have to say that the acting divisional commander was very accommodating; in fact, he was so keen that I should see part of a typical night's work that I got the newest patrol car.

The greatest excitement was when we responded to a robbery-in-progress call at Fir Park stadium. The intruder, who was possibly a youngster, was suspected of being in the catering and hospitality outlets—the pies were at stake rather than the silverware. Almost every other call to which we responded involved youth disorder. I will give examples. There were youngsters with mini-motorbikes and trail bikes in a park. They were unlicensed, uninsured and unhelmeted. They knew exactly where they could ride to cause maximum disruption and torment to the local community and park users, who would tackle them at their peril. The two cops whom I accompanied commented that the youngsters see the police coming in their car to the surrounding barriers and know that the police cannot catch them on foot. The youngsters as good as thumbed their noses at the police, who can do little or nothing. Calls of complaint keep coming from the residents. What can be more soul destroying than that?

The number of youths loitering outside commercial and domestic premises with bottles of a locally popular elixir—Buckfast—was worse still. We saw and spoke to many of them crossing the pedestrian bridge and at Motherwell station. When they saw the car, they simply put their bottles down and walked away. Others were recognised by the police in a housing scheme that we happened to pass. They had cans of lager and bottles of tonic wine—I would say that they were uncorked, but the stuff comes in screwtop bottles. They were already well oiled and just short of getting lippy with the police. They were searched and questioned about their conduct and allowed to go on their way.

A larger group was assembled on the steps of a local church in a quiet residential area. At their feet were opened bottles and cans that belonged to no one in the group. They were also searched and questioned about their plans for the rest of the evening and they were moved on. The officers and I emptied the contents of the containers on to the grass purely as a safety measure, but that provoked sufficient back chat almost to justify lifting them. However, they knew just how much they could get away with. That is what the police must deal with on a daily basis. Most of those youngsters will graduate to become full-time nuisances but, as the cops said, a minority are saveable.

Safeguarding Communities and Reducing Offending in Scotland, youth justice services such as mediation services, restorative justice measures and victim awareness services could assist them; I have not turned my face away from the contribution that those could make, but what is the Executive's answer? It is an unreconstructed children's hearings system. What does it expect to achieve by that? The Executive has the opportunity to take action now through the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill if it is really committed to tackling the problem. Why wait for an election?

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

First, I want to comment on the so-called revolt against the Minister for Justice, Jim Wallace. My problem is not with Jim Wallace, but with the devastation that youth crime causes to every community in Scotland. We must consider proposed solutions to that problem.

I want to record in the Official Report that I have difficulties with some proposals in respect of the extension of the children's panel to 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Perhaps the First Minister shares the member's concerns, which is why Mr Wallace was offered a different portfolio.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

We should deal with the issue at hand and take politics out of the situation. We should bring forward solutions. I have shared with the Minister for Justice and the First Minister ideas from throughout the UK about how the problem can be tackled. The people of Glasgow Springburn and Scotland demand that possible solutions be suggested, rather than that we share stories of what is happening throughout Scotland. Many of us are well aware of the issues.

In England, there are child safety/parenting orders. Parents are required to attend parenting courses with their children. That is a fundamental issue and we must deal with it. We must consider ways in which to support parents who have difficulties with the social skills that are required to be parents. I am not a parent, but if I ever become one, I would be happy to attend a parenting course if I thought that it would be helpful. We must all consider supporting parents.

The acceptable behaviour concept—ABC—programme that was run in Islington should be considered. In that programme, the council and a police officer visit a home at an early stage of youth offending to meet the youth and his or her parents. A contract is set up to ensure that the youth's behaviour is corrected. If the contract is broken, the family's home could be taken from it. The project has been successful in Islington and we should consider it.

A fundamental problem that we face concerns information sharing. I have met Strathclyde police a number of times and have been told that information cannot be shared about juveniles who are causing tens of thousands of pounds worth of damage throughout the Glasgow City Council area. We should share information about persistent offenders in Scotland—that is considered to be good practice in England—and we should examine the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to ensure that we can address that serious issue.

We should ensure that agencies work together. They talk a good game and many are interested in working together, but they do not form partnerships to ensure that effective and helpful intelligence is shared.

Agencies should also consider sharing premises. Why are social work offices disjointed from local police offices? Why are local housing associations disjointed from them? We should consider the concept of a police office, a social work office and a housing office sharing facilities in our communities. None of the agencies is considering that concept and the Executive should take a lead on the issue. Good ideas about good practice in our communities should be shared and we should ensure that we take the politics out of the matter and deliver for our local communities.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

It is totally unacceptable that a minority of youths—only a minority are involved, as the minister pointed out—should inflict so much physical and psychological damage on communities and vulnerable people. Reports of youth disorder must be taken seriously and acted on swiftly. I am sure that all members know of elderly people who have contacted the police to report acts of vandalism or public drinking, only to receive a visit from the police as much as a day or two later.

It is somewhat crass of Liberal Democrat MSPs to impugn the motives of MSPs across the party divide on the issue. I say to George Lyon that if he had given the speech that he gave today at the meeting that Johann Lamont and I attended in Cardonald on 23 April, he would not have got out alive. MSPs from all parties acknowledge the real concerns of people in their communities, but the complacency of George Lyon and his colleagues should be condemned. The Labour party has a better grip on the issue than he and his colleagues do.

Long ago, the SNP recognised the need for an increased and more highly visible police presence. The north British parties have wrung their hands on that issue, but do not support the SNP's commitment to recruit another 1,000 police officers. This morning, even Lord James Douglas-Hamilton appeared to believe that redeployment is the solution rather than recruitment of more officers.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

Will the member give way?

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I will give way to the member in a second, as he had the courtesy to give way to me.

We said that we should move officers from less troubled areas to more troubled areas. That is happening in parts of Glasgow—Johann Lamont will know that that is happening in her constituency. However, the neds also move from one area to another. There must be an increased police presence throughout Scotland.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

We believe that in Scotland a substantial increase in the number of police officers is necessary in particular neighbourhoods. The increase will depend on local circumstances. Perhaps more or fewer than 1,000 officers will be needed. That requirement is absolutely necessary, but has not been delivered by the Administration to date.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I accept that that is not being delivered, but rather than producing guesswork, the Conservatives should examine the matter in more detail and suggest to Parliament—perhaps in their winding-up speech—what police numbers should be. We should, for example, at least have police forces that are fully up to strength.

Young people are more likely to be victims of crime than are other age groups. Young people have told me that if they play in their local park they often get victimised or attacked by gangs, who have travelled from far away. Lack of facilities for young people is an important issue. More than 100 community facilities have closed in Glasgow in the five years since new Labour came to power. That shows the low priority that the Government gives on young people in the city. An 800-house estate has been built in Crookston, but it has no play area for young children. That is storing up problems for the future, as the young people there will have nothing to do.

Children's panels have been discussed. There has, since 1990, been a year-on-year increase in referrals from 28,000 to 63,000, but resources have not kept pace. Incidentally, I say to Richard Simpson that those figures came from Jack McConnell. Because the children's panel has a backlog, some children do not go before the panel for several months, so they often do not realise why they are before it. They might have committed more offences and moved towards criminality in the intervening period.

I acknowledge the issues that Paul Martin raised. I believe that consideration should be given to what has been done in England and suggested in Scotland by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, such as bringing in youth anti-social behaviour orders. It is important that parents and young people are forced to consider youth disorder interactively. I certainly believe that the success of the projects in England should be examined and that they should be brought to Scotland.

I am aware of time constraints, Presiding Officer. Without further ado, I shall allow the next member to speak.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

That was very graciously done, Mr Gibson. I express my regrets to the two remaining members who wanted to make speeches in the open part of the debate, but I must now move to closing speeches.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

As members have said, there has been a lot of debate in recent weeks about youth crime. It is true that there are differences of throughout the chamber and among members—not necessarily between the parties—of the coalition parties in the chamber. That indicates that there is recognition of the seriousness of the problem and a desire to deal with it adequately. As Cathy Jamieson said, genuine public concern exists and it must be allayed.

Some people are frightened to go out of their houses. They have been assaulted or robbed, have had stones thrown through their windows or have had large groups of threatening youths in their streets. People with those experiences are not interested in statistics. They are not particularly interested in the facts that some members have gone on about, such as the reduction in the crime statistics and all the rest of it. They are not particularly interested in the competing claims about the numbers of police, although—to answer Kenny Gibson's point—police numbers are currently at their highest recorded level. It is not just a matter of police resources, although there are no doubt issues about deployment. People are concerned about their safety and that of their families and—understandably—they want something done about the problem.

Most youth crime is at the nuisance level. It is certainly alarming and concerning, but it is at such a level that very few of those concerned are likely to be locked up and the key thrown away. In any event, there is an 80 per cent reoffending rate for those who undergo custodial sentences, so custody does not work, except from the point of the view of the temporary protection of the public, and it is hugely expensive.

Other members have discussed issues that clearly exist about community policing, controlling disorder and catching offenders. I will concentrate in my summing up on how we deal with youth offending once we have caught the offenders.

I ask members to consider one or two other important factors. In the UK as a whole, more than 50 per cent of young men on remand have a diagnosable mental disorder. Another large-scale survey revealed that 90 per cent of imprisoned young offenders showed evidence of mental disorder or substance abuse. Although statistics are harder to come by in other areas, it is clear that many—if not most—significant repeat offenders can be identified before the age of eight because of serious care concerns about them as children and babies. Certain things follow from such statistics. It is increasingly evident that one component of youth offending is children whose parents have chaotic drug lifestyles. It follows from that that phrases such as "cracking down on young thugs" and "complete collapse of confidence in the system", which we have heard in recent weeks, are not helpful.

I applaud the Scottish Executive's commitment to tackling the causes of youth crime at its roots through measures such as early intervention, targeted responses, tackling truancy, involving victims, promoting good practice and investing in a network of community-based programmes. The centrepiece of that is the children's panel system, which has a child-centred ethos.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Does Robert Brown think that a young man of 17, who bullies and intimidates his own family and his community, regards himself as a child? Does Robert Brown regard him as a child?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I regard him as a child. Much evidence exists of the problems that young people go through. We are rightly concentrating on the effects on communities. I accept that and I accept the evidence that members such as Paul Martin and Johann Lamont gave about the problems that they deal with in their constituencies.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will Robert Brown take an intervention?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

No. I want to continue.

Having got hold of the people who have the problems that Johann Lamont talks about, the problems must be tackled at source. Something must be done about them. The causes of their offending must be tackled and efforts must be made to sort it out. Intensive intervention is required at the right time, preferably long before such children reach the age of 17. There are serious problems in terms of the resources that the children's panel system has, or the resources that youth courts, adult courts or whatever would have to deal with those matters, so we must provide the resources. We must deal with the problem of the lack of social workers and we must deal with the fact that only 32 per cent of children in care in Glasgow have a care plan. That is against the background—of which we are aware—that the most significant amount of subsequent reoffending is among children who come out of care. Worries about resources must be tackled.

I have had to deal very quickly with some of the issues. I will finish by saying that we can create all we want about crime levels and all the rest of it, but we must tackle the matter at source. We must deal with the problems and the root causes and we must put in place mechanisms that will solve the problem. Let us get away from populist answers to the problem and deal with the central issues.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

An interesting aspect of the debate is that it has illustrated the difference of opinion between the two Executive parties on how we should deal with youth crime.

A consistent theme has been concerns about the way in which the children's hearings system operates. Historically, our children's hearings system has been held up as an example that many other countries should seek to follow. It has served its purpose in a number of ways, but there is an increasing feeling that it is untouchable and that we should not change it. Our society was different when the children's hearings system was established and a clear need exists for us to address concerns about the way in which the system currently operates.

Johann Lamont highlighted a number of concerns about cases being marked "no progress", or cases not being referred to the children's panel. We have all witnessed the frustration of constituents who complain at our surgeries about what they see as the failure of the system to address the problem of persistent young offenders in our communities. We have also heard complaints from police officers. They become fed up when they lift people, the referral is passed on to the children's panel system and the case is marked "no progress". The problem demoralises communities, the people who are trying to improve their local environment and the police officers who are trying to address the concerns of the community. If we are to have an effective children's hearings system, it is essential that we move on and ensure that it reflects the complex problems that exist in our society.

A number of members have mentioned secure accommodation. Christine Grahame highlighted the concerns that have been expressed to the Justice 1 Committee and Justice 2 Committee about the lack of available places. It is unacceptable that young people are being placed in adult prisons. The most recent statistics that are available, for 2000, show that 14 under-16s were held in adult prisons. That is 14 too many. Last week in a meeting with me, the director of social work in Falkirk Council highlighted the problem of having to seek secure accommodation places in the north of England. That is unacceptable, because it breaks the family link for the individuals concerned.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

I accept that 14 young people in adult prisons is too many. However, those young people are placed there for only a very short time, until they can be placed in secure accommodation; it is a holding situation. I accept that that is unacceptable, but in most instances it is for only a short time.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I acknowledge that it is for only a short time, but it is still unacceptable that any young people should find themselves in such an environment.

A colleague mentioned the provision of services at HM Young Offenders Institution Polmont. I visited there recently and, when I went into the metal workshop, I found the inmates playing cards because there was no work for them to do. If we are to address their offending behaviour through remedial programmes such as work provision in young offenders institutions, we must ensure that there is work for them to do.

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

Does Michael Matheson accept that some of the work that is being done at Polmont—especially on numeracy and literacy—and the employment of a youth worker at the prison have made a significant difference? Will he also accept that there should be more such joined-up working to meet the needs of young offenders and change their behaviour?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The throughcare provision at Polmont has improved considerably. However, when I met the director of social work of Falkirk Council, she highlighted her frustration at the on-going tendering process that the council must engage in with the SPS to provide social work services. I hope that we will see an end to that.

I am conscious of the time, but I want to mention programmes. Freagarrach has been mentioned as a programme that works with young offenders, and Paul Martin highlighted programmes that are being run in Islington. We hear often about programmes that operate effectively in communities, but the problem—similar to that which was identified in our debate about alternatives to custody—is that those programmes are not rolled out across the country. We must ensure that the success of Freagarrach is reflected in other parts of Scotland.

The programmes often deal with those who have committed offences. However, the Cluaran project in Falkirk is multi-agency based and involves community education, social work services and all the other services working together with families whose children are at risk of committing offences. The root causes of much youth offending are poverty and lack of opportunity. Unless we are willing to address the fundamental causes of the problem, youth crime will not be dealt with effectively. With child poverty increasing, the likelihood is that youth crime will, increasingly, be a problem in our society.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

On the whole, the debate has been useful. Members have made many valuable points. We must take a cool and considered look at the problem. It is important that we do not talk about soft or hard alternatives; we need to talk about what is effective in addressing the problems that we face.

Roseanna Cunningham got it absolutely right when she talked about the problems of petty crime—graffiti, litter, eggs thrown against walls and balls kicked against windows—and the harassment and abuse that adults who remonstrate with offending youngsters experience. Such actions do not come through into the system as offending behaviour—that is one of the problems. They are not major offences, but youngsters who act in that way are committing offences against the society in which they live. They represent the sort of low-level problems that are sometimes not even logged by the police. If they are logged, they are not taken through the system. That is a problem.

At the other end of the scale, there is another problem to which George Lyon and James Douglas-Hamilton referred, which is the issue of serious and persistent offenders. The number of people who commit 10 or more offences has risen by 40 per cent in the past 10 years. We do not know whether those are repeated offences or a series of one-off offences—the statistics are not good enough to give us that information. To our Conservative colleagues, I say that the increase has been only 5 per cent since 1995 and that the bulk of that increase came during the last major recession in the Tory years. It is a problem that we must all now face and have to deal with. However, we should not deal with it through the use of secure accommodation. I thought that Michael Matheson's speech was excellent; I could not disagree with most of what he said. Nonetheless, to double the amount of secure accommodation is not the answer. That would cost between £10 million and £15 million a year to run, when the outcomes from secure accommodation are, to be frank, not much better than those from young offenders prisons. There would still be high levels of recidivism.

As Christine Grahame said, we must provide a range of accommodation and facilities—which must be mainly community based—such as the intensive supported fostering to which Liberal Democrat colleagues alluded and which is run by Barnardo's in my constituency. That initiative takes children who would have been placed in secure accommodation and keeps them in the community and in a family setting with massive support. Christine Grahame made a point about funding streams and funding arrangements; we are considering those. Several units are already separating young men and women, and we are beginning to address that issue.

We must re-examine carefully the secure accommodation system and consider what will work and what is appropriate. However, I do not think that the answer is to double the number of places in secure accommodation.

I have very little time and it is difficult to cover all the issues. Several members raised the issue of confidence in the hearings system and in the police, which is being eroded because of the problem level of petty offending to which I referred. At the moment, "no action" is recorded in 70 per cent of cases that are referred to the children's hearings system. However, that does not mean that no action is taken; it means that there is diversion by the reporter into programmes or referral to social work services. Indeed, even before young people enter the children's hearings system, there are police restorative justice systems. We have established a programme to develop restorative and reparative justice systems and 16 local authorities are carrying out mediation and reparation programmes.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

A particular difficulty seems to exist in Glasgow, where children's panels refer people back for hearings three months after the initial referral, in order to check that the social work and follow-up supervisions are in place. That is one of the difficulties that result from the lack of resources.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

Kenny Gibson also mentioned the speed that is necessary in justice systems for young people. If they are to address their offending behaviour, they need to remember what their offending behaviour was. However, 60 per cent of those who are referred to the hearings system do not return to it; therefore, to say that it does not work is wrong. There is no doubt that we need to re-examine the system carefully, but we will have better information to allow us to do that.

To our Conservative colleagues, I say that there is little that a court can do that the children's hearings system cannot do by way of disposals—the difference between the two is minimal. We do not have time to debate the question of 16 and 17-year-olds, but I will go on record on two issues. First, I do not want a system in which the procurator fiscal and the reporter do not have the opportunity to discuss a case and decide on an individual's vulnerability. The people I want to see in the pilot schemes are vulnerable people, petty offenders and people who have significant problems that could be dealt with better in a family setting, with their family being brought together.

Secondly, although juvenile courts might be an alternative I inform our Conservative colleagues that the juvenile courts system in England is a disaster. Even with fast tracking, it is an absolute disaster, and they look with considerable envy at the hearings system, even with its flaws. England looks with considerable envy at our children's hearings system, despite its flaws. To suggest that courts are going to be the solution is not the answer.

I am out of time and I am sorry that I have not been able to address the points that were raised by other members. I conclude by saying that we must have effective programmes. There are lists of them; those that were brought to my attention by Paul Martin and Duncan McNeil when I visited their constituencies are excellent. We will examine what works and we will use programmes that work. We have given a commitment that by 2007—although that date might need to be reviewed—there will be programmes for every persistent offender. We will have evaluated those programmes and they will work. The Executive is committed to changing the situation. It has put considerable funds into that and will continue to do so. I urge members to support our amendment.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

Pauline McNeill said that there were no easy answers to the question that we are debating. However, the issue today is the questions that we should be asking. We should be asking questions that have a much sharper focus and are much more penetrative than they have been.

The bottom line is that the way in which we deal with young offenders is simply not working. Michael Matheson was right to point out that the children's hearings system, which, as I recall, was set up in 1968, comes to us from a much different era.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

It was set up in 1972.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

But it was provided for in the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. In any event, it is of considerable antiquity.

For many years, to suggest that the system was other than the epitome of a successful system of juvenile justice was regarded as sacrilege. However, those who spent most of their time piling paeans of praise on to the system were those with a vested interest. Those who are the victims of the present upturn in youth crime view the system as totally inept in dealing with young offenders. In that respect, the emperor is seen to have no clothes.

The evidence that the Justice 2 Committee has been taking on the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill has demonstrated a disappointing set of statistics with regard to the efficacy of the children's hearings system, particularly on reoffending. The situation in Glasgow is particularly concerning. Mike Rumbles said that there had been a reduction in the number of cases in Glasgow, but the reason for that is that many cases of offending in Glasgow cannot get near the children's hearings system because of the under-resourcing of the social work department.

The frustrations that are attached to serving on a children's panel are well known. Members of children's panels give willingly of their time and resources. It is appalling that, every year, one in four of those members resigns because they are frustrated and disappointed, and feel that they are doing absolutely no good. We have to find out why they feel that the system is not effective.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

The member keeps referring to statistics, but he has not challenged the other statistics that I talked about. Those statistics show that the average number of offences per child has fallen from more than three to less than three in the past 10 years and that, on offence grounds, the children's referrals have fallen by 19 per cent.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

I do not know where Mr Rumbles got those figures from, but they contradict the evidence that was given at the Justice 2 Committee two weeks ago. I refer him to the Official Report of that meeting, in which he will see that the figures that he quotes do not agree with the ones that were given at that meeting under fairly close questioning.

I will outline our position on this matter quite clearly, as there have been attempts—sometimes deliberate and, on the part of the Liberal Democrats, malicious—to portray a Conservative position that simply does not exist.

We do not wish to string up youngsters by the thumbs. We do not wish them to have to face cruel and unusual punishments. All that we want is for them to stop committing crimes and offences. That is surely not too much to ask. To stop them committing crimes and offences, we seek to give added powers to the children's hearings system. Those powers would be realistic and acceptable to every member of the public. Is it wrong to expect those who have carried out acts of vandalism to rectify the damage that they have done? Is it wrong to suggest that after-hours and weekend detention might bring home to those who are prepared to commit disorder that their acts cannot go on? Is it wrong to suggest that parents should be forced to keep their children off the streets where there has been a record of disorder? It is not wrong. That is what we are saying, pure and simple.

Like a number of Labour members, we speak for communities. If the ministers are not prepared to take my advice or accept my evidence that, in many parts of Glasgow, people are living in a constant state of not only annoyance and irritation but downright fear and alarm, they should listen to Johann Lamont, Paul Martin and others. Those members are working in their constituencies and know the difficulties that are faced.

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

Does the member accept that the children's hearings system has powers to impose specific conditions in a supervision requirement order that would do most of the things that have been suggested? Systems such as those that require young people to attend supervised programmes after school, at weekends and in the holidays have been in existence for a number of years. We have allocated the appropriate resources to ensure that those programmes are available in each local authority area.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

I concede that some of the proposals are available, but the fact is that, due to the appalling lack of resources in the system, few of them are ever imposed.

As the debate has gone on, I have been appalled by the complacency that has been shown by the members on the Executive front bench, the vast majority of whom do not have a clue about what is going on. Ministerial visits to study police operations are always well guarded and secure, and the minister—accompanied by half a dozen civil servants—does not see what is going on. If ministers want to see what is really happening, they should leave the ministerial limo in the garage and travel on a Glasgow bus. Better still, they should walk the streets. I would be happy to provide a conducted tour for Jim Wallace or Richard Simpson through the streets of Glasgow to allow them to see the extent of the problem.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

The member is being slightly unfair. Paul Martin and Duncan McNeil will tell him that, in the first two constituencies that I visited after becoming a minister, I walked the streets, I had no civil servants with me and I was not cordoned by police. What Bill Aitken is saying is completely untrue. In the next few weeks, I will visit a further three constituencies, where the same arrangements will pertain.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

I am pleased to hear that and I acknowledge what the minister says. However, I will not acknowledge that any action has been taken as a result of those visits. The ministers should speak to the victims.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

When Richard Simpson visited the Dennistoun area of my constituency, he listened to the local people with regard to the matter that we are discussing. He advised me that he would write to me with proposed action for dealing with many of the points that were raised.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

I happily acknowledge those points, but we are still faced with a total lack of meaningful action or urgency.

The Liberal Democrats are beyond redemption on this issue and some of their comments demonstrate that they are wired to the moon. They should not be listened to, and I address my comments to those who have a more realistic grasp of what is happening.

If ministers have started walking the walk, they should stop talking the talk. They have to move forward. If they mean to do something about the problem, they should not include it in next year's election manifesto but amend the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill to introduce realistic disposals for the children's hearings system and dismiss the nonsensical idea that 17-year-old thugs should be dealt with as children. If that is done, perhaps we can start to make some progress.

Education

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-3204, in the name of Brian Monteith, on encouraging diversity in education, and two amendments to that motion.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am pleased to open this debate, which I hope proves to be as entertaining and informative for me as the previous one was.

During the past month, pupils throughout Scotland have been sitting exams. For some pupils, those exams will be a stepping stone to other qualifications, while for others they will result in the only piece of paper that the pupils have to show for 11 years at school. Sadly, some will leave school with nothing. Illiteracy imprisons people in a life of poverty, often of squalor and sometimes of crime. Nothing is more liberating than being able to read, write and count.

It was not a fondness for socialism, but a fondness for education and a yearning to learn that made Scotland a truly meritocratic country. For Scotland, few things are more important than our education and we owe much to it. We are a small nation. Thanks to John Knox and his vision of a school in every parish so that people could read the Bible for themselves, we carved out an important place in the history of the world. We did not have a vast army like the French or a vast armada like the Spanish, but we produced many bright people who went on to help to found and administer what might be called the Scottish empire. Scots were numerate and canny, literate and romantic. Without the benefits of a sound education that taught children of all means—I emphasise that point—to read and write, we could not have put the great into Great Britain.

It is, therefore, a national tragedy and a cause of national embarrassment that, having built a worldwide reputation for our education system, we have let it slip through our fingers. The Scottish collectivist establishment, the officials of the Educational Institute of Scotland, the directors of education and the socialists of all other parties believe that education can be delivered from the top down according to some great universal plan. We see that in the amendment that the coalition Executive has lodged.

As Enoch Powell said:

"Power devolved is power retained."

So it is in our schools. Head teachers cannot fix dripping taps without employing the council plumber. Schools cannot specialise in the arts, sport or languages unless they are part of a grand Government scheme. The result is that we have an education system in which all feet are expected to fit one shoe size. Is it any wonder that so many of our children are hobbling from the discomfort of an ill-fitting education?

The Conservatives believe that every child is an individual—even twins are different—and that they all need an education that fits as well as possible. That requires choice, and for choice, diversity is required. Diversity cannot, and never will, be provided from the top down. No Wizard of Oz, no education minister, can spin the wheels and pull the levers to deliver an education system that suits us all. Only the unplanned, spontaneous interaction of individuals—teachers, parents, priests and philanthropists—can give us the beautiful kaleidoscope that we need in education.

If we are to provide our children and grandchildren with an education that is fit not only for the future but for the here and now, we could do worse than consider what made our schools a success in the past and what makes the schools in other countries so much better than ours today. We should remember that our parish schools had the autonomy to ensure that our education was different and more successful than England's education. Diversity is delivered in Denmark. It is the norm in the Netherlands. It succeeds in Sweden, New Zealand and throughout the world. All those countries perform better than Scotland. Diversity is not, and never will be, delivered through soviet socialist councils.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

Brian Monteith states that, in the countries that he mentioned, the schools perform better than Scottish schools. Does he accept that, in the programme for international student assessment statistics, which examines the performance of more than 30 countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Scotland was in the top 10 in all the subjects that were examined and performed better than most, if not all, of the countries to which he refers? The international performance of Scotland's schools is extremely strong.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

In other words, Brian Monteith is wrong. What a surprise.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am sorry to disappoint Mike Rumbles, although I do it regularly. The truth is that the OECD pointed out that much of the Scottish information was not comparable and could not be used to determine the proper outcome. As a result, I have lodged a parliamentary question to find out why the information that our schools provided could not be used.

Instead of monolithic, municipal comprehensives throughout Scotland, why should we not have locally managed schools? Such schools would still be funded by the state but would offer diversity in educational approach. Choice comes through diversity, and everyone—particularly those in need—has a right to choice. Choice is also the means to improve the service for all. There is always a better way to do things. Choice means providing services that are free to adapt and have an incentive to do so. It leads to innovation and a widespread improvement in standards—levelling up, rather than down.

In Denmark, if 28 parents get together and produce a sensible business plan for a school of their choice, they are given a state budget and the school is inspected to ensure that it delivers. I am sure that the nationalists will agree that Denmark is a small nation not unlike our own. It is one of the Scandinavian nations that the nationalists often cite. If Denmark can opt into a system in which parents can build their own schools, why cannot we? If Sweden—a social democratic or, some say, socialist country—can introduce vouchers for the benefit of the poorer people in society, why cannot we? We must examine such models to find out what we can learn and adopt.

We must build a new culture in Scotland, in which not only is education cherished for its own sake, but parents and teachers take more responsibility for schools that will become their own. Schools will for now remain the responsibility of local authorities—I accept that—but their management must be loosened so that they can let go altogether in the future.

I congratulate Glasgow City Council, not only on its recent good report from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education, but on its work on devolving further management to schools to the point that when we ask them, "Is there anything that the council can do that you could not do yourself?" they tell us, "No. We would rather have even more powers." We can devolve more and more to schools. We should consider developing the Danish model to suit our experience so that the parents of between 20 and 30 pupils can launch new schools that offer different approaches under the guardianship of HMIE.

Let there be no mistake: I am not suggesting that we will encourage schools to opt out. That is how the Conservative policy was portrayed in the past when we talked about self-governing schools. We need to create new schools that will opt into the system. Such schools would opt in to provide girls-only schools like Notre Dame High School in Glasgow, which is a state school—which is great. They would opt in to provide Gaelic-medium schools like the Gaelic-medium school in Glasgow.

There are parents in Edinburgh who want a Gaelic-medium school but cannot get one. They are told that there is not enough demand. We should give them the ability—the budget and direct finance—to establish a Gaelic-medium school in Edinburgh. That school would flourish. It would be a magnet, and people would move to Edinburgh as a result. Places such as Perth would ask why they could not have a Gaelic-medium school. We would witness the flourishing of Gaelic education. We would witness the halting of the decline of the language and find the way to turn it round. We will change the situation of Gaelic in Scotland by letting parents build the schools that they need.

We could have other types of schools, such as sports schools or language schools. The Executive is allowing us to have specialist schools—from the top down. Why, if such schools are allowed to select pupils on the basis of their ability in sport, languages or music, are they not allowed to select pupils on their ability in English or maths? Oh—I am sorry to make such a suggestion. That might be regarded as selection. It might mean the end of the comprehensive system as we know it. The truth is that the comprehensive system as we know it is disappearing fast under those who pretend most to defend it.

We could have faith schools. There is a great deal of debate about such schools, so I leave that subject to a colleague to take up, because it will take some time. I point members to the information that is available on the success of faith schools. I urge the Executive to exercise great caution when it patronises politicians who say that faith schools are a good thing and accuses them of advocating divisive, creationist, sectional schools that will rip society apart. The evidence, which has been seen and reported on by Tony Blair, is that schools such as Emmanuel City Technical College in Gateshead do not fit that description—not only politicians but people of other faiths are quite clear about that. The Labour party in England established four Muslim schools, which is a good thing. Those schools were established in areas in which there is no divisiveness, rioting or trouble. They are a bridge to building an inclusive society.

It is through the creation of a vibrant, diverse and competitive education system that choice can be assured, that high standards can be delivered and that a passport to numeracy and literacy can be guaranteed for all in Scottish society. Only when we achieve that bottom-up choice and diversity will we liberate our people from the poverty of aspiration that has been created by socialism in Scotland.

I move,

That the Parliament believes that schools should be given the flexibility to organise learning in the ways that best meet the needs of their pupils; further believes in the fundamental importance of diversity in education; supports the view that the elimination of denominational schools would be damaging to Scotland's education system, and recognises that the key challenge is to improve educational opportunities for all Scotland's young people through encouraging greater diversity and devolved management.

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

I found it interesting to listen to Brian Monteith's purple prose. It just goes to show that umpteen mentions of socialism and quotations from Tony Blair or others in the Labour party do not add up to anything other than the same old Tory mantra. If members listened to the coded language, they would have heard mention of vouchers, competitive systems and magnet schools. That is not what the Executive is about.

Let me start by making it absolutely clear that the Executive is committed to giving every child and young person a high-quality education that meets their needs, that raises standards across the board and that closes the opportunity gap, about which we did not hear a huge amount from the Tories. Young people need schools that will challenge them to achieve as much as they can. Some young people need particular help and support to reach their full potential. Our ambitions and aspirations for education and young people are high, and we must rise to the challenges. We must remember that excellent work is being done every day in schools throughout Scotland, rather than talking down what is going on in Scotland's schools. I know that that excellent work is going on from the visits that I make, from my discussions with staff and young people and from the feedback that I get from parents, as well as from the results that my colleague, Nicol Stephen, quoted earlier.

It is worth remembering that we are delivering major investments in schools and teachers. Pupils are benefiting from an increase in the budget for education through the local government finance system and through additional allocations of resources that go straight to schools. Teachers are benefiting from an investment in pay, conditions and professional development. Training places are being provided for probationary teachers and reduced class-contact time and mentoring support are also being provided to help them to settle into the profession. Pupils and teachers are benefiting from investment in new or substantially refurbished schools and we are prioritising further improvements in school buildings—we recognise the work that needs to be done. Parents and carers are benefiting from the pilot new community schools, which are bringing together the services to support them and their children and giving them closer involvement in their children's education. We plan to spread the benefits of that approach throughout Scotland.

The motion mentions denominational schools. I want to repeat a comment that I made in the chamber in answer to a member's question. The Executive recognises and remains committed to supporting the valuable contribution that is made by denominational schools.

Brian Fitzpatrick (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

It is particularly appropriate that I ask the minister this question, given that children from Our Lady of the Missions Primary School are in the public gallery. Does the minister agree that parents such as me choose to send their children to denominational schools in order to secure a wider social base and because of the work that those schools do with children with special educational needs? We do not claim any exclusive preference or benefit—all communities can bring a different insight to how education is delivered. It is through building a wider school community within a distinct faith setting that the real benefits of denominational schools must be seen.

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

I was going to come on to that issue by speaking about the answer that I gave to a question that I was asked in the chamber. In my answer, I recognised the fact that many denominational schools have a particular ethos and focus that is welcomed by many parents. We will continue to recognise that.

Brian Fitzpatrick alluded to another important point, which is that we need to focus on the individual needs of children and young people, the outcomes for pupils and what we put into the system. Through the way in which schools work and the way in which learning is organised, we must aim to improve standards, to close the opportunity gap and to ensure that every child gets the education that best meets their needs.

The Parliament has much to be proud of. The Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000 established a focus on education for the individual, and we are making that a reality for every school pupil. The Executive established the national priorities for education, which were endorsed by the Parliament in December 2000. Local authorities have been given responsibility for improvement at the local level and have published improvement plans for implementing the national priorities in a way that makes sense to them. That is not a top-down approach; rather, it is a broad, strategic approach that gives local authorities and schools the opportunity to take account of the national priorities in their development plans.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the minister give way?

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

I will move on a little and then take an intervention.

Our framework paves the way for schools to make local decisions about how to achieve the best outcomes for every pupil in the context of the national priorities.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank the minister for giving way.

The minister says that the Executive is taking a strategic approach, not a top-down approach. If there is demand from parents for the creation of a Muslim, Sikh or Jewish school—such schools have been created in England—will she accede to that demand and allow those schools to be established?

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

I remind Brian Monteith that local education authorities have responsibility for providing schooling. I expect local education authorities to consult their communities, and the issues that he raises are being consulted on in the context of the national debate, which is a healthy approach. This may be unusual, but I welcome the SNP amendment as it gives a central place to the continuing role of local authorities in state schools. We will be happy to add that to our amendment to Brian Monteith's motion.

We are making progress on devolved school management. More than 80 per cent of respondents to a recent survey for our working group found that existing arrangements gave them the flexibility to respond to changing local needs. We want to develop that important finding further.

The Executive issued a circular in August 2001 that promotes flexibility in the curriculum. We recognise that authorities, schools and teachers have the best understanding of local circumstances and we encourage schools to work with parents, carers and communities to respond to pupil needs. In that context, flexibility for schools is not simply a good theory—it is real and is already happening in practice in classrooms around Scotland.

North Lanarkshire made a significant proposal when it signalled its intention to develop three sports comprehensive schools, which will allow pupils to develop a speciality in sport within the comprehensive context. That move must be welcomed. A school in Edinburgh has a project team that is identifying young people who have some of the attributes that may help them to become successful entrepreneurs. It is interesting to note that the team has identified mostly young people who had become disaffected with school but who could be turned around, as they have the potential to become a success in years to come.

I could give members examples from throughout Scotland on how better links are being made with employers. When the Parliament met in Aberdeen, I saw how Northfield Academy had introduced a hairdressing course for some of its pupils, with a fast track into college for pupils who wish to follow hairdressing as a career.

The Executive is delivering an improvement in education and there are successes in schools throughout Scotland. It is true that pupils who pass examinations and gain university or college places are a measure of success, but so, too, is the pupil with special needs who learns a new skill, supported by patient, caring staff, or the disaffected pupil whose attitude is turned around by imaginative teaching, backed up by support from other professionals.

We can and should aim for excellence and inclusion. We should raise standards and close the gap. We need high-quality schools and well-trained teachers who provide encouragement and inspiration and who enable each pupil to reach his or her full potential. Scotland's children deserve the best, and the Executive will ensure that they get the best.

I move amendment S1M-3204.2, to leave out from first "believes" to end and insert:

"welcomes the Executive's progress in investing in school education including A Teaching Profession for the 21st Century which recognises teachers' valuable contribution, modernising the school estate, the establishment of clear national priorities for education with an improvement framework involving both local authorities and schools, the promotion of flexibility in the curriculum and devolved school management arrangements, the contribution made by New Community Schools to supporting pupils' learning and involving parents and carers, recognises the valuable contribution made by denominational schools and believes that our priorities should continue to be the provision of a high quality education appropriate to the needs of every young person in Scotland and closing the opportunity gap."

Irene McGugan (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Members will have noted Michael Russell's absence from today's debate and I advise them to anticipate a slightly different style of delivery.

Diversity in education encompasses many things. The Scottish National Party wants to encourage alternative provision where local demand exists and where local circumstances might be better served by such provision. We are clear that such choice and flexibility should be available within a strong and well-funded state system.

The SNP's belief in diversity within a unified but devolved state system is in keeping with the best traditions of Scottish education. The Executive's over-direction from the centre, with its target setting and its tick-box culture, is less in keeping with those traditions. Our approach is in stark contrast to the Tory agenda of encouraging private education and the purchase of privilege and the Tory belief in early streaming, which results in a permanent disadvantage to the majority of pupils.

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

One of the big questions in the national debate is whether we should move away from mixed-ability teaching to setting and streaming. What is the SNP's view on that?

Irene McGugan (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

We support the research that says that setting and streaming are only ever of benefit to a very small number of pupils. Ronnie Smith, the general secretary of the Educational Institute of Scotland, has blamed class sizes for what he called "the sorry spectacle" of secondary schools returning to a setting and streaming agenda. At their recent conference, EIS delegates noted that a radical reduction in class sizes was the most important priority for schools in the next 10 years. I wonder whose policy that is.

The SNP vision of diversity within Scottish education also supports the broader philosophy of opportunity for all—a belief that I doubt the Conservatives have ever held.

The SNP is committed to further extension of devolved school management, with appropriate levels of responsibility and the introduction of more robust systems. The SNP supports a devolved school management system in which councils would be expected to allocate meaningful sums on a regular basis and would not have the right to override control and to claw back funds from schools. Unlike the Tories, the SNP believes that local authorities, as democratically accountable institutions—that will be even more the case after proportional representation reforms—should retain powers over the framework of the delivery of education.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member join me in condemning the hypocrisy of Labour party members who, while claiming to support the comprehensive system, buy houses in the catchment areas of good schools such as Jordanhill School or Lenzie Academy in order to benefit from a standard of education that is denied to those who live in poorer areas?

Irene McGugan (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I will leave it to the member to make that point.

Devolved school management is another way of ensuring that as much money as possible gets to front-line services. In that context, I challenge the Conservative and Labour obsession with private finance. The use of public-private partnerships to build and run our schools brings significant additional costs and provides questionable service and quality. Furthermore, the need to have commercial rates for the use of facilities is against the ethos of community schools.

The con that PPP represents best value has been exposed by the recent Audit Scotland report, which shows that taxpayers and education authorities are paying up to £18.7 million a year extra under the private finance initiative for schools projects alone. We should think again on that issue.

Diversity is also about future changes in technology, such as the use of broadband and videoconferencing, which are useful for remote and rural areas. There should be diversity in language provision and we support the legal right to Gaelic-medium education where demand exists. On faith schools, as well as supporting Catholic schools, which in Scotland operate within local authority provision, the SNP supports other examples of difference within the state system, such as Steiner Waldorf schools. Steiner Waldorf schools are funded as part of the state sector in other parts of Europe. Why cannot that happen here?

It should also be possible for parents to choose to home educate their children. The draft guidelines that the Executive recently issued would make that more difficult and would interfere unduly with the rights of parents to make such a choice. Why cannot we introduce regulations that enable parents to exercise that choice responsibly and that remove the highly unsatisfactory bureaucratic system that exists?

Last month, a head teacher wrote in The Times Educational Supplement Scotland:

"The SNP has now published its policy paper on education ... the commitment to 'encouragement of diversity based on common high standards within a unified but devolved state system' neatly synthesises the aspirations of many teachers."

I rest my case.

I move amendment S1M-3204.1, to insert at end:

"within a strong and well-funded state educational system administered through Scotland's local authorities."

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

In yesterday's sports debate, we had some fun with the wording of amendment S1M-3192.2, as it became clear that the amendment did not say what Brian Monteith meant it to say. This morning, we must again look carefully at Mr Monteith's wording and reflect on what he is really trying to say.

On reading motion S1M-3204, I find that there is much to agree with. However—to adapt a Shakespearean image—the motion might look like an innocent flower, but we must beware the serpent under it. The motion is not a straightforward list of well-meaning prescriptions for improving the Scottish education system. Instead, it is a thinly concealed attempt to implement a programme that would undermine the widely accepted and well-established philosophical basis of the comprehensive system. I am a convinced advocate of comprehensive education.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Mr Jenkins is entertaining, as always. Does he believe that setting or streaming is compatible with the comprehensive system? Does he support the introduction of setting or streaming in the comprehensive system in Scotland? It is clear that the Minister for Education and Young People supports its introduction, as she is allowing it in the west of Scotland.

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

I detest streaming, but I do not mind setting.

As I said, I am a convinced advocate of comprehensive education. I want a system that is comprehensive in the sense that it is open to all, treats all its pupils with equal respect and parity of esteem and seeks to maximise opportunities for all and to realise the potential of every child within the system.

Such a system must also be comprehensive in offering pupils schooling and an educational experience that cater for the whole child as an individual and as a member of society. In other words, I want a system that fulfils the purposes of education, which we are debating across the nation, as fully as possible in the school context. The comprehensive system must be inclusive rather than divisive and must seek to be supportive rather than judgmental and exclusive. It must help to break down barriers between people rather than to erect them. If we hold our discussions within those parameters, I will be able to consider the motion and to endorse some of its proposals.

Of course schools should be given the flexibility to organise learning in the way that best meets the needs of their pupils and of course we ought not to stifle innovation and creative approaches to teaching and learning. If one were to pick out the bits of Brian Monteith's speech that referred to what is happening, one would find that there is diversity and that diversity is working.

If members were to review the evidence that was given to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee on Tuesday by representatives of parents, teaching unions and directors of education, they would identify a desire across those important stakeholder groups for the professionalism of teachers and the potentially innovative role of managers to be acknowledged. Teachers and managers should be given the opportunity to offer pupils a flexible curriculum that is responsive to their needs. I support the devolving of funding for schools. Diversity will be delivered through such developments.

There needs to be a substantial debate about how diversity is delivered in areas such as music, drama and sport, where we recognise that a youngster has a special talent that is so outstanding and important in that individual's life that it needs to be nurtured and promoted to an exceptional degree. I like the idea of sports comprehensives and there is an argument for elite schools in those areas.

The debate on the provision of centres of excellence for pupils with profound special educational needs is not closed. Mainstreaming is important, but there is still a place for centres of excellence and we must guard against totally throwing out such centres.

We should be able to incorporate into our comprehensive system schools that have a particular philosophical approach to education, such as the Steiner Waldorf schools. In my view, we also need to be a wee bit more relaxed about home education. In all those cases, the debate should take place within the context of the kind of comprehensive system that I described.

The motion mentions denominational schools as though such schools were under threat. Cathy Jamieson's amendment makes it clear that there is no imminent threat and recognises the valuable contribution that such schools make to the Scottish education system. However, within that context, I am instinctively resistant to the creation of new schools that are based on exclusivity. I am resistant to schools that are designed to erect barriers that mark out differences and separate some pupils from others in a divisive way. I do not wish to throw out the argument, but my instinctive position is that I do not wish more barriers to be created.

It will come as no surprise that we oppose Mr Monteith's motion. If we were to follow Mr Monteith's instincts, we might end up with a plethora of schools, each of which would go in its own direction with no regard to the needs of the community as a whole and with no organising principle. If diversity is king, there is a danger that particular individuals and groups will fall through the net and not be catered for properly. If, as the motion suggests, diversity is paramount, the clear danger exists that pupils in some schools will not cover important ground.

It is clear that there must be an organising principle and a system of monitoring to ensure that the Scottish education system provides high-quality education for every young person in Scotland. I believe that we can have such a system and that that system can be comprehensive and diverse.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

We move now to the open part of the debate.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I welcome any opportunity to debate education in the chamber, but I am disappointed with today's Tory motion. In recent weeks, Brian Monteith has issued myriad press releases to make negative utterances about education in Scotland. The motion fails to address the real issues that face us in Scottish education.

The Scottish Executive has rightly focused on increasing investment in schools to deliver high-quality education for our pupils. The reality is that the Tory Government presided over underinvestment in education, crumbling school buildings and a demotivated teaching staff. The Scottish Executive has delivered key improvements: reductions in class sizes; a fair pay deal for teachers; a £500 million school building programme; and free nursery places for every three and four-year-old.

From recent Tory utterances, it is clear that the Tory concept of devolved management means the direct funding of schools and the abolition of the role of local councils. Not only is that a direct attack on the democratic accountability of local government, but it would have disastrous results for schools and pupils.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

If our proposal would be so disastrous, why do practically all the countries above Scotland in the international tables not administer their schools through local authorities? Instead, those countries encourage diversity by allowing schools to be managed by teachers and parents in partnership. Why would that be so disastrous? Why cannot such a system work here, as it does in other countries?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

In the remainder of my speech, I will be delighted to explain exactly why the Tory proposal would be disastrous.

The Tory motion talks about diversity in education, but a role for local authorities and for Government is vital precisely because of the diversity and differences among schools and among pupils. That role must be in service delivery. I will provide an example from direct experience to show how direct funding of schools would destroy schools' ability to meet the ever-changing needs of their pupil populations.

In the provision of services for pupils with special educational needs, it is absolutely vital that there is co-ordination at both local authority and national Government level. The policy of inclusion of pupils with special educational needs can work only if adequate support systems are in place for both pupil and school. In practice, local authorities provide core pupil-support funding to each school so that the schools can provide day-to-day support for pupils with special educational needs.

However, in many instances, a pupil's needs are more complex and additional staffing or additional information technology equipment is required. It is absolutely essential that schools can respond flexibly and acquire additional funding to meet the needs of such pupils and their families.

Let me give an example of how the Tory policy of direct funding would have failed one particular child. My daughter went to a 25-pupil rural primary school. Because she has spina bifida and complex physical needs, she required a high degree of additional funding, which was given to that 25-pupil rural primary school. She continued to receive additional funding throughout her primary and secondary education. That additional funding and support was vital in allowing her to gain enough highers to progress to university. I would die in a ditch to ensure that such pupils who require additional funding receive it. Because additional funding was provided for that child, she was able to be educated in the school in her community alongside her friends.

The key is to find the right balance between giving schools flexibility and ensuring high standards of provision for all our pupils, whatever their needs. Local authorities have a clear role to play and national Government would be failing in its duty if it did not give clear strategic direction for Scottish education. I ask members to support the Executive amendment.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

In rising to support the motion in the name of my colleague Brian Monteith, I make no excuses for returning to the issue of the preservation of rural schools, about which I have spoken many times in the chamber. In the rural environment, diversity means little to those of us who have a limited choice in the schools to which we can send our children. In that context, diversity can often be limited simply to preserving the existing schools so that some choice exists.

Today, I will speak about one case that has been brought to my attention. Aberdeenshire Council has submitted a £35 million bid for a school building programme under the Executive's public-private partnership scheme. The Scottish Conservatives fully support the use of the PPP scheme, which allows councils to increase the quality of the education infrastructure. In recent years, the Lib-Lab Executive appears to have changed its mind and its approach quite radically, but the Conservatives continue to support the scheme, which we pioneered.

If the Aberdeenshire bid is approved, the Scottish Conservatives will be pleased to support many aspects of the proposals, which include plans for a replacement primary school in Kintore and a much-needed extension of the school in Portlethen. However, we disagree with the proposals to close the highly successful, popular and well-attended primary schools in Old Rayne and Rayne North. The council proposes to centralise those services at a new, larger primary school at Logie Durno.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Will the member take an intervention on that point?

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

No.

If those two schools close, the area will lose the considerable benefit that it currently receives from them. Both schools provide a high-quality education for pupils, are in decent physical condition and have no shortage of pupils. Indeed, Old Rayne will see a considerable expansion in numbers in the short to medium term.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I try again to intervene—

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Mr Rumbles, you are entitled to offer an intervention, but you may not stand up and simply make an intervention. As you will speak later in the debate, you will have your chance then.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The council's plans will involve primary pupils facing lengthy bus journeys of approximately an additional hour a day. Those journeys will be along single-track roads, which are especially dangerous during wintry conditions. Children as young as four and a half or five could be put on a bus at 8 o'clock in the morning and not return home until after 4 o'clock in the afternoon. Local parents from Old Rayne and Rayne North have been right to fight the proposals to close their schools. I have visited Rayne North and communicated with many of the parents from both communities. I back their campaign. Parental choice should be a key factor. Part of the reason for the success of both schools is the regard in which they are held by parents, which is demonstrated by the parents' dedicated campaign to fight the closures.

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

Is not there something unsuitable in the logic of private finance initiatives, as applied to rural councils that have a large number of small schools? When Alex Johnstone talked to parents, did he ask them what they thought about PFI schemes?

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I understand that PFIs are being used in Dumfries and Galloway and that that is supported by the SNP. Is not that the case?

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

indicated disagreement.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Both Old Rayne and North Rayne primary schools are in small rural communities and both are the focal points of those close-knit communities. Village fêtes, Christmas nativity concerts and sports days are all held at the schools. The buildings are used by organisations such as the girl guides, the brownies and the Scottish Women's Rural Institute. As one local parent put it to me, closing the village school would be like ripping the heart out of the community.

I note that, in its amendment, the Executive states its belief in community schools and their ability to contribute to communities. The Scottish Conservatives believe that small rural primary schools, such as those in Rayne North and Old Rayne, are vital to the future of our fragile rural communities and should not be closed unless there are exceptional circumstances, which is not the case in the current situation. The SNP is as guilty as any party in the chamber of closing rural schools. I ask the Executive to consider carefully the current proposal.

Colin Campbell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I am beginning to feel as though I am in charge of a number of teachers here. The public might like to work out which of us were in education before we came to the Parliament.

I welcome pupils from the modern studies department of Paisley Grammar School—my old school—who are in the gallery. Although the school was a grammar school, in practice it was comprehensive, because it took in anyone who had a family member in the school. That is where I came from.

I enjoyed Brian Monteith's history of Scottish education, brief and strange as it was. I was interested in his obsession with the bottom-up development of education, given that the parents charter, to which we all now subscribe, was imposed from the top down by a Conservative Government.

It is clear from the motion and the two amendments—let us lay aside the customary self-congratulatory welcome by the Labour party and the Lib Dems of their own policy—that we all agree on diversity in education or

"flexibility in the curriculum and devolved school management arrangements".

There is nothing new in those concepts. By definition, every community and every school in every community is diverse, as is any group of teachers or any roomful of pupils. A secondary teacher's skill lies in adjusting the message and the medium to the group of pupils in the room and in adapting to successive groupings as they charge through the room in the course of the day. A primary school teacher's skill lies in managing the diversity of children in the room all day and sustaining their interest, which is an infinitely more terrifying prospect.

The ethos and style of a school will inevitably reflect the community in which it serves. I was promoted from a secondary school in Greenock, at which it was generally assumed that every pupil would get a batch of highers, to the post of depute head teacher of a school in Paisley that had major social problems. The school was a junior high, whose academic pupils would be transferred at the end of secondary 2. The head teacher and I—then the only two members of staff—worked out the priorities for the school, establishing links with the children's panel, the social work department, the police and other supportive agencies, and decided to beef up the guidance structure. In other words, our ethos and structure were moulded to the perceived needs of the community and were completely different from those of the school that I had left.

The ethos and structure are moulded in every school to accommodate different social, religious and cultural needs. It is obvious from the establishment of school boards and from the well-articulated opinions of concerned parents that schools reflect their community needs far more accurately than they did in the past.

Diversity has always been evident. Despite the centralist tendencies of some local councils, most head teachers, certainly in Glasgow where I was a head teacher for 12 years, subscribed to the Frank Sinatra theory of school management—I did it my way. I will not sing. [MEMBERS: "Ah."] All right then:

"I did it my way."

All the time, that approach was driven by the need to meet the best interests of the pupils and to balance the essential demands of the curriculum with the management of the adults whose task it was to deliver the service.

Irene McGugan's amendment refers to

"a strong and well-funded state educational system administered through Scotland's local authorities."

I worked for local authorities. It is a matter of great regret that none of the ones that I worked for was run by the enlightened SNP; instead, they were run by the Labour party. In other words, I did not agree with their complexion and sometimes their policies, but I believe absolutely that education is a right and that the service must be delivered within the local authority context. If people want to change the context, they go to the ballot box. To deliver the service well, it must be well funded, so that the specialised needs and educational requirements of every child are met. We are still far from that position.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I welcome the GMB retired members branch to the gallery. They may be retired, but they are still active.

It pains me to say this, but if Brian Monteith had stayed long enough to listen to all the evidence at the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, we would not be wasting Parliament's time debating a motion that enjoys no support among parents or education professionals in Scotland. The overwhelming majority of parents want local authorities to be responsible for our schools, yet once again we see the Tories displaying their classic tunnel vision and entirely missing the point about what matters to pupils, to parents and to teachers. Contrast that with Labour's approach—increasing investment in our schools year on year to realise the potential of every child in Scotland.

Let us continue Rhona Brankin's little history lesson with a few more reminders of what education was like under the Tories. Under the Tories, too many of our children left school unable to read or write. With Labour, we have brought about real progress in our primary schools. Standards are up and are rising in reading, writing and maths. We have achieved that by cutting class sizes and focusing relentlessly on what matters.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member give way?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

No, I have heard enough from Brian Monteith today. I know that he does not like what I am saying, but he should listen.

Under the Tories, we had school buildings that were much more suited to the 19th century and that were crumbling through lack of investment. With Labour, we are building and renovating 100 schools by 2003. We are delivering results for parents, pupils and teachers. I visited one of the new schools in Glasgow. Not only is the learning environment better, but teachers say that the pupils are better motivated and there are early signs of better attainment.

Under the Tories, we had fewer teachers to more pupils and the trend was getting steadily worse. Now, with Labour, the position is reversed. We have more teachers in our classrooms, smaller classes and more individual attention for our children. That is just a flavour of what education was like under the Tories.

What lies behind Brian Monteith's motion? It is intriguing. Where is his big idea? I looked for it. it is to be regretted that the motion says nothing new. It outlines the discredited policy that the Conservatives trumpeted in their 2001 general election manifesto, which was resoundingly rejected by the electorate, in case the Conservatives have forgotten. For "devolved management" we should read "free schools". That is their big idea—the direct funding of schools and the abolition of education authorities. The implementation of that Tory policy would mean, as Rhona Brankin said, an end to effective services for pupils with special educational needs and an end to co-ordinated school transport services.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member give way?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I do not want to hear from Murdo Fraser, either.

We would see an end to the careers of 700 teachers who are employed to reduce class sizes. What would be the result of the Tory policy? A patchwork quilt of services that failed to deliver high national standards. What else would we get from the Conservatives? More inequality and inconsistency in the delivery of education services throughout Scotland.

The debate is more about Tory dogma than about diversity. The proposal is not the education model that anyone I know in Scotland wants for their children. Of course we want flexibility in our schools—the flexibility to ensure that pupils are taught what is relevant to them. Creativity and innovation in the curriculum can help to make school relevant to everyone.

I am afraid that if I were Brian Monteith's teacher, I would not only despair, but suspect that his report card would say: "Learned nothing; achieved little. Needs to apply himself better. Perhaps Brian needs to repeat a year, but not at this school."

David (None, Lothians)

I call Mike Rumbles, to be followed by Jamie McGrigor. I ask the final three speakers in the open debate to keep their remarks tight, as we are over time.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Encouraging diversity in education has been and remains a main theme of Liberal Democrat education policy and is the key to ensuring that Scotland's educational system is fit for the 21 st century. Schools should be given the flexibility to organise learning in the ways that best meet the needs of their pupils, but that does not mean that the role of education authorities can be ignored. They play a valuable role by giving local schools help in and guidance on the delivery of education at the chalkface.

The diversity in our education system is one of its greatest strengths, but I do not accept the proposition in Brian Monteith's motion that

"the elimination of denominational schools would be damaging to Scotland's education system".

There is no question of the Government legislating to eliminate denominational schools, so I can only surmise that Brian Monteith's motion is aimed at highlighting the fact that if the denominations themselves decided to end the special status of those schools, that would be damaging. He used the word "patronising". I am surprised at the patronising view that the Tories express. Perhaps I should not be so surprised, because of their track record of pretending that they know best.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will Mr Rumbles take an intervention?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

No. I have been asked to keep my speech tight.

The fact that the Tories pretend that diversity is good but that free choice is bad is an Orwellian conundrum that only they can explain. That is like Brian Monteith's amendment yesterday, which called for a full-time equivalent physical education teacher in every school. When I gave him the opportunity to explain whether that applied to one or two-teacher primary schools, he could not admit that he had boobed and got it wrong. Of course he knows that that proposal is rubbish. Here we are again—Brian Monteith has got it wrong and will not admit it.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member take an intervention?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I will, if the Presiding Officer will give me a little more time. Will you?

David (None, Lothians)

No. Perhaps the member has passed the buck there.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

The so-called party of free choice betrays itself as the party that says, "We know what's best for you, so you'd better listen." However, I acknowledge that Brian Monteith has got right the last part of his motion, which says that

"the key challenge is to improve educational opportunities for all ... through encouraging greater diversity and devolved management."

That is spot on. It is a pity that he could not get the whole motion right.

The Executive's amendment is far more appropriate, as it welcomes the progress that has been made in investing in our schools, recognises the valuable contribution of our teachers and highlights the plans to modernise the school estate. Parents and teachers in my constituency eagerly await the Executive's imminent announcement on Aberdeenshire Council's application for funding to allow new schools to be built in Banchory and lower Deeside and to refurbish Portlethen Academy, to which Alex Johnstone referred. I hope that a positive announcement will be made soon.

Alex Johnstone was less than straightforward—if I can put it that way—about Aberdeenshire Council's proposals. The council has given a guarantee that it will not close Old Rayne School or Strachan School in my constituency if the community wishes to keep them open. I can think of no firmer or more straightforward guarantee. The council is building new schools, but if the community does not want to close the old schools, that is fair enough.

The Liberal Democrats passionately believe that the diversity in our education system is the key to its success and reject the Tory not-so-hidden agenda of centralising control of schools in Edinburgh by abolishing local education authorities. We believe in real diversity and in decisions being made locally, in the best interests of our children.

David (None, Lothians)

I ask the last two speakers in the open debate to keep to three minutes, please.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I congratulate Oban High School on completing its refurbishment after 13 years and wish it well for its opening ceremony on Tuesday, which the Minister for Education and Young People will attend. I also congratulate that school's teaching staff on the marvellous work that they are doing with children on environmental education, the results of which I saw at a Scottish Natural Heritage meeting in Oban earlier this week. They are teaching children to be aware of biodiversity and of what is happening in the surrounding areas and to keep the environment clean, which is important.

I re-emphasise what my colleague Alex Johnstone said about the importance of primary schools. Last week, I visited Dalavich, which is a community in north Loch Awe side in north Argyll. That community is attempting to reopen its mothballed primary school to prevent children having to take a 25-mile journey on single-track roads every day, winter and summer. That is a question of parental choice and I hope that the go-ahead is given to reopen that school.

I emphasise what Brian Monteith said about Gaelic. Gaelic is incredibly important to Scotland. It is vital that the legacy of music, poetry and song is maintained as part of our heritage.

Gaelic is in crisis. Despite the Executive's so-called commitment to Gaelic and its inclusion in speeches by people such as Alasdair Morrison, little appears to be happening. The key is education. Our city centres—places such as Edinburgh, Perth and Inverness—should have Gaelic schools. There should be more Gaelic teachers in primary and secondary schools—there is an enormous shortage of such teachers. Willing teachers should be allowed to take immersion courses, as happens in some Spanish regions, where such action has been an enormous success in maintaining languages. We have a centre of excellence in Gaelic in Sabhal Mòr Ostaig on Skye, but that must be supported by education in other areas.

The university of the Highlands and Islands, which the Conservatives kick-started, is important. The momentum must be continued, so that people in remote areas can study at higher education level where they live, without going elsewhere.

David (None, Lothians)

I am most grateful for the member's brief speech.

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

Like other members, I will talk about rural schools, which exemplify the diversity in our educational system. They are different from urban schools in many ways. The ethos is different; the pupils in rural schools know one another better and know pupils throughout the age range; and the degree of community involvement is different. That is not unique to rural schools, but is practised in them much more.

Rural schools and particularly rural primary schools are also distinct because of their size. Rural schools have more composite classes, which often have large age ranges. They give teachers particular challenges. There is also a significant number of two-teacher and single-teacher schools.

A common feature of rural schools is that they are uniformly excellent and almost inevitably receive glowing reports from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education. Therefore, I am surprised that some people in the educational hierarchy have a down on single-teacher schools. I was especially surprised when an official from Dumfries and Galloway's education authority was quoted in a paper last week as saying that the

"Council do not in principle support single teacher schools".

I do not know whether he was speaking on the record, but he certainly said that. I refute such ideas, because those schools are of high quality and give pupils a high degree of social interaction and learning. Pupils also offer a high degree of support to one another.

I will touch briefly on PFI, since it has been mentioned, but I will leave aside the general concerns on it, as I suspect that we will get an opportunity to discuss that within the next couple of weeks. There are specific problems with PFI in rural areas. I do not think that PFI projects are suited to situations where local authorities have a large number of small schools, all of which need refurbishment.

To respond to Alex Johnstone, I have every sympathy with councillors who are forced to support PFI schemes against their better judgment, as they know that there is no choice in the matter and that, because of the Executive's policy, they will not get any money in other ways.

There is a problem, and a difference, in relation to secondary schools in rural areas because of the restricted availability of courses in many areas. Irene McGugan referred to that in her opening speech: we need to improve the availability of technology so that courses that are being taught at some schools in a region can be taught in other schools there too.

I congratulate rural schools on the way in which they contribute to the diversity of education in Scotland. Their contribution is one that we dare not lose.

Cathy Peattie (Labour, Falkirk East)

This has been a good debate. I always welcome the opportunity to discuss education in the chamber, even if that means discussing Brian Monteith's hotch-potch of proposals.

Diversity is an essential part of the educational framework, and we would not have it any other way. Diversity should not, however, become a fetish, elevated to a status that outweighs other considerations. It should exist within a coherent and holistic approach to education. Nor should diversity be used as a smokescreen. We should be wary of those who would use calls for independence from the system to peddle intolerance or extremism.

If we are serious about diversity, we need to nurture it in schools as well as in the differences between schools and between education authorities. Devolved management is one thing but, as our nationalist colleagues will agree, devolution is not independence. Catholic schools are good examples of diversity working within the system. We want to give schools as much freedom as possible within a framework that ensures a high quality of education across the board.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I have been called many things, but this is the first time that I have been called a fetishist. I am sure that it will not be the last. The member mentions the role of Roman Catholic schools. What would the member's reaction be were congregations of the Church of Scotland—or indeed the church itself—to come forward and state that they wanted to establish a number of Church of Scotland schools? Would it be right and proper for them to be allowed to do so?

Cathy Peattie (Labour, Falkirk East)

Perhaps I should have said "dogma" instead of "fetish". I will go on to discuss the role of local authorities, which play a crucial decision-making role.

I was saying that we want to give schools as much freedom as possible within a framework that ensures high-quality education across the board. That is devolution and subsidiarity. The limits of that freedom are imposed by what can be gained from co-operation and from combined resources. In the context of a large and complex sector, that requires oversight and the guiding hands of local government and the Scottish Parliament. Irene McGugan and Rhona Brankin also raised the importance of local government in delivering education.

True diversity in education is much more easily delivered when built upon a properly-resourced foundation that addresses the individual and collective needs of pupils, staff and parents, and that is open to the input and influence of pupils, staff and parents.

Labour has delivered on a reduction in class sizes, a new pay deal for teachers, free nursery education and classroom assistants to provide much-needed support in the classroom. The feedback that I get from teachers says that that support is working and is very welcome in the classroom. Labour has also reformed the Scottish Qualifications Authority, and changes to the higher still exam are in the pipeline.

The new community schools are a primary example of our holistic approach. The new community schools initiative is fully inclusive, and multidisciplinary working removes the barriers to participation. New community schools offer an opportunity to deliver education in a way that meets the needs of the child, the family and the community rather than the needs of the institution.

Special educational needs provision is another example of diversity in action. It is not about taking a dogmatic approach, but about being child centred and delivering diversity in education and opportunities for children. Parents should be key partners in that process. Mainstream and special schools can work together to provide a holistic response. The framework of inspection needs to take that into account. All children should have personal learning plans.

We need to keep our eyes on the future and to equip our children to be global citizens. The Education, Culture and Sport Committee is carrying out an inquiry into the purposes of education. Earlier this month, the Minister for Education and Young People heralded a national debate on education. We need to address the issue of how children learn and how we can give them the space do that. There is room for schools of excellence, such as Plockton High School, which work alongside comprehensive education. There is room for schools that offer Gaelic-medium education and that cater for the needs of parents who want their children to learn Gaelic. There have been successes not only in the north, but throughout Scotland. Sylvia Jackson has told me about a school in Stirling that is involved in Gaelic-medium education.

The motion before us is open to interpretation, but we cannot support the interpretation that those moving the motion place on it. When I first read the motion I thought that it looked okay, but Brian Monteith's contribution proved that I was right to be suspicious.

We must be clear about our vision and ensure that we deliver education that is fit for the citizens of the 21st century. I ask members to support the Executive amendment.

David (None, Lothians)

I call Fiona McLeod to wind up on behalf of the SNP. [Interruption.] I beg members' pardon—Fiona McLeod has been replaced by Linda Fabiani.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I was hiding behind the lectern.

During Brian Monteith's speech I was struck by the way in which the Tories always do down our education system and what happens in Scotland. Brian spoke about the OECD report on educational performance, to which the minister also referred. Recently I attended a meeting in Falkirk, to which educational specialists from one of the German Länder had come because they were so impressed by what they had read about the Scottish education system, backed up by the OECD report. It is not helpful for us to be negative all the time about what we are achieving and will continue to achieve in this country.

The Tory motion avers

"that schools should be given the flexibility to organise learning in the ways that best meet the needs of their pupils".

That is a fine sentiment, with which no member would publicly disagree. As Colin Campbell said, such flexibility is nothing new—it has always existed. The breadth of learning that pupils achieve through both the school and the university degree system has always been a huge strength of our education system.

Although flexibility in the organisation of learning may be an admirable aim, it may not always be achievable; in some cases, it may be impossible. Schools are still struggling to surface from the sea of bureaucracy that the Tories created during their years in Government. I worry about the fact that schools now have to wade their way through league tables and the targets that the Executive is setting. Such burdens may stymie the innovation that has always been a strength of our education system.

Today we have heard a great deal about class sizes being cut. However, I am not convinced that cutting class sizes by creating composite classes is the answer to our problems. I have heard practitioners argue both for and against composite classes, but most of them take the view that composite classes are not ideal.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

rose—

Cathy Peattie (Labour, Falkirk East)

Will the member take an intervention?

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

What a choice. I am afraid that Alex Johnstone beat Cathy Peattie to it.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Given the excellent standards that are achieved at small rural schools throughout Scotland by the use of composite classes, can the member cite any evidence suggesting that those schools offer a poorer standard of education?

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Alex Johnstone should have delayed his intervention, because I was about to say that there are settings—small schools—in which composite classes have worked very well over the years. Alasdair Morgan made that point in his speech. My concern is very different and relates to schools in large conurbations, where composite classes have been introduced purely to achieve a cut in classroom sizes.

I am not aware that any research has been carried out into composite classes. I hope that the minister can tell me that research has been commissioned. Currently, we have only views from across the board. We must know more about composite classes if that is the way our education system is going. Teachers in South Lanarkshire are extremely worried about the situation. I am sure that that is reflected in all members' constituencies.

The state of school buildings is a long-standing problem that we all know about. I am not convinced that the Labour solution of PFI/PPP—originally a Tory solution—is the right one. It means selling out the future of our public services. When today's schoolchildren are adults, they will still be paying the mortgage on the schools in which they are educated now. That is not an ideal situation.

I am pleased that some councils are considering the SNP's public service trust model, an idea that was introduced a few years ago. When I asked the Minister for Finance and Public Services if the Scottish Executive had ever considered the public service trust model, he said, "No". Local Labour- run councils appear to be more innovative than our Labour Scottish Executive.

Colin Campbell said that education should be regarded as a right. The SNP believes that absolutely. I worry that for too long education in Scotland has been considered an expense rather than an investment in the future of our country.

We hear pearls of wisdom about how Scotland must be at the cutting edge of the information economy. I wonder if there is anybody in power with the guts to make the investment to make that happen. I want to see it happen and I hope that things will look and sound different in the future.

I ask members to throw out the Tory motion because it is pretty awful.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

But the SNP's amendment merely adds to our motion—why does the amendment not delete the motion?

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The Tory motion will be thrown out by acceptance of the SNP amendment, which makes it clear that the future of our education system lies in the public service trust finance model and not in private finance.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

When I saw the original wording of Brian Monteith's motion, I was tempted to support it, although I felt that it might—to use Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's words from the first debate this morning—send out "the wrong signal". However, having heard the details during Brian Monteith's performance this morning, I was very pleased that I had not supported the motion. Mr Monteith seemed to be doing his best to snatch division from the jaws of consensus. In a curious performance, during which he chose to quote Enoch Powell, he came out with the profound statement of the morning—"even twins are different." We will be able to check that statement when Murdo Fraser winds up for the Conservatives.

Whether we call Mr Monteith's speech purple prose or rhetorical rant, there is one thing that we can all agree on, even the Conservatives—it was a very negative description of the current system of Scottish education.

I remember that the iron lady, Margaret Thatcher, used to rail against people who were talking down Britain. This morning, Brian Monteith was talking down Scotland. He chose to ignore the fact that Scotland's performance in education is strong and that the programme for international student assessment—PISA—study that I mentioned shows that, out of more than 30 countries, Scotland is in ninth place in science, in fifth place in reading and in fifth place in maths.

Clearly, we want to do better.

Interestingly, the countries that Mr Monteith chose to compare us with were Denmark, which is outside the top 10 in everything, Sweden, which did well but not as well as Scotland, and the Netherlands. Given what Mr Monteith said about Scotland's performance, it was interesting that he mentioned the Netherlands. The PISA report says that the results of the Netherlands have been published only partially because the Netherlands did not reach the required response rate of 80 per cent.

At present, we have a system that is working. Indeed, it is working well, but we must do better. After years of division and demoralisation, driven by Conservative dogma—we heard that dogma again today; the Conservatives are happy to come up with proposals that might help 2, 3 or even 5 per cent of the children in Scotland—we want a system that considers every young person in Scotland. We do not want to ignore or neglect the other 95 per cent, but that is what Brian Monteith's policies would achieve.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am enjoying the minister's rebuttal of my contribution. However, on examining the coalition's record, I notice that all that the coalition has done is to abolish assisted places and self-governing schools. The coalition has continued all the policies that the Conservatives introduced to change Scottish education throughout the 80s and 90s. Given the deputy minister's original attraction to the Conservative motion—until the Minister for Education and Young People had a word with him—and given the fact that the deputy minister is unable to change anything, would he like to sign the motion and join the Conservative party? Surely the deputy minister should be sitting on the Conservative benches?

David (None, Lothians)

I am afraid that the minister is approaching his last minute.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

My last minute? I am on only my first page and yet I am in my last minute.

David (None, Lothians)

Well, if the minister will get distracted—

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

My response to Brian Monteith's intervention is to say that we reject Conservative dogma. The message from us is simple: we reject vouchers; we reject selection; we reject central Government control of our schools and the removal of the role of our local councils.

If I can, in my final minute, I will briefly mention a couple of other issues. Irene McGugan made a refreshing change from Mike Russell this morning, as I agreed with most of what she said. I agreed with all of her comments except those on the use of private finance in the new investment that we propose for our school buildings. My response to Irene McGugan is simple. Do not fall into the same trap as the Conservatives. Do not allow dogma to block the major new investment that so many of our schools need so desperately.

I say to Mike Rumbles that we will respond shortly to councils in relation to the PPP bids. Politicians from all the political parties in the chamber support those bids. That was mentioned earlier.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

Will the member give way?

David (None, Lothians)

No. The minister is in his last minute.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

I am not allowed to give way.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

Lucky you.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

The Executive is about devolving responsibility, encouraging diversity and flexibility and delivering on the key issues. Our priority is to get on with the job.

Rhona Brankin reminded us that we have delivered. We delivered on the national agreement on pay and conditions, on nursery places for three and four-year-olds, on reduced class sizes and on new investment in our school buildings. We are going to deliver more. There is still a great deal to do, but we want to work with our teachers, parents and pupils. We reject the destructive dogma of which we got a brief but all too alarming reminder this morning.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The debate has been enlightening, although I have to say to Nicol Stephen that I cannot see how anybody could look at Brian Monteith and me and describe us as twins. They certainly could not describe us as identical twins, or at least I hope they could not.

Much has been said in the debate about diversity in education. Our party has talked about diversity for some time and I am delighted that we seem to be winning converts to the cause. In particular, I welcome the Minister for Education and Young People's conversion to the cause. To talk about rejecting a one-size-fits-all approach, as Cathy Jamieson did at the EIS seminar on 23 May, is to lift language straight from speeches that Brian Monteith and I made at the Scottish Conservative party conference the week before—welcome aboard, minister.

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

People should always be cautious about lifting anything from speeches made by Brian Monteith or any of his colleagues. I want to clarify the position that I outlined in the chamber this morning. I have no problem with diversity in a system that ensures that we raise standards and close the opportunity gap. Perhaps Murdo Fraser will say what priority the Conservatives would give to pupils in disadvantaged areas for whom the opportunity gap must be closed. I do not believe that the Conservatives' proposals will address that in any way.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I will cover that in my remarks.

If the minister is serious about diversity, why does she take a dogmatic approach to St Mary's Episcopal Primary School in Dunblane, which is a successful school and which works far better outside the local authority system than it did within it? I say to Rhona Brankin that the provision of special needs education at St Mary's improved considerably when it opted out of the local authority system. It is nonsense that opted-out schools cannot provide appropriate special needs education.

We do not accept the SNP amendment. I question its logic because we already have schools in Scotland, such as Jordanhill School, that exist outside the local authority system. Is it the SNP's policy to bring those schools back under local authority control? The SNP's narrow ambitions depress me. Normally, SNP spokesmen say that we must examine what other countries, such as Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands are doing. However, on education, the SNP does not want to consider what happens in those countries, which is a bit sad.

Denominational schools are an important aspect of the debate and I am pleased that the minister welcomed their distinctive ethos. The logic of diversity is that we should not stop with Roman Catholic schools, but allow other denominations and faiths the same privileges, where there is parental demand. Those who defend Catholic schools, but would refuse Protestant, Muslim or Jewish parents the same opportunities, must be careful about the messages that they send to the diverse society that is modern Scotland. We do not anticipate a huge rush to set up faith schools. Where they exist in England, they are popular with parents and deliver a high standard of education. We do not propose that the state should set up such schools, because they should be a response to parental demand.

I am pleased that Irene McGugan, who is very sensible when compared to Michael Russell, is here today. Michael Russell has been talking nonsense about us wanting to set up creationist schools. Where are the creationists in Scotland who want to set up schools? Are the streets of Scotland choked with parents burning copies of "The Origin of Species" and demanding that creationist schools be set up? Michael Russell's suggestion is ridiculous.

The key point is that one either supports diversity or one does not. We cannot say, as the SNP does, that there should be diversity, but only if that involves the types of school of which the centre approves. That is a centralising approach, not a diversifying approach.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Does Murdo Fraser believe that we cannot have diversity in a state-funded school system?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

We are in favour of a state-funded school system. We have never suggested that the system should not be state funded. We are saying that the system should be more responsive and diverse, but still state funded. The problem is that the present system fails Scotland's youngsters.

There is a consensus among all the parties that we need a more diverse system. The people who suffer the most are the poorest in our society. The middle classes have always had the option of opting out of the state sector and choosing independent education. That is their right and they should not be condemned for it. However, only around 5 per cent of people are fortunate enough to be in that position. Other parents buy houses in the catchment areas of what are thought of as good schools. There is a degree of hypocrisy in that. Such people can be champagne socialists, who proudly claim to support the state system, but do so only because they can afford to buy a house in the catchment area of Jordanhill School, Lenzie Academy, Balerno High School or James Gillespie's High School. Perhaps some Labour members are in that category. I do not judge them. I simply wish that they were honest and did not try to deprive the less well-off of the same choices that they have been fortunate enough to be able to make.

The least well-off have no options. They cannot choose private schooling and do not have the opportunity to buy a house in the catchment area of a good school. They are left with the local comprehensives that are shunned by those who have the resources to make choices. We must extend choice so that not only the better-off benefit. In countries such as Sweden and in some states in the United States, where education vouchers have been introduced, the uptake is not highest among the middle classes, but among the least well-off. Perhaps we should consider similar models here as part of the national debate on education.

At least we are moving in the right direction.

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

Is Murdo Fraser seriously proposing to reintroduce a voucher system for schooling? By trying to root schools firmly in their communities, such as the community I live in and represent, we are doing more to close the opportunity gap than any discredited voucher system would. Mr Fraser has not yet addressed that point.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thought that we were having a national debate on education. Is the minister saying that the parameters have been set so narrowly that everything is ruled out? However, I am pleased to hear that she supports her local school. Perhaps she should have a word with some Labour members and find out whether they also support their local schools or whether they are abusing the catchment area system. I am sure that some of them are doing that.

All parties in the chamber now say that a more diverse education system is the right direction to move in. The challenge is to devise an education system that provides opportunity for all, regardless of background; that promotes excellence; and that makes Scottish education the best in the world once again. That is what our motion seeks to achieve, and I urge members to support it.

David (None, Lothians)

That concludes the debate.

Business Motion

David (None, Lothians)

The next item of business is the business motion S1M-3202, in the name of Patricia Ferguson, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out the business programme.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees— (a) the following programme of business Wednesday 19 June 2002

2.30 pm Time for Reflection followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by Local Government Committee Debate on its Report on Local Government Finance followed by Motion on Private Hire Vehicles (Carriage of Dogs etc) Bill—UK Legislation followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business Thursday 20 June 2002

9.30 am Scottish National Party Business followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by Business Motion

2.30 pm Question Time

3.10 pm First Minister's Question Time

3.30 pm Stage 1 Debate on the School Meals (Scotland) Bill followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business Wednesday 26 June 2002

2.30 pm Time for Reflection followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by Committee of the Whole Parliament: Stage 2 of the University of St Andrews (Postgraduate Medical Degrees) Bill followed by Stage 3 Debate on University of St Andrews (Postgraduate Medical Degrees) Bill followed by Executive Business followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business Thursday 27 June 2002

9.30 am Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by Stage 3 Debate on Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner Bill followed by Finance Committee Debate on its Report on Stage 1 of the 2003/04 Budget Process followed by Business Motion followed by Motion on appointment of Scottish Public Services Ombudsman and Deputy Ombudsmen

2.30 pm Question Time

3.10 pm First Minister's Question Time

3.30 pm Executive Business followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business and (b) that the Justice 2 Committee reports to the Justice 1 Committee by 17 June 2002 on the Criminal Legal Aid (Scotland) (Fees) Amendment Regulations 2002 (SSI 2002/246) and the Criminal Legal Aid (Fixed Payments) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2002 (SSI 2002/247) and by 24 June 2002 on the Civil Legal Aid (Scotland) Amendment (No 2) Regulations 2002 (SSI 2002/254).— [Patricia Ferguson.]

Motion agreed to.

Question Time — SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

To ask the Scottish Executive when it will publish the report of the cities review team. (S1O-5304)

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

The draft report of the cities review team will be submitted to me before the summer recess. The report will be published in the autumn together with a response from the Executive.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

Glasgow is the city with the highest council tax in Scotland, providing services to the population well outside its boundaries. I ask the minister for an assurance that, when the report is published, there will be meaningful discussion with the city authority, MSPs will have a full part to play in discussing the available options and, crucially, the report will consider an appropriate status for Glasgow, which plays a particular role in Scotland and handles the needs of Scotland's most deprived citizens.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I am well aware of Pauline McNeill's interest in representing Glasgow and the assertiveness that she brings to that role. In the time that I have been responsible for the cities review I have been made well aware of the challenges that Glasgow and other cities in Scotland face. We have engaged in meaningful discussions with the leaderships of all the cities and will, of course, do our best to ensure that the issues that they raise are addressed as well as possible.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I am glad that the minister has said that the report will be brought before Parliament in the autumn. Is the minister aware of the report by the Glasgow council voluntary sector and work foundation, which states that current programmes will create only 7,500 jobs and that only 4,000 of those will go to Glaswegians? Glasgow needs 50,000 jobs. Will the minister tell us what measures are in the cities review to address the problem and create the jobs that Glasgow badly needs?

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I am sure that Sandra White will appreciate the fact that I cannot extract one issue from the cities review prior to its publication and prior to the Executive's response, which I am sure she will be interested in. I assure her that the cities review team has considered seriously jobs, employment and who gets jobs. An analysis of those issues is embedded in the continuing work.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

The minister will be aware of Professor Arthur Midwinter's report on the mismatch of local government finance after the reorganisation of local government. That report says clearly that Glasgow has lost out from local government reorganisation and is due at least £36 million extra in supplementary grant for services in the city. Will that be fed into the cities review, will it form part of the review's conclusions and will the Executive start to fund Glasgow properly?

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I do not know whether Mr Sheridan was listening to what I said earlier. I made it clear that the cities review report will be published before the summer and that the Executive will give its response to it. I assure everyone in the chamber that the issues of funding, what is happening to cities and the challenge that they face with employment are at the heart of the cities review. We have engaged properly with city leaderships on those issues and have spoken to many experts about them. A comprehensive range of information and evidence is available to us when we make our decisions. I assure the Parliament that the review will be comprehensive and robust and that the issues that have been brought to our attention will be dealt with.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

To ask the Scottish Executive when it will bring forward a timetable for the construction and completion of the Glasgow airport rail link. (S1O-5320)

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

We expect to receive our consultant's final report in the autumn and we will then seek to agree with other interested parties a timetable for obtaining parliamentary powers and design and construction proposals.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

I thank the minister for that cautious response. The minister will be aware that there is tremendous and overwhelming support in Glasgow and west central Scotland for the early construction of a rail link to Glasgow airport. Indeed, there is cross-party support for the development at all levels of government. Does the minister agree that, should the Executive agree the development in the near future, it would have economic benefits and would support the development of Glasgow airport as the main centre of scheduled aviation services between the west of Scotland and the rest of the world? Does he agree that the development would not, in itself, damage the prospects of other Scottish airports?