Scottish Parliament, 28 November 2002

477 contributions from 84 members. The official report.

Introduction

Education

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S1M-3650, in the name of Brian Monteith, on education, and two amendments to that motion.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am pleased to open today's debate on education. In the year in which we have had our so-called great debate on education and in the week in which the latest exam results have been published, it is particularly apt— [Interruption.]

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The microphone has failed, but the technicians are trying to bring the sound back.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The powers of censorship in this Parliament!

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

There is a God.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

No one is trying to shut you up, Mr Monteith. Please continue.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

We all share the same God, Mike.

As I was saying, it is particularly apt that we should debate today the future direction of school education in Scotland. After five years of Labour Government, the official figures tell us that more pupils are leaving school without a qualification than was the case last year. They also show that the gulf between the best and the worst schools is widening compared with last year.

In our monolithic system, the differences between school curriculums is only at the margin and the ability to select schools is still predicated mainly on where parents stay rather than on what pupils might want to study. In such a system, the people who suffer most are the children from the poorest backgrounds. Not only are such children's parents unlikely to be able to afford a house in the catchment area of a school with a strong academic reputation, but the children's family circumstances may mean that they do not receive enough parental support or have access to the additional learning at home that can make the difference.

Despite that, all pupils are measured against the same academic yardsticks, as are their schools. Accordingly, some schools are seen to fail. However, simply turning those schools into community schools will not make the difference, for that will not remove them from the glare of inspection, which compares them with the best-performing schools. I know that the Minister for Education and Young People will try to paint a different picture, but one need only visit Scotland's schools to see that they have more in common with one another than they have to differentiate them.

If we are to achieve the goal of parity between academic and vocational studies—as many contributors to yesterday's debate on lifelong learning mentioned—we must first recognise that many of our schools are delivering the wrong type of education to suit the children who study in them. The solution is not simply to deliver a more flexible curriculum, but to accentuate the differences and to allow schools to play to their strengths, which can be marketed to parents and employers.

What would a policy of specialist schools mean in Scotland? It would mean that the curriculum that schools delivered was decided by schools themselves, according to the demands of the pupils and parents and taking into account the strengths and weaknesses of the teachers and departments. In our larger cities, that would mean greater choice. That is how things should be, as our larger cities have not only more schools that would be able to diversify, but more schools that have to deal with the problems of relative poverty and family breakdown. If we look at the bottom decile of schools as measured by academic performance, we find that the majority of them are in Edinburgh and Glasgow.

In Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Dundee, schools could decide to specialise in, say, modern languages. That need not be just French, German and Spanish; it could be Russian, Arabic and Chinese. The schools could cater for the needs of our Muslim community or of our export-led businesses.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Can Brian Monteith explain how that would be different from the present system? What is there in the present system to prevent a school from offering Arabic, Chinese or a range of modern languages? What regulation does the minister enforce that would prevent that from happening?

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Mike Russell should really get his finger on the pulse of what is happening in Scottish education.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Answer the question.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Mike Russell need only look at what is happening in Fife, where it is likely that there will be no language provision other than for French. I suggest that schools should be able to decide to concentrate on particular languages, so that they can offer a speciality in their area and provide a stronger educational basis for pupils.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

No. I must carry on. No doubt we will hear what the member has to say later. I may even allow him another intervention, but I must make progress.

We could see schools specialising in subjects such as baking and catering so that they can meet the needs of our tourism industry. Why cannot we have a music school that specialises in piping? Why cannot a school be linked to light industry and to the information technology industries? Why should we not have a media school in Glasgow to provide technicians and journalists? The possibilities are limitless and such schools need not be restricted to urban areas.

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

Does Brian Monteith care to comment on the fact that, when I praised an Aberdeen school for offering Scottish vocational qualifications in hairdressing, some commentators who support his party took that to be a dumbing down of education?

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I do not share that view. I was asked a similar question by journalists. They asked whether I would attack the provision of national qualifications in hairdressing and tourism. I may not have much hair, but I believe that hairdressers are necessary.

As I said, the possibilities are boundless. The existence of the music school in Plockton shows that a rural location need not be a poor location.

Providing a wider choice would be beneficial not only because it would empower pupils and parents and allow education to be shaped to meet the needs of the individual student, but because, as the available evidence shows, attainment would be improved. Why is that so? More research needs to be done, but I contend that, by offering a curriculum that engages and excites the pupil, the street culture that school is boring is negated and replaced by a learning culture, in which people have a thirst for knowledge. Discipline improves and better outcomes for the disadvantaged offer better hopes for their future.

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

I refer back to Mike Russell's question: what currently prevents schools from doing what Brian Monteith suggests? If Brian Monteith visited as many schools as I do, he would discover that that is happening in a significant number of Scottish schools.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

This may surprise the minister, but I have visited as many schools as she has. I have been our education spokesman since I came to the Parliament. Now that she is Minister for Education and Young People, Cathy Jamieson may visit more schools than I do each week, but she is the fifth education minister and, according to The Scotsman today, she may not be education minister for long.

What we can do just now is give schools more support. They need to have greater powers to recruit teachers in a particular specialisation, to control their budgets and to reject what the local authorities say that schools should do—such as in Fife, where the authority has said that schools should drop German. We could then have true specialisation and schools could choose to go down the route that they demanded.

At this point, let me turn to Mike Russell's amendment, which sinks to the politics of the gutter in trying to portray as reactionary and right wing any idea that has not come from the Educational Institute of Scotland's manual. The idea that all things Tory must be bad is straight out of "Animal Farm".

"Four legs good, two legs bad",

says Mike Russell, and some Labour members join in. This is the Mike Russell who likes to portray himself as the cultured one amid the nationalist sea of mediocrity.

However, I must ask whether Mike Russell would get rid of classroom assistants, which were first piloted by the Tories before they were introduced nationally across Scotland. Would he get rid of national provision of nursery schools, which was first introduced when the Tories were in government? Would he get rid of school boards, which were first introduced by Tories and now exist in 80 per cent of Scottish schools? He and his colleagues voted to get rid of self-governing schools, but would he get rid of grant-aided schools, which were enshrined in the Tory education acts? What is his message to Jordanhill School, which is Scotland's best state school? What is his message to the six special-needs schools or to St Mary's Music School, all of which are grant aided?

Another important question for Mike Russell is whether he would abolish placing requests. He might say that he would not do so, but the direct consequence of his plans for small class sizes in primaries 1, 2 and 3 is that he would need to override parents' requests and force their children to go to schools with excess capacity.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Brian Monteith raises an interesting point about placing requests. Had he considered the issue more closely—indeed, had he considered the issue of education more closely—he would have realised that one of the consistent themes of my arguments about education in rural Scotland and about the need for diversity in education is that placing requests are central. I have worked with members of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee to go against the view taken by some Tories that a high level of placing requests should call into question whether a school should stay open. I am in favour of placing requests; Mr Monteith's party appears to penalise them.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am glad to hear Mike Russell speaking against his amendment, because placing requests were enshrined in the Education (Scotland) Act 1996.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I will allow you one more minute, Mr Monteith.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Presiding Officer, I recognise that I must move on. Placing requests must be retained, but they are contrary to the Scottish National Party's policy on smaller class sizes.

So we have Michael Russell's brave new world, but no information, power or place for parents. I say, let him go into the election with those policies and let him reap the whirlwind.

Is allowing schools to specialise counter to the comprehensive ethos of equal opportunities for all? If it is, we must reject that view of comprehensive education, because a one-size-fits-all uniformity produces a postcode lottery.

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

Will the member give way?

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

No, I am in my final minute.

That approach works to an academic agenda that abandons many in its wake, especially those from the poorest backgrounds. Where is the much-vaunted social justice in that educational lottery?

Specialist schools need not be a left-wing or right-wing issue, as Tony Blair has shown. It will be regrettable if our old Labour comrades and the ignoramuses in the SNP wish to make it one, because that will be a missed opportunity for a new consensus on education. However, I will happily see specialist schools a policy of the Conservative party alone.

I move,

That the Parliament believes that the Scottish education system should move to the post-comprehensive era, where schools keep the comprehensive principle of equality of opportunity but are opened up to new and different ways of education built round the needs of the individual child and where there is a greater range of specialist schools for parents to choose from, offering excellent routes into university and skilled employment.

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

I am happy to take the opportunity once again to make clear the Executive's commitment to education and to ensuring that every young person gets the best possible start in life.

On the face of it, Brian Monteith's motion seems straightforward and he will no doubt continue to present it as entirely in keeping with some of the more radical Labour and coalition policies. However, I cannot recall any point during the 18 years of Tory rule when education received the level of investment that we are now providing—investment to transform our school buildings, investment in our teachers and support staff and investment in the new community schools that Brian Monteith does not want to be rolled out across Scotland.

Every child should get the best possible start in life and in education. That is why the Executive has delivered a nursery place for every three and four-year-old. That is real, practical and tangible delivery, unlike the Tories' failed voucher scheme, which no one wanted, so forgive me if I am cynical about what lies behind the Conservatives' motion.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The minister referred to the amount of investment that the Executive is putting into education. Does she believe that that level will be sustained, given the problems that Mr Brown had to face up to yesterday?

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

I will give Phil Gallie a one-word answer, as I usually do: yes.

I return to my point about opportunity for all in education. I am talking not about opportunities for education for a privileged few, but about real opportunities for every young person to meet their full potential. I am talking about the child with special needs, the gifted child, the talented child, the child who needs their confidence boosted, the child who has little in the way of family support, the child from the poorer area as well as the child from the better-off area—every one of those children is an individual and deserves the best that education can offer. That is why the Labour party and I—and indeed the SNP, as Mike Russell outlined—believe in the comprehensive principle.

However, as I have said repeatedly, we must not be complacent. We must raise our game. We must open up schools to new ideas and to different ways of teaching and learning that are built round the needs of the individual child and that close the opportunity gap.

It is important that we do not lose the distinctive features of Scottish education, because diversity and choice are important. Every school must offer choices to pupils and parents. Every school should be a centre of excellence. Although there is a role for schools to specialise and for authorities to encourage them to do so, I am not talking about schools competing with one another. As Jack McConnell said in his speech to head teachers:

"I won't settle for ambition for the few - and I will not settle for standardisation for the many. I am not interested in having a few schools with centres of excellence. My goal is for every school in Scotland to be excellent."

Our education system must and does offer flexibility for local authorities and head teachers. It will allow them to innovate and to implement local solutions to meet local priorities. We heard nothing from Brian Monteith about the barriers that supposedly prevent that from happening.

The circular on flexibility in the curriculum that was issued to directors of education last year made it clear that a one-size-fits-all approach to the curriculum would not meet the individual needs of pupils.

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

Does the minister think that it is a wee bit strange that Brian Monteith did not mention his further education option, about which we heard so much two weeks ago? The possibility of children leaving school at the age of 14 seems to have been discarded to the dustbin.

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

Brian Monteith did not talk about much to do with young people's education, but I want to spend some time talking about some of the positive things that are happening.

As I mentioned, the circular to directors of education opens up the way for schools and authorities to innovate to meet their pupils' needs. As we heard in the recent debate, we are supporting and evaluating innovative projects through the future learning and teaching programme. Let me mention a few points about some of those projects.

Mindscreen's entrepreneurial spirit project works with some very disaffected young people in six schools in Edinburgh, East Ayrshire and Moray through a two-year programme encouraging entrepreneurship. In partnership with Young Enterprise Scotland and other stakeholders, Mindscreen and the schools involved are building young people's confidence and their capacity to make a success of their school careers and, more important, their future lives.

Two students who took part in some pre-pilot work on enterprise education two years ago at Wester Hailes Education Centre in Edinburgh are now in secondary 5 studying enterprise and making their own music CDs, which I am reliably informed should be in the shops in time for Christmas.

Trinity Academy is piloting the Edinburgh transition programme, which offers an intensive pre-vocational training programme, concentrating on life skills and attitudes, to young people who find it difficult to make the transition from school to the world of work. Those young people get the opportunity to take up a one-day-a-week work placement throughout the whole of their S4 year in a job of their choice. That is the kind of real, practical, tangible solution that Sylvia Jackson and colleagues in the Labour party want to see, not the empty rhetoric from the Tories.

The education for work and enterprise review group, chaired by Nicol Stephen, will shortly produce its final report. We will, of course, do more to ensure that we get high-quality vocational education and improve the range of vocational qualifications on offer in schools.

On the exam figures that were published yesterday, of course exam results are very important to young people and their parents—they provide the main currency for young people as they make their way through life. I have been encouraged to see the improvements that many schools have made over the past few years. I am not satisfied that we have done all that we can to improve literacy and numeracy or to offer the curriculum choices that young people want and need.

Our reforms must be carefully considered and targeted so that real change is made. They must build on the new community school approach and involve parents and other professionals as well as teachers and support staff. I am clear that improvement is not just about exam results. There are five national priorities in education, which were endorsed by the Parliament. Schools must do the very best for their pupils against each and every one of those priorities, not just on attainment and exam results.

Some schools in Scotland have risen to that challenge and improved outcomes for their pupils, often against a background of social disadvantage. All Saints Secondary School in Glasgow, Holy Rood High School in Edinburgh and St Modan's High School in Stirling are three schools that have made good progress. There is still more to be done. Schools and education authorities must consider how they can learn from best practice and ensure real improvement.

The Presiding Officer is looking at me, so I should wind up.

Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education is now moving towards a new style of inspection that will give most attention to the schools that need the most support. The inspectorate is bringing its expertise to schools with a programme that will be customised to the schools' needs. That is how we will proceed.

The foundations are in place for every school to be excellent. We should build on those foundations by developing the comprehensive principle, by giving greater control to head teachers and by supporting and challenging authorities and schools to deliver the very best for every pupil. We should not settle for second best; we should continually aim for excellence.

I move amendment S1M-3560.2, to leave out from "believes" to end and insert:

"acknowledges the distinctive nature of Scottish education; supports reforms designed to tackle underperformance in schools and ensure that every school is a centre of excellence; recognises the major investment being made by the Scottish Executive; supports local flexibility and innovation in schools; welcomes the increased emphasis on citizenship, enterprise and vocational education; acknowledges the importance of a strong partnership with education authorities, schools, teachers and parents in raising attainment and closing the opportunity gap, and supports the Executive in its determination to ensure every child has an education that meets his or her individual needs."

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I welcome the opportunity to have this debate. Apparently, the motion represents—so journalists have been briefed—Mr Monteith's big ideas for Scottish education. I find it quite interesting that Mr Monteith's big ideas can be contained in seven lines, most of which are simply nonsense, but we will come to that in a moment.

Let me begin my speech with a quotation from Bryce and Humes's "Scottish Secondary Education: Philosophy and Practice", which is one of the core works in education philosophy:

"Scotland's national identity is defined partly in terms of communal solidarity, a belief in democratic processes and a commitment to social justice".

Using that quotation as the bedrock of the debate today, we can see the woeful inadequacy of the motion and of Tory philosophy in general. Tory philosophy, of course, is not defined in terms of communal solidarity; it is about the cult of the individual, as Margaret Thatcher indicated in this very hall. It is not a belief in democratic processes. The Conservative party opposed the democratic process in Scotland and would not take part in a debate that led to this Parliament.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Neither did the SNP.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I have always argued for a Parliament for Scotland. I remember standing on Calton hill on the night before the Scottish Parliament referendum, while Mr Monteith argued against me on television that this Parliament should not exist. I remember that; he should remember it, too.

As the Tory motion shows, the Conservatives have no commitment to social justice. The reality is that Tory philosophy on education, as with all Tory philosophy, remains anti-Scottish. I cannot take the motion seriously.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

We do not take you seriously.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Oh, I think that Mr Fraser should.

If we want a debate on education in Scotland, let us have a real debate on education in Scotland. Let us have a debate about what Scotland's schools actually need and what Scottish education should be. Scottish education should be broad based, it should be inclusive and it should be diverse. It should be, in all the meanings of the word, comprehensive.

My objection to what is happening in education in Scotland at the moment is not based on a desire on my part to move to what Mr Monteith calls a post-comprehensive era. I wonder what the pre-comprehensive era was. I think that it involved putting children up chimneys, which is probably what the Tories would like to continue to do.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

For the benefit of Mike Russell, I quote from the chapter "The History of Scottish Education, Pre-1980" in "Scottish Secondary Education: Philosophy and Practice":

"Even for the political left, selection seemed acceptable after the war as an expression of equality of opportunity, and the more idealistic vision expressed in the 1947 report of the Scottish Advisory Council on Education was rejected by the SED."

Is it not the case that education policy in the pre-comprehensive era had cross-party support from people in the Conservative and Labour parties—across all political ideologies—and that the comprehensive era was introduced later by socialists?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Mr Russell made a speech to Mr Monteith as well. I will give Mr Russell extra time to compensate.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

There is not much point in arguing about what Mr Monteith said. I am quite happy to debate the history of Scottish education with him, but I am more interested in the future of Scottish education and what we are going to achieve in Scotland.

I object strongly to some of the things that are happening at the moment. I do not doubt the Minister for Education and Young People's personal commitment—I have to say this in every debate; she talks a good game on these matters—but there are huge gaps in what is being delivered. Moreover, the analysis of education in Scotland is deeply flawed. There are strong clues about the difficulties in Scottish education. Those clues come from two diverging sets of statistics, which the chamber knows well. One set tells us that more young people are passing examinations towards the end of their school careers, but the other set tells us that basic levels of numeracy and literacy are falling and that young people have difficulties with communication.

We have to square that circle. I argue that we will do so by making sure that there is a strong emphasis on the core skills in the early years. That requires radical reform of the five-to-14 curriculum and much smaller classes in the early years of primary, which will enable us to build on established core skills to build higher-order skills—thinking skills—to continue to improve exam performance. I am critical of the Executive's failure to invest in that type of change. I look forward, when we replace the Executive next year, to being able to implement those key ideas.

In closing, I say that Mr Monteith has nothing if not a sense of timing. Today, he introduces this debate in the chamber and lauds the idea of specialist schools, but I note that, yesterday, David Taylor, the director of inspection at the Office for Standards in Education—which, according to Brian Monteith, has all the ideas—gave evidence to the House of Commons, saying:

"I don't think we would have the evidence to say going for diversity"—

that is, diversity in specialist schools—

"in itself necessarily drives up standards more than a single system."

In one phrase, Ofsted's director of inspection has indicated the bankruptcy of the Tory motion. Let us have a debate about education in the chamber, but let us have a real debate. What Mr Monteith is proposing is not a real debate, but yet another display of Tory prejudice.

I move amendment S1M-3650.1, to leave out from "should" to end and insert:

"must be one which delivers the best for each child, is founded upon the broad and inclusive traditional strengths of Scottish education, is resourced and organised to help young people gain a secure grounding in the basic skills at an early age, gives various routes for entry into further education or skilled employment and which welcomes diversity and a variety of local delivery within a strong state sector, and therefore rejects any attempt to bring back from the political grave the divisive Tory educational philosophies of the past which proved so damaging to Scotland's young people during 18 years of undemocratic and unwanted Conservative Government in this country."

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

We have had a couple of ponderous interventions this morning. I would appreciate it if members would keep their interventions sharp.

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

Being a consensual politician, I was almost tempted to support the motion when I first saw it, but I remembered a quotation that I have used before from Shakespeare, when Lady Macbeth says to her husband:

"To beguile the time, Look like the time; bear welcome in your eye, Your hand, your tongue: look like the innocent flower, But be the serpent under't."

I look at what appears to be an innocent motion and I fear the serpent under it, which has become exposed as we have gone through the morning.

We must always beware of cuddly, kindly Conservatives. I see Murdo Fraser in "Kindergarten Cop", doing his Arnie Schwarzenegger stuff in amongst the kiddies. He and Brian Monteith would be in the Tory "Twins", with Brian as the Danny DeVito to Murdo's Arnold Schwarzenegger. It might be possible that they are cuddly, but politically I do not see it. I would love to see the Tories embracing the idea of comprehensive education, but forgive me if I am cynical after seeing them in action and listening to them today and for so long.

I wish to say something about the comprehensive ideal, the importance of flexibility and, if time allows, a bit about specialist schools.

A comprehensive system is open to all our children and embraces them all. It seeks to treat them with respect and affection, regardless of their ability or disability, their colour, their class, their creed, their social background, their financial background or their family circumstances. It is essentially not selective. It tries to cater for the needs of all with care and attention. It seeks to give all our children the opportunity to grow and develop not just academically—with regard to exam results and anything like that—and intellectually, but physically, emotionally, socially, aesthetically, morally and even spiritually.

A comprehensive system allows children time to grow up through their stages as toddlers, primary children, adolescents and young adults. It does not put pressure on them to jump stages. It seeks to give them opportunities to develop self-respect and respect for others and to feel good about themselves because they are valued as individuals. At every stage, we should seek to equip children with the knowledge, skills, values and personal resources that will enable them to face a world that has a lot of complexities, difficulties and dangers. A comprehensive system does not reject people by selection, but recognises a responsibility to the community as a whole.

That is the comprehensive ideal, and for the Tory motion to suggest that we enter a post-comprehensive era implies a rejection and a lack of understanding of what comprehensive education is about.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I understand the comprehensive ideal as Ian Jenkins portrays it, but it is not a description that I recognise in Scotland, where there is setting, where there is streaming and where there is, in some schools, selection. That is why I talk about a post-comprehensive era. If we want to take our system back to a comprehensive ideal such as the one that Ian Jenkins describes, further reform will be required.

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

If Brian Monteith is saying that we have not always achieved that ideal, I agree with him, and if he is saying that we can do better, I agree with him. However, we do not just drop the ideal and move to some nebulous post-comprehensive era in which each school goes its own sweet way without an overarching comprehensive view of the needs of the community or society, and without consideration of the needs of individual children—all the children—as part of that society.

Of course I do not subscribe to the idea that there should be a monolithic system of education in this country. I endorse the ideas of flexibility that are referred to in the Executive's amendment. Such flexibility should exist throughout the system. Local authorities should have the flexibility to introduce innovative projects with the co-operation and partnership of teachers, pupils and parents. Similarly, school management and head teachers must have the flexibility to address their own local needs and the best interests of their pupils, as is being done. Teachers need flexibility in their departments and in their classrooms. Too often, teachers are the victims of an overcrowded curriculum, classes that are too large and an overload of bureaucracy, assessment and reporting. We must give teachers more elbow-room to teach and to respond in professional terms to the pupils in front of them in the classroom, while still meeting the needs of the curriculum.

Flexibility is essential and should be promoted; it is being promoted and it is happening. Pupils should have flexibility in the courses that they choose to take and the kind of study that they seek to pursue. I welcome the new publicised willingness to explore alternatives for pupils who are not bookish or studious in traditional academic terms.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will Mr Jenkins take an intervention?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

No. Mr Jenkins's time is almost up.

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

As Cathy Jamieson said, tremendous work is going on in schools in that regard. I am pleased that the Executive and the education department are putting their weight behind those developments.

I do not approve of wholesale moves towards the widespread introduction of specialist schools. I recognise that there are arguments for schools that cater for an elite in subjects such as drama and music, in which ensemble work and individual tuition can be of a very high standard. However, that scratches the surface; even if such provision exists, it does not improve the generality of Scottish education. I am happy that a local authority can decide that a certain school should have extra provision in drama or music. I am happy that they can go in that direction.

I was at a concert in a school in Midlothian the other night. Midlothian Council is not one that I always wish to praise, but I praise it on this occasion as the concert included pupils from all the secondary schools in the area, because music tuition is free. If we want to improve such provision, that is the comprehensive way to do it; that is the way of which I approve.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

We had an excellent debate yesterday on the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee report on lifelong learning. Many points from that report spill into this debate.

My first point is that there should be a level playing field in order to provide equality of opportunity. However, that is difficult to establish when the McCrone report is based on pupil numbers rather than teacher numbers. This morning, I spoke to the director of education in Highland Council. Highland Council, which still faces a £6.6 million shortfall over the next three years, has to use the money to pay the 21 per cent salary increase. The council can have no new support staff, there is no winding-down allowance and there will be limited participation in the probationer teachers scheme. The council will not be able to implement the McCrone report in full.

If we want there to be a level playing field, we should consider schools where there is not enough money coming in on the back of pupils to fund the teachers' settlement. I ask the minister to talk again to Argyll and Bute Council, the rural schools and Highland Council in particular, because if we want equality of opportunity there should be equality of funding based on pupil numbers rather than teacher numbers.

Margaret Jamieson (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

Two weeks ago Highland Council was bleating that it did not get enough money for community care. Is it crying wolf again?

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

No. The bleating was about the eligibility criteria; that is a matter for another debate. It is wrong of Highland Council to suggest that there should be postcode prescribing and that people should have to be more ill in the Highlands to get free personal care.

My second point is about specialist schools. I am pleased that Ian Jenkins raised the subject of music tuition. How can talent be discovered and nurtured when councils such as Highland Council implement a humiliating means test? The city of culture bid included a promise of free tuition in schools. Surely free tuition could be provided in schools throughout Scotland.

My third point, which Brian Monteith perhaps did not have time to mention, is that the Scottish Conservatives favour third and fourth year pupils being given the chance to move from school to further education. As a further education lecturer for 20 years, I taught 15-year-olds on what I seem to remember was called the link scheme. The schools often wanted rid of those pupils because they were rather undisciplined, but putting them in a class of mature students soon sorted them out. It gave them social skills, better skills and the type of training that suited their individual needs.

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

Will Mary Scanlon take an intervention?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The member is in her last minute.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Further education's reputation for fulfilling individual needs in education and training is without comparison in Scotland. Members have only to sit on the Health and Community Care Committee—like my colleague, Margaret Jamieson—to see the enormous needs for the caring profession that have arisen through care in the community and the Mental Health (Scotland) Bill. Many school pupils could benefit from entering further education, not only in third and fourth year, but in fifth and sixth year; they might go through a full academic secondary school education of six years and leave with nothing.

The further education sector is more than capable of widening choice, fulfilling training needs and giving younger people a wider range of options. I hope that we take further education into account in every education debate.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I declare an historic interest, as I am a former secondary teacher. I was a product of pre-comprehensive education. I was educated in the local authority high school—taught to the test and invited to sit highers, no doubt to obtain a 100 per cent pass rate, which impressed many. I was selected at age 11. I left my community and saw my friends disperse throughout Edinburgh.

In contrast, the first school in which I taught after qualification as a secondary teacher was one of that new breed, the comprehensive. I went in determined to be unimpressed, but that did not last long. I saw the enormous advantages of comprehensive education, which helped my teaching. In developing programmes to engage the less-able pupil, there was cross-fertilisation to the more-able child who just as often has to be entertained as educated. For example, I portrayed Macbeth to a less-able class as a latter-day business tycoon with a ruthless but ultimately vulnerable wife who pushed him to the top of the commercial pyramid. That approach was for the less able, but taking it over to the more-able pupils engaged their interest in the nature of ambition and the ultimate price that is paid in the moral tales of Shakespeare.

I saw the fluidity of movement. The child who was good at mathematics could be set to deal with mathematics at that level, while still being with his or her friends when studying other subjects.

Education was, and still is, about the whole person, as Ian Jenkins said. The children of doctors and MSPs go to school with the children of plumbers and company directors. That is as it should be; that is inclusivity. That is what puts children in Scotland and Scottish schools in a special category. Scottish schools are not educating just to the test so that children can pass exams. That is why lists are an anathema and are completely misleading. Scottish schools are educating the citizens of Scotland, whose individuality is to be nurtured within the context of their own community and the larger Scottish community and the European and world community beyond.

The Tory motion represents an English version of education, which thankfully has been rejected by Scotland for generations. I no longer teach, but because I have siblings who are teachers I can tell Brian Monteith that they are sick of political interference. They want less paperwork, fewer assessments, better funding, smaller classes, and more help with disruptive pupils. We have reached the stage at which one of my sisters cannot separate warring primary 1 pupils for fear that she would be charged with assault. These are ridiculous days for primary teachers.

As a secondary teacher, I once taught a class of 40. Those days have gone, but class sizes are the key. How can an English teacher who has about 150 pupils passing through the classroom door each day give adequate attention to each individual child? Reduced class sizes would, at a stroke, improve dramatically the quality of Scottish education for individual children and across the board.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

rose—

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I have finished.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

As ever, the Conservative motion before us is carefully crafted. Unsuspecting members of the public, never mind parliamentarians, might find much that is of merit in the motion. Phrases such as "equality of opportunity" and

"new and different ways of education built round the needs of the individual child"

are laudable, but we should not be fooled. If we listen carefully to what the Tories say, a picture will emerge of an elitist system that is designed to benefit a narrow section of society. In the name of reform, the Tories propose not diversity and flexibility in our schools, but a widening of the opportunity gap.

We must be honest. There is no commitment from the Tory members to match Labour's spending on education. Given our experience of the Tories, the motion signals a return to schools being starved of resources. In contrast, Labour's approach is to ensure that all schools are centres of excellence that work to close the opportunity gap and to focus on the individual child's educational needs so that each and every child in Scotland fulfils their potential. We promote greater flexibility and diversity in the curriculum and we have invested in classrooms, the schools estate and in 7,000 more teachers and classroom assistants. Taken together, those measures provide a better environment for learning, but we cannot stop there.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member stop there?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

No. We have had to listen to Brian Monteith for too long. It is his turn to sit quietly.

The Labour party is rightly proud of our comprehensive system, as are the people of Scotland, but we cannot afford to be complacent. At the start of the 21st century, we have a duty to equip our children for the challenges of the future. The education system must not stand still; it should lead the agenda for change. That change should not be the one that the Tories want, which would mean that only a few would succeed.

Rather, our ambition is for all children. Our aspiration is not for only one or two schools to be centres of excellence, but for all schools to be excellent.

We will encourage more flexibility and innovation in schools through measures such as having teachers who work across primary and secondary schools, allowing for the first two years of secondary school to meet more clearly the needs of individual children, encouraging real parental involvement and increasing opportunities for vocational education. That will ensure that every young person leaves school with the core skills and confidence that they need to progress.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

rose

—

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Sorry, no.

We will also encourage more decentralised management so that head teachers are empowered to make decisions on using the flexibility in the system and applying resources.

Positive reform is firmly on the agenda. I regret the fact that Brian Monteith keeps looking over his shoulder to compare what is going on in Scotland with the educational reforms that are proposed in England. Scotland has always had a distinctive approach to education, even pre devolution, and it is right that we should have a distinctive approach to reform. However, the objective is the same. We want to raise standards for all children. As Brian Monteith is obsessed with what is going on down south, why does he not join his colleague Ben Wallace and take a closer look?

I want to describe the Tories' education policy as outlined by Brian Monteith, but because words fail me, I have borrowed some from a once-famous Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, which I assume will meet with the Tories' approval. He stated:

"The honourable member's speech reminds me of Columbus. When he set out, he didn't know where he was going. When he got there, he didn't know where he was. And when he returned home, he didn't know where he'd been."

That describes the Tory education policy. Members should reject the motion.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The debate has been entertaining; we have watched the Labour members duck out of making any comment about the future and our friends in the SNP seem desperate to go back to a past that some of them can barely remember—apart from Mr Russell, of course. As for the Liberal Democrats, when I tried to intervene during Mr Jenkins's speech, he was beginning to talk about choice. The word almost tripped over his lips, but did not quite get there.

One issue that has not been discussed is parental responsibility in education. The state's role should be to give parents the means and opportunity to exercise their responsibility. We should bring parents into the decision-making process, along with headmasters. Jackie Baillie, bless her, stated what was basically the Conservative philosophy of giving more power to headmasters. Her comments will be in the Official Report.

We must consider communities, because one set of parents cannot produce enough children to have a school and cannot get together to run a school. There must be a choice of schools in communities and a choice of the subjects that are taught. We need more than the blanket take-it-or-leave-it quick fix that Labour and the Liberal Democrats operate. There must be a reason behind the method of supporting those who need specialist help, which does not mean only those with learning difficulties, but those who have special talents. Labour members never mention an individualist approach such as that, unless the minister is about to tell me something different.

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

I am not sure whether David Davidson listened to my speech. I gave clear examples of cases in which we are trying to ensure that young people's talents, whatever they might be, are nurtured in schools.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I recall that the minister mentioned Trinity Academy, which is my former school. When I was at that school, streaming that was based on ability and talent took place for every subject. There was choice within the school, although it was not a comprehensive. Through the state system, the school offered an all-enveloping range of opportunities for pupils of different talents and it had well-resourced staff. Pupils were not forced to take subjects that they did not want to take, but they were encouraged. The system at Trinity Academy that the minister described sounds like a wee bit of sticking plaster on a failed Labour system.

In Aberdeenshire, parents and communities have won a tremendous victory. They fought to save primary schools—I supported them in that fight—and they now have a choice. Some parents fought to merge two schools. That is the kind of choice that the Conservatives support. What I managed to get from the director of education of Aberdeenshire Council—which is a Liberal Democrat-independent coalition—was a promise, given in public at a large meeting, that schools would not be closed through the back door and by attrition. I hope that the director of education is now prepared to take the next step and examine the schools that parents saved to find out why parents tried to save them and to discover what is required to have broad-based education that gives children an opportunity to develop. We will find out at the election.

Support for headmasters has been discussed before in the chamber. In 2000, I said to the Scottish colleges conference that there was an opportunity for senior schools to link with colleges, particularly for children who are not academically inclined but who might be technically minded. That policy is not a new one; it is common sense applied in Scotland. The opportunities that are available in colleges could be used successfully for some children. Headmasters must be allowed to make decisions on such issues.

A broadly based education must be balanced with the acquisition and development of transferable skills for future economic opportunity and the release from dependence on the nanny state. That is education's function. The minister should not dumb down the education system and fail our children, who need diversity, choice and opportunity. That is a better way for our children, and it is the Conservative way.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

We are all pleased to have the opportunity to debate education, although I am rather confused by the motion, which is bland and misleading. It is not clear to me whether Brian Monteith is calling for a return to selection in what he calls "the post-comprehensive era". There is a worry that he is calling for a return to the kind of system in which young people were consigned to what was described as a vocational stream. Those of us who are old enough to remember that will remember what happened when there was a system of selection at age 11 in secondary modern schools in Scotland.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

It is not that.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Brian Monteith says that he is not calling for that. However, the justification that was cited for creating that system was that it would provide what was called an appropriate education for non-academic pupils. That is how it was described. We must be aware of that and think about what history has taught us. I do not know whether Brian Monteith has spoken to people who were labelled at that age—often for life—by that kind of selection. In talking about an appropriate education system, we must beware of what has not worked in the past.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am certainly not suggesting that we return to something from the past; I am suggesting that we look to something in the future. Rhona Brankin says that the motion is rather bland—Jackie Baillie also criticised the wording of the motion—but I wonder whether she is aware that the wording of the motion is lifted directly from a speech that Tony Blair made earlier this year?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I have absolutely no problem in describing what any politician says as bland if I think that it is bland. I had no idea what the context was.

The fundamental difference is that a truly comprehensive school is able to provide pathways for all pupils, whether they enter supported employment when they leave school or college or whether they go on to become astrophysicists. However, we face major challenges in the comprehensive system. The comprehensive system has failed young people in the past, and a recent report from the Executive recognises the extent to which we have failed many young people who have not benefited from combined working across the interagency spectrum.

The young people whom we have failed are those who have not had the opportunity to go on to higher education. We tend to be a bit smug and say that we are one of the best-performing countries in Europe because more than 50 per cent of our young people go straight from school into higher education. However, only 14 per cent of those young people come from working-class homes where there is no tradition of university or college education. We therefore face big challenges.

One of the main challenges facing the comprehensive system is to ensure that, whatever someone's background, they have the opportunity to enter higher education. Many of us here may be the first people in our families to have had the benefit of higher education. I am of the second generation in my family to have had that opportunity. My father came from a mining background and was the first person in his family to have that opportunity. We had a debate yesterday about lifelong education, and one of the main challenges for us is to raise our game in the comprehensive system. Too many youngsters are still falling through the net.

Central to remedying the situation is higher still, which provides flexibility. Vitally, higher still provides flexibility for progression within an inclusive curriculum framework. It does not pigeon-hole people, as we have done in the past, into so-called vocational routes that effectively close down opportunities for pupils. That is not to say that university or higher education will be the appropriate destination for all pupils—it would be silly to say that. We must have a range of opportunities for people, so that we can fulfil the needs of our economy and pupils' individual needs. Higher still and the Scottish credit and qualifications framework are a huge step forward in reducing the number of young people who are effectively out of the system when they leave school. They provide the basis for developing a system for lifelong learning in which everyone has the same opportunity.

I welcome diversity in schools and I ask the minister to consider the school works project, in which the whole school community is involved in the designing of a new school.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I welcome the Tory motion on education. We were in danger of forgetting why the Tories exist, but the motion illustrates that perfectly. The Tories exist for one purpose: to maintain the privileged position of the wealthy. They have no other objective. The last two words of the motion are "skilled employment", and David Davidson said that he sees the education system delivering people who are prepared for "future economic opportunity". What the Tory members have at the forefront of their education policy is the delivery of worker drones for the bosses to exploit.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

No, I will not. I do not have time.

It is revealing that Brian Monteith had to pick up the history of Scottish education to get some insight. Let us consider the schools to which the Tory MSPs went. We have three Etonians, two from George Watson's College and one from Millfield. I do not think that a single Tory MSP went to a school other than a selective one.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

rose—

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

rose—

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Inverness Royal Academy is a selective school. My wife went there and she shared that school with Murdo Fraser.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I went to Portobello High School.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I invite Brian Monteith to tell me about Portobello High School.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Portobello High School was a comprehensive school when I was there. The past two generations of my family went there and my sons go there. I have no problem with the school that I attended and which my sons attend. May I just add—

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Order. You were invited to give a response, Mr Monteith, and you have given it.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

We have got the Tories riled. I am perfectly happy to make common cause with colleagues from other parties against the entrenchment of the privilege that the Tories have always represented.

I went to one of the largest schools in Scotland, which had some 2,000 pupils. The objective of education at that time was to realise not the economic potential of pupils but their personal potential. That is what education is about. It is important to learn skills, but they will decay over time and be overtaken by events. It is far more important that we equip our young people, when they leave schools and further education, with the ability to adapt and learn.

Not all Tories get it wrong all the time.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Pardon?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I know that that is news to Mike Russell, but let us be fair to the Tories. Even Michael Forsyth, the Secretary of State for Scotland in 1996, got it right in "Achievement for All", the objectives for Her Majesty's inspectors. He said that streaming is

"inherently inflexible and does not promote teaching which builds on prior learning"

and that

"pupils are discouraged by being placed in the lowest streams and can lack motivation to make progress".

The comprehensive system delivers for Scotland and can be developed to deliver for Scotland in the future.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

In her opening speech, the minister said that we are aiming for excellence. That is absolutely right. We all know that school is about far more than academic excellence, but let us not forget that we need to promote academic excellence too. I am proud of the fact that two schools in my constituency—Banchory Academy, where my two sons study, and Westhill Academy—have achieved excellent academic results. Academically, they are among the top 10 state schools in the country. We all know that there are far more measures than academic performance, but it is important to highlight that achievement. I take this opportunity to congratulate the teachers, pupils, parents and carers for all their hard work and achievements. It is important that we publicly recognise academic achievement.

I fully support the Executive's amendment. We need to ensure that we have an increased emphasis on citizenship, enterprise and vocational education. We need to raise attainment and close the opportunity gap throughout Scotland. However, my worry—and the reason why I changed my mind and decided to speak after listening to the speeches this morning—is that we tend to shy away from mentioning the word "academic" when we talk about attainment. It is certainly not mentioned in the amendment. I urge the minister and all members not to be reticent about acknowledging success when they see it.

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

In congratulating the schools in his constituency, will Mr Rumbles recognise that Cumnock Academy, in my constituency, is one of the top 10 schools in terms of improving academic performance against a background of social deprivation? As the head teacher said publicly, that is a direct result of the new community school approach.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I am delighted to acknowledge the achievement of Cumnock Academy, whose pupils have a different background from most of the pupils in my constituency. I am glad that the minister recognises the importance of academic performance, but I would have liked to have seen some recognition of it in the text of the amendment.

Cathy Peattie (Labour, Falkirk East)

I have enjoyed this debate. Stewart Stevenson is right to point out that it has been a debate in which some have united in common cause while others have experienced some confusion.

The Conservatives' post-comprehensive vision—if vision is not too strong a word—acknowledges the success and validity of comprehensive education. They dare not be too overtly critical of the comprehensive system, so they have opted to attack by stealth. While praising the principle of comprehensive education, they seek to push education in directions that would undermine that principle. Brian Monteith's call for a greater range of specialist schools is an attempt to open doors for decidedly non-comprehensive schooling. They argue that developments such as city technology colleges are the way forward even though evidence that such schools add significantly to student achievement is dubious. There is also doubt that such developments are appropriate in a Scottish context.

At its UK conference, the Tory party backed measures to grant schools independence over their budget and curriculum, although school management has already been substantially devolved, and to allow parents and teachers to set up their own schools, of which we have heard much this morning. That proposal is radical but is not recognisable as a comprehensive system. How much further would the Conservatives like to go? If we are committed to comprehensive principles, we should be committed to ensuring that the needs of children are met within the comprehensive system, with diversity and flexibility. We must work to close the equality gap.

As Michael Russell said, the comprehensive system must be broad based, flexible and inclusive. We are committed to improving education for all, not just for an elitist minority. We want to create flexibility for teachers to work across primary and secondary schools and to ensure that setting is available for the first two years of secondary schooling so that education is tailored more closely to the needs of every child. We must ensure that more effort is put into delivering parental involvement in children's education. David Davidson, who is not here now, talked about the Tories' big vision being parental involvement in schools. I was one of the parents who got involved in my school under Michael Forsyth's initiatives. I can say that he did a lot to involve parents in schools because a lot of parents up and down the country joined school boards to ensure that their local school did not opt out of the system. Fortunately, the parents won in that attempt—good on them.

We want to increase opportunities for vocational education and ensure that every young person leaves school with the core skills and confidence that they need to go forward. We have to encourage more decentralised management to ensure that the head teacher can make more decisions about how the flexibility of the system can be used and how the resources can be applied.

Our achievements are clear. Labour has already provided significant investment for our education system and has implemented more important reforms. In summary, with the Standards in Scotland's Schools Act 2000, we have enshrined in legislation Labour's commitment to improving schools. We are investing more than £1 billion to rebuild and refurbish schools. More than 300 schools will benefit over the next three years.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Why, if more investment has been put into Scottish schools, do the figures show that, this year, more school leavers left school with no certificates than did so the year before?

Cathy Peattie (Labour, Falkirk East)

I do not agree that the figures show that. We have heard from the minister this morning about the need to ensure that we work with children across the board. If we use only figures as indicators, it would be a sad day for education.

We have secured the McCrone agreement, which is a teaching agreement for the 21st century that delivers fundamental changes and improvements to teachers' conditions, reducing the gap between teachers and other professionals and ensuring stability over the three-year pay rounds. As Jackie Baillie said, there will be 3,000 more teachers by 2006 and more than 4,000 classroom assistants are already employed in primary schools. We have implemented the new community schools programme, which is a good example of a way in which we can bring all professionals together to create an education system that will meet the needs of all children. Another £78 million is committed to rolling out the programme to schools by 2007.

I do not think that the Tories' education policy has moved on. I only wish that the Tories would be a bit more Scottish and would recognise the value of Scottish education. They have failed to do that.

We are committed to an education system that meets the needs of the many, not the few, which is why we oppose the Tory motion.

Irene McGugan (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

In this debate, we have had a taste of the philosophy that underpins the various educational policies that each party supports. We have all said what we think education is for and suggested ways in which we would go about delivering that outcome.

The SNP's education philosophy is simple. We believe that education is about creating the context for inquiry and discovery and delivering basic levels of thinking and learning skills that can be applied in all disciplines. As Northern Ireland and Wales have done, we would abandon the artificial tyranny of league tables and put in their place access for parents to genuine information about such aspects as funding, school management and the ethos of the school. Nor would we forget those who find learning hard or who have special needs.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I understand what Irene McGugan is saying about league tables being only one measure of performance, but is she saying that academic performance is not important and should not be recognised?

Irene McGugan (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

No, we are not saying that at all.

We would support parents in everything that they need to do to provide education for those with special needs. We would do the things that I have outlined because we want to create a higher achieving and more creatively thinking Scotland. Yes, that is aspirational, but our aspirations would also protect the principles of the Scottish comprehensive education system and value core skills and local delivery within a strong state sector.

Of course we want to encourage diversity in education and of course education should be focused on the individual needs of each child but, unlike the Tories, who believe in privilege, specialism and inequality, we would hold firm to the traditional values of socially inclusive shared experience in schools owned and operated under democratic principles. Diversity or choice—whatever we want to call it—could embrace ideas such as bringing Steiner-Waldorf schools into the state system, providing a supportive network for those who want to home educate their children and establishing 21st century e-schools, more community schools and Gaelic-medium education. It could mean many, none or all of those things, but everything would be predicated on a unified but devolved state system, which has nothing to do with what we have heard from the Tory party today.

This year, we had a great opportunity to hear what the rest of Scotland thinks about these matters because of the great debate on education and the Education, Culture and Sport Committee's inquiry into the purposes of education, both of which allowed parents, teachers, pupils and stakeholders—for want of a better word—to make their views known. One of the key messages to come from both initiatives was that people in Scotland want to keep the system of comprehensive schools that are freely available to all and provide a good standard of education. They said that it could be improved, of course, but there was no mention of—far less support for—anything that came close to a post-comprehensive era.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will Irene McGugan give way?

Irene McGugan (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Not at the moment. I will finish my point.

Specialist and independent schools are more common in other parts of the UK, but there is little demand in Scotland for a move towards specialised schooling. The fact that the Tory party ignores that either points to unbelievable arrogance—a notion that it knows best and will impose its views on the country regardless of what other people think or what their express wishes are—or serves to illustrate just how out of touch it is with the feelings of Scotland's people on one of the most important issues of the day.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I must disappoint the member. We are neither arrogant nor out of touch. Even in the chamber, we find three or four different definitions of comprehensive education. Is Irene McGugan able to tell me that all the respondents who supported comprehensive education supported the same type of comprehensive education?

Irene McGugan (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I was making two points: that there was no mention of post-comprehensive education in the responses and that, however people defined comprehensive education when they responded, they supported it. The Conservatives reject that notion.

The consultation's other overwhelming finding was of support for smaller class sizes. Particularly in the early years, education that is centred on the individual—as Mr Monteith seems to want—requires smaller classes, not further specialism or competition that is driven by league tables and crude setting and streaming.

We need an education system that embraces the notion of social inclusion. The Tory party can never deliver that.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

Today I agree with a great deal of Mike Russell's analysis—that is not to talk up his prospects for this evening's award ceremony—which is a marked contrast with our most recent education debate. I have no difficulty with the amendment in Mike Russell's name. I hope that he will be able to support the Executive's amendment at decision time this evening.

In particular, I agree that the key challenge is to move beyond analysis to delivery. However, the crucial point is that delivery in Scotland's schools should be for all our young people—not for a minority, an elite or the few. We want "opportunity" to mean opportunity for every child in every family in every community in every part of Scotland.

Much is still to be done. We have seen that in some of the statistics over the past few days. Too many young people fail to achieve the appropriate five-to-14 levels. Too many leave school without qualifications; the proportion who did so this year was 5.7 per cent. In the last year of the Conservative Government, it was 6.4 per cent—the poorest performance in any of the past five years.

Let us remember some of the Conservative performance—or the Conservative way, as David Davidson called it. Did the Conservatives invest in 3,000 extra teachers? No. Did they invest in 3,500 extra support staff for our schools? No. Did they invest more than £1 billion in new schools? We are on track to deliver 400 new or refurbished schools by 2009. Those schools will have been provided in a single decade. What did the Tories do in their 18 years in government? They provided fewer than 100 new or improved schools. That is their track record. Everywhere we look, the Conservative record is poor. In the Tories' final term in office from 1992 to 1997, the share of UK gross domestic product that went into education fell from 5.2 per cent to 4.7 per cent. That was the priority that Mr Monteith gave to education. Worse than that, in Scotland, the Conservatives destroyed teacher morale and sapped the strength of Scotland's schools.

Scottish education has major strengths—its breadth, diversity, drive for excellence and focus on the individual—but I also want it to be international in its outlook and ambitions. I reject the notion that we should always benchmark by, follow or seek to imitate what happens in Northern Ireland, Wales or England. We should be proud that nearly 50 per cent of Scotland's young people go into higher education. We should be proud that we deliver international excellence. The statistics from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's programme for international student assessment put Scotland ninth out of 32 developed nations for science, sixth for reading and fifth for mathematics. Those are good statistics. To refer back to our most recent education debate again for Tommy Sheridan's benefit, Cuba is not ahead of Scotland on any of the lists that I have analysed.

We can certainly do better. That is the challenge for us all. We will do better not through political dogma, but through partnership with our local authorities, schools, head teachers, teachers, parents and pupils. We are determined to deliver. A big challenge lies ahead to develop and improve Scotland's schools. The Conservative way is one of division, dogma and decay and it deserves to be rejected.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The debate has been lively. It is the first time that I have ever heard myself compared to Arnold Schwarzenegger. I will need to make a few more trips to the gym.

Our motion refers to post-comprehensive education. That choice of words was deliberate. A debate about how education needs to change is going on in Scotland, and there is growing recognition that our comprehensive system fails too many in our society. We have heard that today from Brian Monteith and we have heard it in the Parliament often enough before. We usually hear it from Conservative members, but I was pleased to hear Rhona Brankin acknowledge it in her speech.

The comprehensive system is fine for a child from a middle-class background who is fortunate enough to have parental support and parents who can buy a house in a leafy suburb in the catchment area of a good school. Such a child can go to one of the good schools. However, as we saw from the results tables that were published yesterday, there is a yawning gulf between the performance of our best schools and that of our poorest schools.

I accept that the tables tell only part of the story and that we must take into account pupil development, discipline in the classroom, truancy levels and all sorts of other factors. However, we must not deny the stark truth. Some schools perform far better than others do. The schools that do not do so well are generally those in areas of social deprivation. No matter how talented or diligent a child born in those areas is or how supportive the parents are, such a child starts with a handicap on day one.

That is what our comprehensive system delivers and that is exactly why the Conservatives want to change it, even if all the other parties in the Parliament defend the status quo. We want to change it because it works against those who already come from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The analysis is interesting. However, I simply point out that, if we correlate the league tables that were published two days ago—which have not yet been distributed to members—with the percentage of school children who are recorded as entitled to free meals, we see that the correlation at the top and bottom of the table is almost exact. The answer is surely therefore to do something about poverty in Scotland. In what regard will the Tories help with poverty in Scotland, as they normally make it worse?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

We can have a debate about poverty on another day. One of the things that was interesting about Mr Russell's intervention was that he accepts—

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

On that point—

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

No. I thank the minister, but I ask her to let me deal with the point.

Mr Russell accepts that there is a correlation between pupils going to schools in less well-off areas and results. That is exactly the point that I was making. Pupils are trapped in those areas by our current system of geographical catchment areas. That is why we want to change the system.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Will Murdo Fraser give way?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

No. I will not give way at the moment.

In the Parliament, the Conservatives may be the only ones who see the need for change. However, out in the real world, other voices challenge the complacent attitudes that we have heard today. Speaking on Friday, Graham Donaldson, who is the new senior chief inspector of education in Scotland, talked about a huge waste of talent in Scottish education. He said that education reforms were failing to impact on all children. In particular, he meant those from disadvantaged backgrounds.

At the same event, Fraser Sanderson, president of the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland, said that there was a large section of the student community whose needs were not being met, and he spoke of schools in poorer areas that had unacceptably low expectations.

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

Once again the Tories have chosen to quote selectively. If they had chosen to quote what I said at that same event—on the Thursday evening—they would have heard a clear message, in which I pointed out that many schools have simply not taken enough action to close the opportunity gap. Would the member welcome Graham Donaldson's comments about the changes that Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education will make to ensure that most focus will be given to the schools that have, so far, not performed best in dealing with young people from such disadvantaged backgrounds?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I assure the minister that I have read in detail the speeches that were delivered on Friday, so I do not need to be informed by the minister about that.

I am pleased to hear the minister accepting that there are problems and that they need to be addressed, because we have heard so many complacent attitudes being voiced in some of the speeches made by members of other parties that one might think that there is nothing wrong with the current system.

We need to change the system. We should not get hung up about what the word "comprehensive" means. In England there is a whole spectrum of specialist schools, faith schools and city technology colleges operating in a system that the Prime Minister, and indeed other Labour MPs, still call "comprehensive". We are not saying that we should imitate the systems in England, Northern Ireland or anywhere else; we are saying that there are lessons to be learned from what is happening elsewhere in the UK and in Europe. Let us look at the systems there and learn from them. That does not mean that we have to copy everything that is being done there. However, although we recognise that lessons may be learned from elsewhere, that is not the impression that I get from the Executive, judging by what we have heard this morning.

By establishing more specialist schools and by allowing diversity, we will provide opportunity for able children who, at the moment, are trapped by the catchment-area system and have to go to schools that are simply not delivering. We already have specialist schools in music and sport, which are accepted, indeed praised, by all parties. If that is good enough for music and sport, why is it not good enough for engineering, science, mathematics or languages?

Of course children have to come out of education equipped for life, with life skills. I would say to Stewart Stevenson, however, that the idea that they should not leave education with basic vocational training is nonsense. We currently have the problem of children coming out of education without proper standards of literacy and numeracy, so they are not equipped for the work force.

I would also say to Stewart Stevenson that he should do more efficient research before he contributes to a debate on education. If he had done so, he would have found out that, when I attended Inverness Royal Academy, it was a comprehensive school. Looking at my colleagues sitting next to me on the front bench, Brian Monteith and Alex Johnstone, I note that all three of us went to comprehensive schools. Stewart Stevenson should in future do his homework before speaking in such a debate. [Interruption.] The deputy minister is waving bits of paper at me, but I assure him that I was at that school, and I know what the case was.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

There are four members on the Conservative front bench. What about Bill Aitken?

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

Perhaps I should clarify my position. I went to Allan Glen's School in Glasgow on the basis of a bursary. My parents were too poor to afford to pay the fees. It was selective, and I was successful.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am obliged to Mr Aitken for that intervention.

We offer real hope to those who are being failed. The Executive may talk about an end to the one-size-fits-all system, but it has no real solutions, and opposes even the modest reforms being pursued by Tony Blair in England. The SNP offers only more of the same and refuses to countenance the idea that there is anything fundamentally wrong with the system that would not be solved by more money and smaller class sizes. Indeed, there is an inherent contradiction within the SNP approach. On the one hand, it talks about having a system of education controlled from the centre; on the other, it talks about having more diversity. That simply does not add up.

Meanwhile, those children who come from disadvantaged backgrounds continue to have their life opportunities damaged by an inflexible system that clings to an outdated comprehensive model. Specialist schools offer a window of hope for such children. They offer them a chance to have their abilities recognised, to gain qualifications, to follow a route to further education and to equip themselves for employment.

Outside the chamber, the education debate goes on. People recognise the need for change. Inside the chamber, however, it is the Scottish Conservatives who are prepared to speak up for the many who are being failed. I have pleasure in supporting the motion in Brian Monteith's motion.

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

That concludes the debate on education. We are about five minutes ahead of time.

Drugs Courts

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

The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-3641, in the name of Bill Aitken, on drugs courts, and on two amendments to that motion. If those members who are leaving the chamber could do so quickly and quietly, I would be grateful.

If we are all sitting comfortably, we will begin.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

We have debated the drugs issue before, and it is right that we do so again. Few would disagree with me when I say that the threat posed by drugs and drug abuse is perhaps the most potent danger facing contemporary Scotland. While it is important not to exaggerate the problem, it has to be recognised that the misuse of drugs in certain sections of our society has become almost endemic.

When the Social Inclusion, Housing and the Voluntary Sector Committee produced a well-researched and well-thought-out report on its inquiry into drug misuse and deprived communities about two years ago, that should have come as a sharp, indeed dramatic, wake-up call for the Executive, but it did not. The Executive's response to the crisis facing many of Scotland's communities has been inadequate, and the actions taken to resolve or even contain the problem of the criminality that accompanies drug misuse have been woefully inadequate. The approach, the attitude and even the language of the Executive is all wrong. It is time for a complete rethink, and for a willingness to consider radical policies that will simultaneously reduce crime, to the benefit of everyone in society, and help those whose drug-abusing habits are a danger not only to the wider community but to themselves.

When the most recent research, which was published in November last year, indicates that, among the Scottish population aged between 15 and 54, 2 per cent—some 56,000 in number—are problematic drug users, we know that it is time for action. When, in the same year, some 36,175 drug-related crimes were recorded, such action becomes imperative. When 332 people, mainly young people, die as a direct result of drug abuse in one year, action becomes tragically overdue.

Let us examine the Executive's response, and let us consider how it has impinged upon Glasgow in particular, as the city has been chosen to pilot one of the drugs courts. The cost of drug-related crime in Glasgow is estimated at about £300 million per annum, a figure which was borne out in the Social Inclusion, Housing and the Voluntary Sector Committee's report. The Executive's principal response has been to set up the drugs courts system, and it did so with the full support of the Parliament.

Now, however, there is concern over the way in which the drugs court in Glasgow functions. It seems that those who are being targeted for processing in the drugs court are from the wrong client group, if I may, uncharacteristically, use social work jargon. All the individuals concerned have serious records of criminality, involving numerous convictions and custodial sentences. If they go to the drugs court, they will be made subject to its limited strictures. Consequently, they will avoid an almost inevitable six-month jail sentence—bearing in mind their record and pattern of behaviour. They are offered early treatment, but they do not have to take it up. While we accept that many of those individuals lead dysfunctional lives, should we not be demanding that, having been given the opportunity, they should stay off drugs altogether?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Will Mr Aitken accept that it is precisely the failure of the conventional system for people with such chaotic lifestyles that requires a different approach, with flexibility and adaptability for serious drug users?

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

I have said it before, and I will say it once more: the principle of the drugs court is one with which we agree. Nevertheless, the way in which the drugs court is operating is not working. Should those concerned not be told that they have to attend for drug testing? They are told to attend, but they may miss two out of six appointments without fear of sanction. Against that background, is it surprising that there is a lack of confidence in the system and that so few cases are being referred?

We recognise that no one is beyond redemption, but should we not also recognise that people may have had their chance, having gone through the whole gamut of court disposals—from fiscals' warnings to community service as an alternative to custody—before the cell door slams? Is there not something inherently unfair in a system that gives people with this type of record the prospect of access to immediate rehabilitation programmes, when people with few or no offences must wait months for such an opportunity? This is a classic illustration of how crime can pay.

The jury is still very much out on the success of drugs courts. Despite the Executive's spin, the indications are not good, as the proportion of clients who expect to offend again is disturbingly high. However, the system deserves to be given a chance to succeed. Perhaps we would have much greater success if we targeted a less hardened section of criminal society. What about the women who find themselves in prostitution? Should they not be given a chance of early rehab, before they waste their lives? The whole system must be re-examined. Hardened criminals in Glasgow see the drugs court as a get-out-of-jail card. They recognise that it has very limited powers to ensure that they co-operate in the effort to get them free of drugs. At the same time minor offenders and non-offenders must wait months for a chance of treatment. Is that not a total injustice?

What needs to happen is simple. We should make clear what is expected to those who agree to appear before the drugs court. They should go for rehabilitation immediately after leaving the dock. Delays in such cases are likely to impinge on the offender's level of co-operation. If we are to bring more minor offenders before the drugs courts, they cannot reasonably be expected to wait months for treatment.

The Executive must gear up rehabilitation and counselling projects to ensure that there is an immediate response. Failure by an individual to co-operate must result in the immediate cancellation of the drugs court order and the offender's re-entering the mainstream system.

We must make prisons and young offenders institutions drug-free zones. Drugs are freely available in prison. In Barlinnie there is a special unit to which prisoners who want to stay off drugs can volunteer to go. I give full marks to the prison administration, but is that not an absolutely farcical situation? It must be made impossible to get drugs into prison. Those attempting to do so must expect severe penalties.

Keith Raffan (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The ideal would be to make our prisons drug free, but how does Bill Aitken intend to do that? It is almost impossible to stop drugs entering prisons. Any prison governor will say that prisons are run effectively only with the full co-operation of prisoners.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

I always listen carefully to what Mr Raffan has to say on the issue of drugs, because he has researched the matter very deeply. However, his comments epitomise the defeatist approach that bedevils the system. It is possible to stop drugs getting into prisons and that must be done.

When visiting the drug-free unit in Barlinnie, I wondered what happens to prisoners when they left jail. Their pushers probably offer them free drugs and the bus fare back to the place from which they came. Prisoners return home to areas in which drug use is prevalent, and it takes a very strong person to resist that temptation. Sadly, support for those who are determined to stay clean is absent. The Executive and local authorities are failing once again.

I want now to consider some of the language that is used in drugs education. As long ago as December last year, my colleague James Douglas-Hamilton wrote to Cathy Jamieson about the document "Taking Drugs Seriously", which the Executive recommends for secondary schools. The document refers to

"boring old farts who exaggerate the risks involved".

The primary schools drugs pack claims that most drug users

"come to little harm but many parents don't like to believe it is true".

What sort of message does that send out?

Last week the Scottish Executive unveiled a "Good Drugs Guide for Clubbers". It appears that Egon Ronay's good food guide is now rivalled by the Executive's good drugs guide. Once again, the Executive has run up the white flag. The document advises people to take half an ecstasy tablet instead of a whole tablet, and to wait for an hour to see what happens. That is madness. The Executive must come out against drugs in a more determined manner—a zero tolerance approach must apply.

We applaud the measures that have been taken, such as confiscation of assets. The work of the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency is extremely encouraging. However, until we take a much more hard-nosed but compassionate approach, the overall package of measures will not succeed. The choice between treatment and custody may be a harsh one for many offenders, but they must make their own decisions.

The Scottish Government must ensure that support mechanisms are in place and make increased use of the voluntary sector. It should use the Maxie Richards Foundation, which has had tremendous success in dealing with those who have abused drugs for a long time. However, at the same time it must be made clear that those who are given opportunities must take them. They are not altogether victims—they are responsible for their lives. They must face up to their problems and Executive policy must encourage them to do so.

The Executive must take a two-tier approach—a three-tier approach, if we include education provision. The education system should state that drugs and the use of drugs are totally unacceptable. A compassionate resource should be available to those who are determined to take treatment, irrespective of whether they are offenders. However, at the end of the day the Executive must be tough enough to ensure that the anodyne response of the drugs courts system is replaced by the use of appropriate sanctions against those who are prepared to continue offending.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the growing prevalence of drug abuse and drug-related crimes; regrets that the Scottish Executive continues to send out mixed messages on drugs; further regrets that the Executive's flagship drugs courts have become a means of avoiding a prison term, and therefore calls on the Executive to ensure that (a) those sent to drugs courts have committed only a minimal number of offences, (b) there are sufficient resources to ensure that those who are sentenced by drugs courts have the option of immediate and instant treatment to undergo rehabilitation and (c) any breach of orders from the drugs courts are dealt with properly.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

I welcome the opportunity that Bill Aitken and the Conservatives have given us to debate this issue. The debate provides us with an opportunity to recognise the success that the drugs courts have had so far.

We should remember that it is less than two years since Iain Gray announced that the Executive would set up drugs courts in Scotland. This month the Glasgow drugs court marked its first year in operation. An evaluation of the court's first six months was published two weeks ago. A second drugs court is now up and running in Fife.

In a very short time we have moved from wondering what to do about the increasing menace of drug-related crime and the drug dependence that causes it to a situation in which two drugs courts have been established and are dealing with the most difficult offenders. From Bill Aitken's speech, I was not sure whether he had thought through what he was saying. He spoke about the need to give the system a chance to succeed, but then launched into a condemnation of its failures. He did not recognise that it takes time to bed in new systems and to try things out. One way of moving forward is to learn from our mistakes. If the drugs courts do not work, we will try something else. This experiment is well worth pursuing. It is welcomed across Scotland and by many political parties. It is also being examined carefully by people outside Scotland.

These are early days. It is right to pilot drugs courts, instead of introducing them throughout the country at this time. We need to learn how drugs courts are working and to learn from their achievements. We will examine the viability and effectiveness of drugs courts as part of the criminal justice system in Scotland before deciding how to proceed.

Critical to the success of drugs courts are drug treatment and testing orders, which are the principal orders that the courts use. The evaluation of DTTOs was published at the beginning of October. It reported that they had made a positive impact and had reduced the level of drug misuse by people subject to them. Weekly reported expenditure on drugs fell from £490 before the introduction of a DTTO to £57 after six months of an order's having been made. DTTOs have also led to a reduction in associated criminal behaviour. This is the serious end of offending, but it has been proved that we are making an impact on it.

Keith Raffan (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The Scottish Executive social research unit has carried out an evaluation of the Glasgow drugs court pilot scheme after one year. There is now talk of conducting an independent assessment of the scheme. Can the minister say more about that, as it is important in helping the system to bed down and in deciding when to roll it out?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

I will deal with Keith Raffan's question later.

We are committed to extending the coverage of DTTOs. Today I announce that, as a result of this year's spending review, local authorities in Lanarkshire and Ayrshire will receive funding to set up local DTTO schemes. When the schemes are up and running, a further five sheriff courts will be able to make drug treatment and testing orders. That will ensure that courts covering around 70 per cent of the Scottish population have access to DTTOs. Those will be significant milestones in providing courts with a full range of options in dealing with the problems presented by offenders with drug misuse problems.

The experience of operating DTTOs will be a crucial factor in deciding on the location of any future drugs courts if and when the full evaluation of the latter suggests that it would be appropriate. We made it clear from the start that we would base future decisions on the evidence of the two pilots, which is why we commissioned the independent evaluation to which Keith Raffan referred. It is also why we asked for a review, which he also mentioned, of the first six months of the Glasgow court's operations. We want to make changes where they are necessary and the evaluations will help us in that.

The report highlights the main strengths of the court. The fast tracking of offenders, the existence of a trained and dedicated team, the members of which are in regular contact with each other, the system of pre-court review meetings and the regular reviews in court are all reported as positive innovations. The role of the drugs court sheriffs is also seen as critical in the success of the court.

However, what really matters is what happens with the offenders. I offer no apology for saying that our intention is that the drugs court deals with offenders who have serious drugs problems linked to an established pattern of offending. Those are the people who create the problems. Those are the problems that we need to solve. Other interventions are available for drug misusing offenders at an earlier stage in their offending.

The drugs court pools the expertise and experience of seven different agencies to deal with the hard end of the market. In the course of its work, the drugs court team is developing an understanding of respective roles and building up knowledge of the issues that surround drug misuse and crime, not from the viewpoint of a single agency but from one based on a multidisciplinary perspective. Most of the offenders in the drugs court will have been in prison before. Most of them will have come in and out of using and offending. We want to stop that revolving door.

I thank the people who came together in Glasgow and in Fife to help us devise a different approach, which has a greater chance of success. I also thank the drugs court teams for their dedication in making the models work on the ground.

All the offenders who were interviewed as part of the evaluation reported a significant reduction in drug use and offending, a finding which the evidence from the drugs court team supports. Overall, the offenders were positive about their experience. We know from research that the longer an offender stays on an order the greater the chances of success. During the first six months only one order had been breached.

The evaluation has identified some areas for improvement. That was the intention behind having a pilot. More work will be done to extend the availability, for example, of a wider range of sanctions and rewards for non-compliance and progress.

It is the philosophy of the drugs court that there will be relapses. We know that. The court deals with them through the regular reviews of progress of the offender. Failure to comply is investigated and dealt with appropriately. The Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill will strengthen the powers of the drugs court by providing it with a range of interim sanctions.

We propose to amend the order-making power for variance of the duration of interim sanctions from negative resolution procedure as it stands in the bill to affirmative resolution procedure, giving the Parliament the opportunity to debate any proposed change if at any time the need arises.

Interim sanctions will send a warning to the offender without the need to revoke the order. The offender who fails ultimately faces the possibility of a custodial sentence for the original offence and the loss of access to the supervision and support offered by the drugs court order. If the offender succeeds, he has the chance to reduce or eliminate dependence on drugs, to re-establish family ties or reduce the burden on the family, to eliminate crime and to become an accepted member of the community. That is what lies at the end of the order.

I make it clear that it is imperative that we provide extra funding that DTTOs and drugs courts need so that offenders have quick access to treatment. The money comes on top of the additional resources already going into building the infrastructure to combat drug abuse. Some £13 million is going to NHS boards for drug misuse treatment from 2001-02 to 2003-04; an additional £21 million is going to local authorities for rehabilitation services from 2001-02 to 2003-04.

That is a clear demonstration that we intend to take the fight against drugs seriously. Our drugs strategy is not focused on either treatment or enforcement. It is wide ranging, combining improvements in specialist provision, expansion of needle facilities, better shared care arrangements, a tough drugs enforcement policy and innovative criminal justice interventions. The DTTOs and the drugs courts are an essential part of that strategy.

I move amendment S1M-3641.2, to leave out from "notes" to end and insert:

"welcomes the commitment of the Scottish Executive to address the problem of drug misusing offenders by establishing pilot drugs courts, the success of Drug Treatment and Testing Orders and the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency, the additional resources made available to agencies within the criminal justice system, local authorities and the NHS to support its co-ordinated approach to reducing or eliminating the dependence on or propensity to misuse drugs and its integrated strategy to tackling drug-related crime and reducing the impact which this has on communities."

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

I welcome the Deputy Minister for Justice to his new responsibilities. He has perhaps been thrown in the deep end and I dare say that he is having to stick fairly closely to his brief, but I hope that he enjoys his time in the justice department.

When I read the Tory motion, my immediate reaction was that the Tories have simply not understood the point of the drugs courts in the first place. Lord James Douglas-Hamilton received a written answer that showed that there are far fewer breaches of orders in drugs courts than there are in non-drugs courts. In fact, of 59 orders made since November 2001, only three have been breached, resulting in imprisonment for the offender, which is exactly what was meant to happen.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

Is Ms Cunningham aware of the number of outstanding cases relating to people who have gone before the drugs courts?

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

I am absolutely aware of the difficulties that the drugs courts face. I have sat through drugs courts proceedings. I also know that it is important that we allow the sheriffs who are there to gain specialist knowledge and expertise and make their decisions and use their discretion as to what is appropriate.

I have visited and sat through an entire day's proceedings of the drugs court in Glasgow. I was very impressed by the hard work that was being done by the sheriffs, the staff, the drugs workers, the social workers and fiscals, on whom a heavy work load has fallen. That has meant that a degree of court expertise and specialist knowledge has been built up, which is vital and should be built upon.

What most impressed me were the considerable advances made by a number of the offenders. We should remember that getting free of drug addiction is very hard work indeed and that there are bound to be setbacks. We have to allow the space for that to happen. It was pointed out to me quite forcefully that when offenders received encouragement from the sheriffs and social workers that was often the first time that any of them had received praise of any kind at all. The fact that we can achieve that within the criminal justice system is a huge step forward. I would have thought that it was worthy of commendation instead of condemnation.

The scale of the problem that we are dealing with in Scotland is only too well known. Recent figures suggest that as many as one in 50 people in Scotland is misusing drugs. According to some estimates, an addict will commit an average of 26 crimes a month to support a £1,500-a-month drug habit. Getting just one addict cleaned up will mean that there are 26 fewer victims of crime and that there is considerably less work for an over-stretched police service.

That is not to say that there are not problems. There is evidence that referrals from the police have been fewer than expected, not because the police do not support the concept of the drugs court but because they feel ill-equipped to make the decision about suitability. Perhaps work needs to be done to address that issue.

There is also, apparently, a problem with solicitors who are beginning to feel that for them the drugs courts work is simply not profitable enough to be involved in. There are specific reasons why that is the case and I will raise the matter with the minister separately. The problem has just been flagged up and we do not want to see such problems getting in the way of the good working of the drugs courts.

There is under-resourcing, but the source of the difficulty is not within the court itself. The bottleneck appears to be at the level of the drug treatment and supervision team, which also handles the DTTOs that are handed down by other courts and is severely stretched. That needs to be addressed.

We also know that the waiting times for non-court related drugs services can be very lengthy. In Aberdeen, waiting times for access to the medical drug problems service was nearly 14 months in 2001-02; in Dundee, the wait is frequently seven to eight months and can be as much as double that; and in Fife, as I understand it, the wait is nine to 10 months. The irony is that such lengthy waiting times can mean that treatment is more likely to be forthcoming if drug users are caught committing crime, by which time the addiction is probably even more difficult to address. That is not a reason for attacking the drugs courts; it is a reason for addressing the problem of under-resourcing in those other services.

DTTOs are the one way, apart from the drugs courts, that drug offenders can be dealt with in the community at a considerably reduced cost compared with sending them to prison. Even so, DTTOs are available in only a few areas of Scotland. I welcome the announcement today of the extension of DTTOs to Lanarkshire and Ayrshire and I look forward to further extensions in the near future. In spite of what the absurd Tory motion says, the truth is that limiting such interventions to those who have committed very few crimes will restrict their usefulness and will increase harm to society.

In conclusion, I caution all members, particularly the minister, not to evaluate the drugs court purely on the basis of a cost evaluation that considers only the money that is spent on the court and its attendant services. Unless that expenditure is measured against the benefit to the community that is achieved as a result of there being fewer victims of crime, fewer crimes to investigate and less pressure on the health service in the long run—a benefit that is much harder to calculate—we will not see the true worth of the experiment and the need for all the advantages to be extended to the whole of Scotland. The alternative would be simply to give up on rehabilitation. I strongly hope that no member wants to go down that route.

I move amendment S1M-3641.1, to leave out from "regrets" to end and insert:

"welcomes the work of the drugs courts in diverting users into effective rehabilitation programmes; acknowledges the dedication of the fiscals, social workers, drugs counsellors and sheriffs who have worked to make the drugs courts successful; considers that further resources are required to ensure the continued effectiveness of the drugs courts, and calls on the Scottish Executive to ensure the early roll-out of drugs courts and the provision of the necessary resources so that offenders in all areas of Scotland will have equal access to the same rehabilitation opportunities."

Keith Raffan (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I disagreed with nothing that Ms Cunningham said in her speech and I agreed with nothing that Mr Aitken said in his speech. So much for Iain Duncan Smith's attempts at social inclusion, meagre though they were—they have crashed down today with Mr Aitken's appalling and dreadfully ill-informed speech. Iain Duncan Smith famously went to a council estate in Glasgow to talk with feeling and compassion about the drug problem. Although we know that crack is little used in Scotland, he wrongly identified all the paraphernalia of a heroin user as being that of a crack user. So much for Tory knowledge on drug issues. They have scored an enormous own goal today.

There are 55,000 drug addicts in Scotland. That is the most recent estimate from Neil McKeganey of the centre for drug misuse research at the University of Glasgow. More than £500 million a year—£190 million in Glasgow alone—is stolen or shoplifted to finance drug habits.

The Executive is taking a two-pronged approach to the problem. The first prong is to cut supply through enforcement. There has been an increase in seizures but, regrettably, that has not been reflected in an increase in the street price. According to the Government's figures, the street price of class A drugs has dropped by 20 to 40 per cent in the past five years. That shows that the increased seizures represent a smaller proportion of the amount of drugs that is coming in. On enforcement, that is the principal problem that the Executive faces.

The second prong in attacking drug misuse is to cut demand through education, treatment and rehabilitation. We want to break the cycle of drug dependency and of reoffending. The minister referred to the revolving door scenario of stealing to use, going to prison, being back on the streets, stealing to use and going back to prison. We want to get addicts into treatment, into recovery, into mainstream life and into employment, so that, instead of continuing to be a drain on public spending, they become contributors to public spending through the taxes that they pay. We are talking about a policy of spending to save.

My party and I fully support drugs courts and drug treatment and testing orders. They have clear objectives, which are being met. Those objectives are to reduce drug-related crime, to get drug addicts into treatment, to break the cycle of reoffending, to reduce the burden on the criminal justice system and to reduce the population in our prisons. I repeat—that is a policy of spending to save. The cost of a 12-month DTTO is £7,992, whereas the average cost of 12 months in prison, which does not include drug treatment, is £26,700.

A year on, the in-house evaluation of the effectiveness of the Glasgow drugs court pilot scheme has shown the value of fast-tracking offenders, the waiting list notwithstanding. The most important aspects of the scheme are the development of a trained, dedicated team the members of which are in regular contact with each other and with the offender and a system of pre-court meetings and reviews.

Of course operational problems have been identified—that was the whole point of the evaluation. The Tory attitude is, "Let's pull up the plant by the roots to see how it's growing." That is a destructive approach. The evaluation has identified the work-load problems and the need for a wider range of rewards and sanctions for non-compliance and for those who have made progress.

The initial assessment is that the Glasgow drugs court has largely been a success. Offenders have reduced their drug taking by 90 per cent. In the six months since the implementation of DTTOs, offenders' spending on drugs has reduced to £57 a week from an average sum of £490. There has also been a reduction in the number of drug-related offences in Glasgow.

We look forward to the important independent assessment that will follow next year, before a roll-out across the country. The roll-out depends on certain things. Ms Cunningham was right to say that the real problem is the availability of places—residential and day—on treatment programmes. As Mr Lochhead has observed in the past, the long waiting list for methadone treatment is a particular problem. If people do not get methadone treatment when they are at rock bottom, they are more likely to reoffend and to return to prison, which means that we fail to break the cycle.

I do not know when Mr Aitken last visited a prison; it is clear that he has not done so recently. Perhaps he did so in Dickensian times.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

Will the member take an intervention?

Keith Raffan (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I hope that the member will listen to my point. I will give way briefly after I have made it.

It is virtually impossible to keep drugs out of prison. When I went to Saughton prison, the deputy governor told me that Henry McLeish's sniffer dogs had been in the day before and that they had not found anything. Half an hour later, one of the prison officers found a huge ball of cannabis, which was wrapped in plastic and covered in Bovril. The sniffer dogs did not succeed on that occasion. It is difficult to keep drugs out without having closed visits. If one had closed visits, there would be prison riots. We need the Tories to say how they intend to keep drugs out of prison. They do not have a clue at the moment.

I welcome the Executive's move towards drug treatment in prisons, which Cranstoun Drug Services has been appointed to undertake. We must get that process going, so that once people get out of prison, they do not get on the bus and go back to the same environment and to their dealers. That is about the only point on which I agree with Mr Aitken. The Tories' neanderthal approach shows that they have learnt nothing.

We must praise those who have been involved in drugs courts and DTTOs, because their work is hugely valuable for our community, for our society and for drugs offenders, and it has helped to reduce crime. They deserve our support. I look forward to the independent evaluation.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Although I speak in support of the motion, I would like to broaden the debate. In particular, I will consider rehabilitation and, if it is not too ambitious to do so, prevention.

The amendment in the name of Mr Wallace is instructive, because it refers to a number of bodies to which resources are allocated. I accept that those resources are being allocated to considerable effect. Amendment S1M-3641.2 refers to pilot drugs courts, drug treatment and testing orders and the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency. It also mentions the fact that additional resources are being made available to agencies within the criminal justice system, to local authorities and to the national health service.

I am full of praise for the allocation of resources, but I must ask what it is achieving. It is disconcerting that the distribution of resources is fragmented and it is depressing that the statistics point to a steady increase in drug-related crimes and deaths. Are we clear about what does not work? I share Mr Aitken's scepticism about recent documents such as "Taking Drugs Seriously" and the "Good Drugs Guide for Clubbers". If we seek to give guidance to young people—it is interesting that young people seek such guidance—the kind of dangerous babble that those documents contain is unhelpful and has a negative effect. To be frank, they are an affront to the intelligence and the common sense of our young people. My criticism of those documents is unqualified.

I will move on to more positive territory. Have we any idea of what works and of whom we should be speaking to? Mr Aitken referred to Maxie Richards, whom I have known for a number of years. It is no understatement to say that her work and achievements in rehabilitation make her a miracle worker. It is humbling to meet her. Although she is diffident by disposition and nature, when it comes to dealing with drug abuse, she is determined, resolute and unconquerable in seeking to do her best for young addicts and victims who might have nowhere else to turn.

I spoke to Maxie Richards just last night. I asked her what she thought rehabilitation meant. She answered that it meant three things: taking young people seriously, providing meaningful rehabilitation in a concentrated manner and introducing a change of environment by removing the individual from the threats that exist. In her opinion, rehabilitation, if handled properly, can take people off drugs in as little as 10 days.

Keith Raffan (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member give way?

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I will give way when I have finished my point.

Maxie Richards believes that once rehabilitation has been effected, a change of environment can be vital in continuing to save an individual from going back on to drugs. Her success is proven and I urge the minister to contact her if that has not been done. All I ask is not that the minister expresses an opinion about her work today, but that he sees how she works and to what effect.

Keith Raffan (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

How shall I put this tactfully? Maxie Richards's approach and her opposition to methadone in particular are somewhat controversial—I do not support her view. Of course, one welcomes anybody who produces positive results, but I am amazed at Annabel Goldie's reference to 10 days for somebody to get off drugs. The usual estimate is between six weeks and six months. If the member talks to any experts—I can give her a list—she will find that out.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I welcome Mr Raffan's intervention, which showed the huge uncertainty about the best way to progress. All that I can say is that I tend to rely on evidence. Perhaps that is because of my dreary training as a lawyer, but the evidence is that Maxie Richards has a proven record of success. Many recovered addicts' families will testify to that. It is interesting that the judiciary's interest has also been evident. She is a not uncommon source of referral by the bench.

My message to the minister is that we must consider what we spend resource on. Significant amounts of money are being allocated in genuine attempts to deal with drug abuse in Scotland. Much more perplexing is to determine whether those sums are being spent to best effect, whether there are lessons that all of us can learn, and whether that means that we must begin to speak to the right people.

Janis Hughes (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

I am pleased to have the chance to speak in the drugs courts debate and I welcome Hugh Henry to his new post. In politics, there is nothing like hitting the ground running.

I do not think that a single member would disagree that drug use is a problem in Scottish society. In constituencies such as mine—Glasgow Rutherglen—drug use causes many associated problems. That is why our approach to tackling the issue must be multidimensional. Again, I think that no one would disagree with that.

We must deal with rehabilitation and drug use locally. The work of drugs forums in my constituency, including the Rutherglen and Cambuslang drugs forum and the Toryglen drugs forum, and in other constituencies is crucial to that.

We must also find an appropriate way to deal with criminal behaviour. Simply sending offenders to prison without any rehabilitation does not work. They leave prison, reoffend and remain trapped in a cycle of drug abuse, prison and crime. Drugs courts offer us the chance to take offenders out of the prison system and start them on the road to rehabilitation, which benefits us all in the long term. For the Tory motion to describe drugs courts as

"a means of avoiding a prison term"

is misinformed and mischievous—rather like Mr Aitken, I fear.

I do not doubt that members are aware of the extent of the problem in Glasgow. Recent studies show that 70 per cent of people who are arrested in the city have used drugs. Unfortunately, as we have heard from members, bitter experience has taught us that sending someone to prison is no guarantee that they will not get their hands on illegal substances. There is no point in sending criminals with drug problems to prison without dealing with their addiction. That is why drugs courts work and why the report of the first six months of the pilot shows that the pilot has been a success. That might not be what the Tories want to hear, but that is a fact.

The Scottish drugs courts have been a resounding success, and the introduction of drug treatment and testing orders has helped to achieve a decrease in offending and in drug taking among offenders who have been placed on orders in the pilot areas. I am delighted that the minister announced today funding to introduce drug treatment and testing orders in Ayrshire and Lanarkshire. The orders work, and extending their application is the way forward.

I agree with Bill Aitken's motion in that of course sufficient resources to manage drugs courts are essential. However, the motion's overall negativity is disappointing, although—unfortunately—not altogether surprising.

I am unclear what the Tory motion means by saying that the Executive sends out mixed messages on drugs. The Executive is fully committed to tackling drug misuse in Scotland's communities. The First Minister recently outlined a proposal to confiscate the profits that drug dealers have made, with the proceeds going to the families of victims of drug misuse. The Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency has been created and £100 million has been allocated to tackle drug misuse in constituencies such as mine. I am not sure why the Tories have a problem with that.

The Tories' age-old message to just say no and their approach of lock 'em up and throw away the key have failed. They failed for 18 years when drug misuse escalated in Scotland. Like the Tories, they have never been more irrelevant.

I add my support to the Executive's amendment.

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

We have a bit of time in hand, so members can stretch their speeches by a minute or a minute and a half.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I welcome the debate, sponsored by the Tory party. However, a sense of irony prevails, as the Parliament was left to pick up the pieces after the 18 years of Tory Government during which substance misuse in Scotland went through the roof. It is extremely difficult to think of any successful initiative by the Tories to tackle substance misuse in Scotland during their 18 years, but thankfully, the Parliament is beginning to address the issues and to undertake desperately needed new initiatives.

One reason why I take a close interest in the issue is that I want to help people who are on drugs to live productive and healthy lives and to contribute to Scotland in the future, and to save their families much grief. Another reason is the need to cut drug-related crime, which is one of the biggest social issues—if not the biggest issue—that faces many of our communities throughout Scotland.

That is the case in Grampian, which I represent. Aberdeen has the second-highest crime rate in Scotland, but double the national average figure for house breakings. In Scotland, 80 per cent of house breakings are drug related. Every day one can pick up any newspaper from north-east Scotland and it will be riddled with stories about people who have been jailed or given drug treatment and testing orders for drug-related crime. It is essential that the debate concerns cutting crime as well as helping people to get off drugs.

We know that putting people in prison does not work. A revolving-door syndrome is involved. Even in Craiginches prison, where 80 per cent of inmates test positive for drug use, the limited services are virtually collapsing. Three drug agency workers and three Scottish Prison Service staff are supposed to be based in the prison to deal with drug issues. A few months ago, I discovered that only two of those six posts were filled, although the prison has one of the biggest drug problems in Scotland. After public outcry, the situation was addressed and some posts were filled, but I found out this morning that the prison's drugs co-ordinator has resigned. A few months ago, most of the posts were filled to help to get inmates off drugs, but now, only two of the three agency staff posts are filled and only one fully trained prison staff member is in post. We are back to square one. The situation in the prison continues to worsen rather than improve.

What does that mean? We must look outside the prison to help to get folk off drugs and to tackle the problem. We want a drugs court in Grampian. Of all the places in Scotland where a pilot should have been established, Grampian should have been chosen, because it has had the biggest increase in drug misuse in Scotland in the past 10 years and has the third-biggest drug misuse problem. The local authorities have identified 1,700 opiate users in Grampian, 1,300 of whom have used treatment services. Some estimate that there are roughly 3,500 opiate users in the region and others put the figure as high as 5,000. That is the scale of the problem, which relates to heroin and more recently to crack cocaine.

After many people leave prison, they end up back on the streets. They continue to use drugs and commit crime, then return to prison. That must stop. I suspect that one reason why Grampian has not had a drugs court is that it does not have the resources to service a drugs court. The situation is as simple as that. As Roseanna Cunningham said, Grampian has the longest waiting list for referral to the local drug problems treatment service. Addicts who are committing crime now were referred to the service 18 months ago, but still wait for their appointments. They want to get off drugs and most of them are committing crime, but they are being told to return in a year and a half, when they can perhaps be helped. The situation is unsatisfactory.

In 1992, 250 referrals—excluding alcohol cases—were made to the local drug problems treatment service. One consultant psychiatrist and one registrar worked for the service. In 2002, several thousand referrals have been made to the same service, but still only one consultant psychiatrist and one registrar work for the service. The number of psychiatric nurses who work for the service has increased to about 24 and other senior staff have been employed, but no increase has been made in key posts over the past 10 years. Demand for the service is going through the roof, which is one of the reasons why people are told that they have to wait 18 months.

Keith Raffan (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Richard Lochhead has placed his focus on consultant psychiatrists. I am not denying that they are important in leading the service, but the crucial thing is to have trained drug counsellors who can offer group therapy and other forms of treatment. The trained drug counsellors handle the day in, day out treatment, not the psychiatrists.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I do not dispute Keith Raffan's point, but other parts of the country, where there is less demand on such services, have more consultant psychiatrists and other staff. I am thinking of Glasgow, which I believe has three consultant psychiatrists. We must look at the share of resources around the country.

To put the icing on the cake, of all the health board areas in Scotland, Grampian has the lowest level of drugs funding.

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

The member has one minute.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I welcome the new minister to his post and ask him to turn his attention to the situation in Grampian.

Drug treatment and testing orders have been piloted in Aberdeen where they are meeting with success. I will finish by giving an example of their success, which shows that it is worth while to go down the road of giving the courts alternative disposals and not simply putting people in jail to get them off drugs.

I asked the local council for a case study to highlight an individual's progress through a drug treatment order. The council gave me the following example:

"A is a 30 year old male, who has been involved in heroin use since the age of 16. At the time of being referred to the Drug Treatment and Testing Order Project, he had a total of 88 previous convictions and had served 24 custodial sentences ... He was made subject to an 18 month Drug Treatment and Testing Order in February 02".

The case study concludes:

"He has built relationships with his family and is presently in a permanent relationship and investigating the possibility of securing a mortgage in order to buy a flat."

I finish by saying that we must build on successful initiatives such as that. We have to ensure that such initiatives are up and running in Grampian, which has lagged behind in securing the resources that are needed to service them.

Finally, the economics—

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

I think that that is your third "Finally", Mr Lochhead.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

We would have saved a lot of cash for society if the individual I mentioned had been enabled to get treatment earlier in his life.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

At the outset, I say that, although I condemn the comments that were reported last week, I do not think that any of us could criticise Richard Simpson's commitment to addressing one of Scotland's most difficult problems. [Applause.]

I served on the Health and Community Care Committee with Richard Simpson for two and a half years and his commitment to and knowledge of health issues and Scotland's health are second to none. Nonetheless, I look forward to working with Hugh Henry.

I will concentrate on point (b) in Bill Aitken's motion, which addresses "treatment to undergo rehabilitation". I have three points to make. The first is on the effect of the effective intervention unit. Last week, I read a paper on support for families and carers of drug users. Several families in Inverness have tried to get support and advice, but a social worker has not been available for families since January this year. I know that there is a national shortage of social workers, but unless all the key personnel are in place, the support systems do not work.

People are told to go to Al-Anon. Although it is an excellent organisation, which operates at no cost to the taxpayer, we should ask where public money is going and how people are being served by it. We know that the Executive allocates money to address the drugs problem. I say to the minister that, when people look for doors to chap on to find help, they get the serious run around.

During the recess, I phoned Richard Simpson on that point to ask for help and found him extremely helpful in understanding the problem. Mothers Against Drugs has set up many support groups throughout Scotland to enable mothers of drug users to support each other. There is a particularly good group in Alness, with which I know Maureen Macmillan is familiar.

My second point is about Ritalin. This week, I met representatives from the Overload Network. If its figures are correct, the increase in the use of the drug is seriously worrying. I know that Ritalin is not the subject of the debate today, but the Overload Network raised the issue of the effects that taking Ritalin can have on children as they move into adolescence and adulthood. I highlight the long-term effects of taking the drug.

My third point is about the methadone programme. I fully support the comments that Annabel Goldie made about doing what works. Many members are trying to address cases in their constituencies and, because we are not experts, we look around to try to find information on what works.

Last week, a pharmacist told me that one of her regular methadone users had expressed a desire to reduce the dose and work towards a drug-free lifestyle. His request was met by him being given a full week's supply of methadone. He was sent home with no support and left to his own devices. As he had a bottle of methadone in his home, the temptation led to increased not decreased use. He is now back to stage one and believes that he cannot reduce his dose.

Last week, I received a letter from a parent who lost their son to methadone. He was not a heroin addict but was put on methadone all the same. The substance of my concern stems from a parliamentary answer that confirmed that it was more difficult to come off methadone than heroin.

Keith Raffan (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I want to be clear about the Conservative position on the matter. Are the Conservatives coming out against methadone treatment? A lot of us would be concerned about that. Methadone is not ideal, but it works for a lot of people. Many addicts manage to reduce the dose, keep off crime and get their lives back in order.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I appreciate that point, but today I am asking questions. Any politician makes judgments only on the basis of knowledge, as I am sure Keith Raffan appreciates.

I have asked questions about the number of people in Scotland who are on the methadone programme. The answer was promised by the end of October and the previous minister with responsibility for drugs assured me that it would now be available by the end of November. Surely we need to know how many people are on the programme, how long they have been on it and how many people have progressed through it to gradual dose reduction. We know that there is insufficient advice and support for many people who are on the programme. We also know that detox and rehabilitation options are rarely offered. I asked the Executive how many places are available in Scotland for drug and alcohol rehabilitation. I was told, as MSPs are often told:

"The information requested is not held centrally."

I say to the minister that more information is needed so that politicians can make correct judgments on the basis of accurate information.

There are alternatives to the methadone programme. I understand that drug addicts in France are offered buprenorphine, which is a substitute treatment for opiate dependence. I also understand that recent research in France illustrated that 47 per cent of people who are on the programme are in stable occupational activity. How many people on the methadone programme hold down jobs? I also understand that buprenorphine results in the marked reduction or elimination of the effects of additional methadone use.

France may not have got it all right—I do not know, we are here to learn. I do know that 8 per cent of drug addicts in France are on methadone and 92 per cent are on buprenorphine. Why cannot we have similar pilot studies to manage opiate withdrawal? Not only would they be of benefit to patients, they would help families, improve employment status and reduce drug dealing and theft.

Given that the success or failure of the drugs strategy rests largely with the drug action teams, what effective audit and monitoring is taking place to ensure that the drug action teams deliver in addressing Scotland's drugs problem?

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

I call Christine Grahame. In view of her dual identity, I ask her to confirm that she is speaking for the SNP and not as the convener of the Justice 1 Committee.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

That is correct.

First, I take the opportunity to put the record straight on the SNP policy on the prosecution of drug dealers. I refer to the Official Report of last Thursday's First Minister's question time. The First Minister said:

"Silly proposals about sending drug dealers to drugs courts do not help that debate. I want to ensure that, in Scotland, we get the dealers and get people off drugs too."

He prayed in aid a quotation:

"I will quote from the Scottish National Party's press release from this morning, which says that the SNP pledges to introduce drugs courts 'to use the full force of the law on those individuals who are profiting from drugs.'"—[Official Report, 21 November 2002; c 15651.]

The press release actually says:

"Mr Swinney said the SNP will roll out drugs courts across the country so denying dealers a market by giving addicts the help they need to get off drugs while also using the full force of the law to put the producers and dealers in jail. Commenting he said:

'In 1999 the SNP pledged that we would introduce special drug courts to firstly break the cycle of drug taking and crime and secondly to use the full force of the law on those individuals who are profiting from drugs.'"

That is not quite the same thing.

I know that the First Minister is a man of integrity—he tells us so—and I am sure that he will be pleased to endorse that correction on the record. Let me tell him, too, that I have booked an appointment for him with an optometrist, so that he can deal with any problems that he has in reading press releases.

I refer to the Scottish Executive's press release of 14 May 2002, which is headed, "Drug courts judged a success". It goes on to say that the then Deputy Minister for Justice

"praised the work of the team set up to oversee the court and the effectiveness of inter-agency working that has become its hallmark ... The drug court is supported by seven different agencies who contribute to a dedicated team that attempts to ensure the smooth working of the new procedures".

The team is undoubtedly dedicated and certainly attempts to ensure smooth working of procedures, but it is not having much help with resources.

I refer members to the Executive's own research, which says:

"The existing demands placed by Drug Court Orders and by a perceived increase in DTTOs made by the Sheriff Court were contributing to low morale and a feeling of being overloaded by the frequency of client appointments required. This resulted in staff taking 'shortcuts', such as using information directly from reports prepared by other professionals rather than providing an integrated summary of the relevant material."

That has been endorsed by recent reports in the Sunday papers of the state of distress and anxiety among social workers who feel that they cannot cope. They want to cope and the system to work, as we and others do, but they are not being resourced.

The research goes on to say:

"There was a feeling, throughout most of the interviews, of what one respondent described as, 'that bit of, my bit being more important than your bit.' Whilst a certain amount of professional jealously provides a useful stimulus to multi-agency working, the views recorded during this evaluation suggest a more unhealthy inter-disciplinary rivalry."

There will always be problems when one pilots something as revolutionary as the drugs courts, which was recommended by the SNP as long ago as 1999. However, we must not draw a veil over the initiative. If the Executive is planning to resource drugs courts for other areas, will it please examine the existing difficulties? We do not want the scheme to fail for the want of resources.

As we know, the background to that is the fact that 20 per cent of social work places advertised in the criminal justice system are unfilled. It is unfair to the professionals not to provide them with resources or to recognise their problems. I do not say that to undermine drugs courts, but to be honest about them. The principle is excellent. Anyone who has served on the Parliament's justice committees from the beginning, as I have done, knows that prisons often contain very sad people who have offended against society and who have stolen, but only to pay dealers. The statistics show that, as soon as they come out of prison and return to the communities in which the dealers live, they go back to crime and back into prison. It is a waste of people's lives and resources.

I cannot use up all my time, but I have made my point. I want the minister to examine clearly and be honest about the resourcing of the current pilot projects. He must ensure that the front-line workers who try to help drug addicts are supported and know that the Parliament recognises the stresses that they are under.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

I begin by apologising for being late to this debate. I am sorry that I did not hear everyone's speeches. I did not mean any disrespect to Parliament—I had transport problems. Bill Aitken and I share an interest in transport. It is an issue close to our hearts that we have discussed many times in the Justice 2 Committee.

I congratulate Hugh Henry on his new appointment and welcome back Roseanna Cunningham, who has been absent for some time. She has been missed, although Christine Grahame and Michael Matheson have done a wonderful job in her absence.

Drug misuse is the single most difficult issue that our society faces, and we all know that there are no easy solutions. We face it in every sphere of life and, as politicians, have a heavy responsibility to match solutions to serious problems. It is a measure of the maturity of the Scottish Parliament that so far we have had such a constructive debate on the strategy that we should adopt. We may have our differences, but there has been a mature approach to the debate.

The drugs court is a new concept in our justice system. Specialist courts are fast becoming a feature of the system as we examine specialist approaches to other areas of offending and recognise that we sometimes need an expert approach to break the cycle of offending, particularly in relation to drugs. The success of drugs courts has been debated this morning, and I acknowledge the success of the pilots that we have been able to examine. However, we must constantly search for the signs that drugs courts are worth the investment that we are making.

The Justice 2 Committee recently heard evidence from Sheriff Matthews, who has presided over the drugs court in Glasgow sheriff court. He emphasised the multidisciplinary team approach to justice. Seven agencies, including sheriffs and social workers, are involved in the partnership team and work together to provide an expert approach. He also emphasised that if the experts believe that an offender is failing, he would regard it as an indication that the programme is not working and that the offender should be referred to another sheriff for another sentence.

The new provisions in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill are important. They will nail for ever the lie that a DTTO is a soft option, because sheriffs will be able to impose a period of detention if they believe that that is appropriate. The minister should take note of another technical matter that has been raised by Justice 2 Committee. During the progress of the bill we may need to examine the provisions about the breach of a DTTO, so that, in line with their human rights, if offenders want to deny that a breach took place they will have the opportunity to do so.

By all accounts, coming off drugs is hard, which is why we must allow for offenders receiving treatment having some failures along the way. We cannot stand here in judgment of offenders and say that it is easy. A simple failure should not be an automatic breach of the DTTO. We also know that the order can last as long as 36 months, so it is in no way a soft option.

The crucial test is not the number of DTTOs, but ultimately whether we cut the number of crimes related to the cycle of drugs and reoffending. Rehabilitation and assistance with drug misuse have been a strategy in our criminal justice system in relation to not just those appearing before our courts, but those in our prisons. It is a mystery to many why drugs are so prevalent in our Scottish prisons, but it is worth noting that we have important schemes in our prison service to help those who wish to deal with their problems. As Christine Grahame and I have mentioned on many occasions, there is also the wonderful work that has been done in Alva house in Low Moss prison. I hope that that work continues as we discuss the future of the prison service estates.

The post-prison release programme, which the Executive announced at the beginning of this year, is a 12-week programme to assist prisoners who have been released and have successfully dealt with their drug addition. It is an extremely important programme. Offenders have said on many occasions to me and to other members of the justice committees that, having dealt with a drug addition, they are then released into the community with no support whatsoever. I would like to hear more about the success of that particular programme.

Furthermore, it cannot be right for people to have a better chance of rehabilitation and detoxification if they have offended, and we need to examine equality of treatment. I am sure that Keith Raffan will have pointed that out, as he always does, and it is an important point to make.

The Parliament is capable of carrying out very important work on this issue, and I hope that we continue to have a mature debate on our approach to this very complex and serious problem in our society.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

"There is more joy in one sinner that repenteth".

Although the Executive came rather later to drugs courts than did the SNP, its arrival is nonetheless doubly welcome. We share the view that drugs courts are the way forward.

I share members' concerns about the possibility of known offenders accessing treatment and support the pleas for further investment to ensure that people who wish to come out of addiction have the opportunity to capitalise on that wish and motivation before it disappears.

Although we are debating drugs courts and therefore addiction to illegal drugs, we should remember that the general addiction to drugs is much wider than we would sometimes care to acknowledge. Even in this relatively sparsely populated chamber, there will be a number of drug addicts and people who are in remission. No, I am not looking at you in particular, Presiding Officer. It is 30 years since I had my last cigarette and I can fairly claim to be in remission. However, temptation is present every day: someone in the pub might pass round a packet of cigarettes and, under certain circumstances, I might unconsciously reach for one. Fortunately, the social norms mean that such an occurrence happens less frequently. We should not cast stones at addicts, because many of us are addicts ourselves.

Mike Rumbles, who is not in the chamber today, has taken a close interest in the subject of alcoholism. I know that he would wish me to remind the chamber that that legal drug has caused serious addiction problems.

However, the debate is about the role of drugs courts in getting people out of addiction and out of crime. Bill Aitken was absolutely wrong to characterise such courts as a "get out of jail" card; they actually represent a "get out of crime" card. The current arrangement of treating addicts in the mainstream court system simply has not worked, and we must try another option. We are testing drugs courts. It is possible that they might fail, although I believe that with a fair wind, proper resources and enthusiastic and committed professionals they will succeed. We must make them succeed, because at the moment there is no other visible option.

In my role as sweeper in this debate, I want to address one or two other issues that have not yet been covered. In its 1999 manifesto, Labour promised to double to 200 the number of police officers in the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency. We are still below that figure, and have not heard any plans to increase numbers in early course. Perhaps that will happen next year. However, the Executive is taking a very long time to deliver on an important commitment that was made nearly four years ago.

I want to turn to the difficulties about the Executive's need to work with its colleagues in Government in London. I raise the issue not to make a constitutional point, but to make a practical one. Because legalising drugs is a reserved matter, Home Office debates down south will affect the situation in Scotland. I seek the minister's assurance that he is working closely with colleagues elsewhere. Our views on the matter are well known, and I will not repeat them.

However, I draw particular attention to the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, which makes it an offence for property owners knowingly to permit or suffer the use of a controlled drug on their property. Such a provision means that landlords cannot rent property to drug addicts if they know that addicts are likely to permit or suffer the use of controlled drugs on that property. As a result, there is a one third higher prevalence of heroin use among people in hostel accommodation and a 94 per cent higher percentage of heroin use among people of no fixed abode than in other groups. Those people cannot qualify for DTTOs because they are homeless. It is important that we examine other aspects of the system if we seek to minimise the effects of other legislation on drug addicts.

I should also point out that because the number of customs officers has been dramatically reduced, the drugs business continues to be successful and the channels to market remain open.

We must put the drug user at the centre of our concerns. Drug dealers are a different issue, because they volunteer to deal drugs. Once drug users have been exposed, perhaps on a single occasion, to the use of drugs, they cease to have a choice. Their addiction compels them down a path that leads to criminality. I very much welcome the introduction of drugs courts and very much regret that the Tories are unable to see beyond the justice system to provide justice for the community and addicts.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

I was reflecting on Stewart Stevenson's suggestion that we are all drug addicts of some kind. I think that he is correct: my drug is probably the enjoyment that I get from stirring things up. I welcome the Executive's attitude to drugs, and the progress that has been made on the matter. As a regional member, I also welcome the decision to extend the system to Lanarkshire and Ayrshire.

Many members know much more about the subject than I do and have covered it very well. Indeed, my friend Keith Raffan keeps on about the subject. As a result, I will try to approach it from a different angle. The amendment that I support mentions

"reducing ... the ... propensity to misuse drugs".

Yesterday, I praised the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee's report for including a phrase about the cost of not doing things. We have to focus on the cost of not treating the causes of people becoming involved in drugs. The notion of spending to save is widely accepted, and my argument is that we should spend more to save on the "propensity to misuse drugs".

Many people come to drugs through family breakdown or family violence. This afternoon, we will have a debate on domestic abuse, which is an issue that is clearly related to drug activity. Both Scottish Women's Aid and Couple Counselling Scotland, which tries to help couples not to split up, are underfunded and could use a lot more money to carry out their good work properly. The Executive must take a wide-ranging approach to the matter and adequately fund organisations that carry out such important work.

We must create communities that are based on the ethos that people should not go into drugs. That includes helping communities to develop in their own way instead of having people like me tell them what to do. For example, recreation is important. Money that is invested now in a local football team on a housing estate will save thousands of pounds later on if it keeps one individual off drugs and out of jail because of drugs. Education and training, which we dealt with yesterday, are required to give people hope for the future and to give them a worthwhile job.

Another issue that I tend to go on about is alcohol. There is a relationship between alcohol and drugs, as many alcohol users later become drug users. Even in its own right, alcohol is probably a greater destroyer of lives than are drugs. We must attack that issue as well.

As other speakers have said, we need to go for a rapid response. It is no use having a nice scheme in six months' time. The person must get the help when he or she needs it. There must be work in prison to help those who have succumbed to drugs. Good work is being done, but it is still not being adequately resourced.

We need joined-up government, whereby budgets on all sides are used to tackle the problem. That would reduce the number of people who get involved in drugs and so allow the drugs courts to do their excellent work on fewer people.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I shall refrain from following the example set by my colleague Stewart Stevenson in disclosing that he is a recovering addict, which was followed by Donald Gorrie, for fear that, if we all start getting up to disclose our addictions, the public may think that they have come in to watch some kind of counselling meeting. However, it was interesting that Donald Gorrie's stated addiction is stirring things up. His track record suggests that he has a serious addiction problem, but given the level of entertainment that he provides us with, I hope that he will not undertake counselling.

If one thing has come from today's debate, it is that the debate has helped to crystallise which parties in the chamber are serious about tackling Scotland's drugs problem and which are more interested in political rhetoric. During the course of the debate, the extent of the drugs problem in Scotland has been highlighted. Bill Aitken mentioned the £300 million that the problem costs Glasgow. Roseanna Cunningham mentioned how one in 50 people may be using drugs. Keith Raffan mentioned the fact that there are over 55,000 people who have some type of drugs problem in Scotland. The problem is massive and requires to be tackled.

In his opening remarks, Bill Aitken mentioned that the Parliament has had several debates on Scotland's drugs problem. A key theme that has run through all those debates is that there is no simple solution to the problem. We must be prepared to try new ideas if we are to tackle the problem effectively. It is sad that the Tories appear to be unable to accept that.

Bill Aitken was happy to quantify the extent of drugs misuse in Scotland, but he went on to state that, instead of the present approach, we require "a hard-nosed but compassionate approach". I am at a loss as to exactly what that might mean. He obviously included the bit about compassion to gain the favour of Iain Duncan Smith. Who knows what the phrase means in respect of drugs users—perhaps it means that we should bang them up with a smile? That does not strike me as being a serious approach to tackling Scotland's drugs problem.

We require a realistic approach to dealing with drugs in our communities. Keith Raffan put it well, when he said that we need to tackle reoffending. One of the most effective ways of dealing with those who commit crimes as a result of their drugs habit is to tackle their drugs habit, so that we can break that cycle in which people continue to commit crimes because they need to feed that habit. Helping people to tackle their drugs habit is exactly what the drugs courts are intended to do.

Mention was also made of the problems within our prisons. Having visited a number of prisons this year, along with Donald Gorrie and a few other members of the Justice 1 Committee, I know that there is a serious problem about the level of resources within our Prison Service to tackle those who go into prison with a drugs problem. That process started with the Cranstoun projects. Let us be under no illusion; we must continue to tackle the problem, but we must be realistic in how we tackle it.

The Tory contributions to the debate have been ill thought out. Now is not the time to start criticising the drugs courts. Now is the time to highlight the problems in the pilot project and to ask the minister to ensure that resources are provided so that the drugs courts can be successful and we can deal realistically with drugs abuse and with those who have a drugs problem in Scotland. We do not need to hear the political rhetoric that we have heard from the Tories today.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

To some extent, I agree with Michael Matheson's point that the Conservatives have presented an ill-thought-out motion and debate. Having said that, the debate was valuable because there were some thoughtful, considered and constructive contributions. As I am new to the portfolio, I will certainly reflect on those contributions.

If I am allowed to say so, what was missing from the debate was Richard Simpson's contribution. He brought enthusiasm, knowledge and commitment to the issue and I do not believe that anyone could doubt the contribution that he made.

I regret that his observations and experience are not part of this debate. I am sure that Richard Simpson will continue to develop his interest in the subject; that will be welcomed.

It is important to consider the context of the debate. We are just into the process and as some other speakers and I have said, we will inevitably make mistakes. The scale of the problem that confronts the country is so great and—as Stewart Stevenson and other members have said—the failure of what has been tried so far is so evident that something else must be tried.

Annabel Goldie asked what the resources are achieving. The early indications are that the investment is beginning to have an effect. We will, however, have to reflect on how effective it has been, what lessons can be learned and whether drugs courts can easily be spread across the length and breadth of Scotland.

I disagreed with very little of what Roseanna Cunningham had to say; indeed, there is little in the SNP amendment that I could disagree with. Where we cannot agree is on the demand for an early roll-out of drugs courts. It is right to test, analyse and reflect on the experience. That is the only thing that I could disagree with in what Roseanna Cunningham had to say.

Keith Raffan (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the minister give way?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

I really do not have time.

Some particular questions have been raised and comments made today. I will consider them very carefully and come back to members where necessary. I agree with a point made by Roseanna Cunningham and echoed by Keith Raffan—any evaluation should not be just about the cost of the drugs courts. The evaluation must be of the effectiveness of getting people out of addiction and of reducing crime. It would be a false economy if all we considered was expenditure. We will therefore have to consider the wider picture.

Richard Lochhead asked about having a drugs court in Grampian. We have made it clear how we intend to move on that. Christine Grahame raised the issue of social workers. I do not believe that the vacancy rates are as bad as she made out, but Cathy Jamieson has made it clear that she is concerned about the need to give a boost to the social work profession. She is considering the training of social workers and some initiatives have already been set up. We want to encourage and retain social workers. We know that there is a particular issue for social workers in the criminal justice system and we will consider that very carefully.

Mary Scanlon mentioned Mothers Against Drugs. I have some experience of families in my area who are tackling the scourge, and one thing is clear: many of those people welcome the initiatives of DTTOs and drugs courts. I recently visited a project in Foxbar in my constituency called Family and Drug Support—FADS—and it was moving to listen to the horrors that families face in dealing with the problems of drugs and the turmoil that that causes, and to listen to people like Ellen Donnelly and Doreen Polson, who wrote a moving poem about her experiences. That is why drugs courts are important, because we have got to help those ordinary people. It is not just the drug addicts who need support; their families need support as well.

I say to Stewart Stevenson that we will work with colleagues elsewhere. I agree with him that we are talking about a get-out-of-crime card, not a get-out-of-jail card, which I thought was a cheap jibe from Bill Aitken.

Pauline McNeill raised the issues of rehabilitation and better chances for offenders. We will reflect on those comments. We have a problem that we need to tackle but, equally, we recognise that those who have addiction problems and who are not offenders also need to be supported.

Despite its ill-thought-out premise, I have found the debate to be useful. Some constructive comments were made. We should reflect on the relative success that we have already seen with drugs courts and use our determination to learn from the experience to do something that is effective in ending the scourge.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

I welcome the new minister's frank contribution to the debate, and his recognition that the drugs court policy must be measured by its effectiveness. That should be the aim.

The issue of drugs is one of the most sensitive and difficult that faces our communities, and communities throughout the world. While there may be strong disagreement on solutions to the problem, there can be no doubt whatever as to the ill-effects of drug abuse. There is no doubt in my mind, having met the parents of young people who have lost their lives, that drug addiction and drug abuse can destroy lives, impose enormous anguish on families, lead to recurring crime, and lead to all the serious disadvantages for civilised community life, which is badly damaged thereby.

Our request is that everything should be done to discourage young people from, and inform them of the likely consequences of, taking undesirable substances. I am glad that Richard Lochhead raised some relevant issues but they are, if I may say so, for the Executive to respond to in detail. Pauline McNeill stressed the importance of a team approach. Like her, we believe that we need a thoroughly integrated approach to education, deterrence, social work, medical assistance and rehabilitation. According to information from an Executive report, there are 55,000 or more drug misusers in Scotland, of whom more than 22,000 are injecting themselves, so we know that the problem is considerable in scale.

The Scottish Government should not be advising people on how to break the law, either directly or indirectly. The Minister for Justice produced a good drugs guide for clubbers, which gives young people detailed facts as to the potential effects of taking ecstasy, cocaine and LSD. Tips in that guide include taking half an ecstasy table and waiting one hour to see what effect it has before taking anything else. Bill Aitken touched on that matter. We would prefer a stronger message to say that drugs involve real dangers to those who take them. Instead of giving advice on drug taking, the Government should advise people not to take them at all.

We believe that the drugs courts exist to give drugs misusers a genuine chance.

Keith Raffan (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Just so that we can be clear on Conservative policy on drug misuse, are they saying, "Just say no," and are they now totally opposed to any policy of harm reduction?

James (Conservative, Lothians)

Mr Raffan asked earlier whether we are against the use of methadone. We are not against the use of methadone. We think that there is an important place for methadone, but we do not think that methadone should be used as a form of social control of prisoners. We note that the use of methadone has increased by four times and we believe that it is relevant where appropriate. However, a stronger message should be given about the dangers and, as Annabel Goldie said, every support should be given to rehabilitation programmes. We believe that drugs courts are there to give drug misusers a genuine chance to come off drugs by accepting treatment. I strongly support what Donald Gorrie asked for—a rapid response. That is absolutely necessary, as is a joined-up approach.

If a person who has a large number of criminal convictions does not co-operate, they should be made to face the consequences. That means that if an offender refuses to engage in rehabilitation treatment there should be the immediate sanction of imprisonment. Drugs courts should not deliver an easy route out of prison when the offender has no sincere purpose of fitting in with a drug testing and treatment order. We call for an effective approach, which is also what the minister has called for.

When offenders who have committed a great many offences happen to be drug addicts, that fact should not be used as an excuse for them to escape prison solely on that account. That would be an excuse and an incentive for offenders who have a large number of convictions to be on drugs. Persons in that position should be sent to courts and, when their offences merit it, to prison. As my friend Bill Aitken stressed—there has not been enough concentration on this in the debate—there should be medical and social work support for those who are drug addicts when they complete their imprisonment and come out of prison.

It is our belief that prisons should be drug-free zones. We want to ensure that through the use of sniffer dogs, strip searches and through making it impossible for family and friends to pass in drugs surreptitiously during visiting sessions. Keith Raffan said that we cannot possibly stop drugs getting into prison. I do not accept that. We can stop drugs getting into prison.

Keith Raffan (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

It is very difficult.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

It may be very difficult, but there should be a greatly increased focus to that end.

Not enough sympathy has been expressed during the debate for the victims of drug-related offences. We need to keep clearly in mind the interests of the victims as well as those of the drug addict who is up for a number of offences and is sent to a drugs court. Of course, we support a policy of zero tolerance of all crimes, including those that relate to drugs. The best way to reduce all crime is to have many more police officers visible on our streets in support of policies to strengthen deterrence and detection.

Both Christine Grahame and Michael Matheson said that the necessary resources should be provided in order to tackle the problems effectively. I am certain that that must be the case. We should pursue that.

We want a higher priority to be given to justice matters in general. We believe that our approach must be one of determination, deterrence, prevention, justice and rehabilitation.

Waste and Emissions Trading Bill

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

The next item of business is a short debate on motion S1M-3649, in the name of Allan Wilson, on the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill, which is UK legislation.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

The motion asks the Parliament to agree to the introduction of the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill, which would enable us to do three things. First, it would make us better able to achieve our targets of increasing recycling and composting and reducing waste that is sent to landfill. Secondly, the bill would fulfil our European obligations. Thirdly, it would enable more effective operation of emissions trading schemes. As members know, the Executive moves a Sewel motion when it proposes that the Scottish Parliament agree that the Westminster Parliament should consider proposals for legislation in a devolved area.

As its name suggests, the bill relates to two policy areas. I will begin by discussing the emissions trading element of the bill. As part of the UK climate change programme, to which the Scottish Executive is committed to making an equitable contribution through the Scottish climate change programme, the UK Government established a UK-wide emissions trading scheme. The purpose of the scheme, which has been operating across the UK with the agreement of the Scottish Parliament since 2 April 2002, is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at minimum cost.

One way in which organisations can enter the scheme is by voluntarily taking on an emissions target in return for a financial incentive from the Government. A system of contractual penalties is in place for participants in the scheme who fail to meet their obligations. However, it was always the intention to make the penalties for participants in the scheme statutory when Westminster parliamentary time became available. All the participants in the scheme will welcome that move because a robust compliance regime is needed to underpin and stimulate a successful market.

In addition to making the penalties for the UK-wide emissions trading scheme statutory, the bill would grant powers to impose equivalent penalties in future emissions trading schemes. That power would extend to the Scottish ministers in the event of a Scotland-only emissions trading scheme. The bill would not alter the Scottish ministers' powers to establish a Scotland-only emissions trading scheme, but it is self-evident that the effectiveness of a trading scheme is increased by maximising the number of participants, hence the reason for establishing the existing UK-wide emissions trading scheme. I emphasise that the Scottish ministers would retain the responsibility for the policy, which would be delivered through instruments.

The bill would provide for the design of a landfill allowances system, which would limit the amount of biodegradable waste that local authorities may place in landfill sites. The landfill directive requires member states of the European Union to reduce the total weight of biodegradable municipal waste that is sent to landfill. The decomposition of such waste produces various gases, including methane, which is a powerful greenhouse gas.

The landfill allowance system that the bill would put in place would allow the UK's obligation under the landfill directive to be divided among the UK's constituent Administrations. The same instrument would be used to divide the targets among local authorities. The Scottish ministers would determine the number of allowances that are issued in Scotland, within our share of the directive targets, and the distribution of those allowances.

The bill would transpose the landfill directive obligation for a strategy for reduction in biodegradable waste. It would be for the Scottish ministers to prepare a strategy for Scotland. The bill would provide for penalties for local authorities that use landfill in excess of their allowances and for landfill operators that fail to supply information. Powers would be granted to the Scottish ministers to determine whether Scottish local authorities may trade their allowances.

The landfill-related clauses would give the Scottish ministers an effective means of ensuring that the landfill directive targets are delivered in Scotland. All members agree that our reliance on landfill must be stopped and that the reduction and management of waste are central to sustainable development. Our reliance on landfill is no longer an option. The national waste strategy offers a framework within which Scotland can reduce the amount of waste it produces and deal with the waste that is produced in more sustainable ways.

As members will be aware, the Executive is committed to increasing recycling and composting of waste to 25 per cent and to reducing the amount of biodegradable municipal waste that goes to landfill to 1.5 million tonnes by 2006. We have made £230 million available in the next three years to help local authorities respond to that challenge. We believe that taking advantage of the bill is an elegant and effective way of furthering our environmental interests in Scotland.

I move,

That the Parliament supports the principles of the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill and agrees that the provisions in the Bill that relate to devolved matters should be considered by the UK Parliament.

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

I begin, as the minister did, by addressing part 2 of the bill, which deals with carbon emissions trading. There is general support across all sectors for the development of an emissions trading scheme. The question is which level of government should implement such a trading scheme.

In the UK, we are on course to have the first economy-wide emissions trading scheme; however, the scheme will not be without its difficulties. On 23 October, the European Commission issued a draft directive on the introduction of an EU-wide scheme in 2005. Industry has signalled its fear that a go-it-alone UK proposal would prove incompatible with the EU scheme. The correct solution for Scotland might be to await the implementation of the EU directive and avoid unnecessary transition costs for government and business alike. However, without full scrutiny of the bill's impact on Scotland, no one in the chamber can be certain whether we should await the EU directive or proceed with the UK proposals. I therefore submit that, on the issue of carbon emissions trading, it would be premature to agree to Allan Wilson's motion.

Part 1 deals with waste. It is incredible that Scottish ministers are prepared to pass to the UK Government responsibility for setting maximum levels for biodegradable municipal waste that is sent to landfill. As the minister said, Scotland's record on recycling is a disgrace. The setting of maximum levels of waste, as a policy tool, would have a major impact on that record. We are at the bottom of the European recycling league, and it must be our responsibility to sort out the mess that we have created for ourselves. Passing the buck to the UK Government to sort out that mess is nothing short of an abdication of responsibility.

The Executive has made an astonishing U-turn on this issue. In February, in an Executive news release, Ross Finnie said:

"The National Waste Plan based on the area waste plans will be in place by Autumn this year. We then want to set mandatory recycling and waste reduction targets and the forthcoming Local Government Bill will give Ministers the power to set such targets."

No targets have been set as part of the Local Government in Scotland Bill, and now we know why. The Executive wants to neuter the Scottish Parliament further by letting Westminster exercise the most basic of powers. In doing so, it is putting in jeopardy the prospect of developing a strategic and holistic approach to our national waste plan. More important, it is denying Scotland the ownership of a problem that she should sort out for herself. That was what devolution was meant to be about. The Parliament should not agree to Allan Wilson's motion.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

We welcome the Sewel motion. From a unionist point of view, it makes sense to address waste and emissions on a UK-wide basis. That principle has long been established—one of the most recent examples of it was the emissions trading scheme, which came into force in March 2002. Given Scotland's poor record in environmental matters—we currently recycle only 6 per cent of our municipal waste—the bill is a further welcome step in the right direction. Friends of the Earth reports that 14 of our 32 local authorities still recycle less than 5 per cent of their waste and that 14 councils recycled less last year than they recycled the year before. Can we believe that?

We welcome the fact that the bill would set up a framework that would require local authorities progressively to reduce the amount of biodegradable municipal waste that they send to landfill. We welcome the fact that local authorities would be able to trade their landfill allowances within the UK, in what is essentially a quota system. We also cautiously welcome the introduction of penalties for local authorities that send excessive amounts of waste to landfill sites.

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

Will the member give way?

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

No. I am short of time.

We welcome the introduction, in part 2, of penalties for participants in the UK greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme; those penalties would drive the UK emissions trading market. We accept the fact that the bill proposes a pragmatic approach that would deliver a market solution to some of our increasing environmental burdens. The combination of carrot and stick should to help drive us all towards meeting our Kyoto commitments.

However, the level of penalties and landfill taxes must not become either too great or just another stealth tax. Gordon Brown announced yesterday an increase in landfill tax of £3 per tonne by 2005-06 and by £3 per tonne in future years thereafter. That is excessive. It is important to note that, in 2001, UK companies paid £14 billion in environmental taxes to the Treasury, which was just over half the revenue raised from environmental taxation.

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

Will the member give way?

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

No. I have no time.

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

The member should read the letter from the Federation of Small Businesses.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

I am sure that Mr Crawford will pass the letter to me after the debate.

Environmental taxation represents £1 in every £8 of overall business taxation. It is vital that taxation raised in that way be used to encourage recycling and it is important that increased taxation in recycling does not drive local authorities towards incineration.

It is essential that the Government address the increased use of imported coal in our power stations. The increased use of coal is one of the principal reasons why CO2 emissions have increased under Labour. Unless we address the problem now, it is unlikely that we will meet our Kyoto targets.

With those comments, we welcome and support the motion.

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

The Liberal Democrats support the principles of the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill and agree that the provisions that relate to devolved matters should be considered by the UK Parliament. In this instance, it makes sense for us to leave it to Westminster to do the business. Trading credits would work better and would offer wider opportunities if the system were managed on a UK-wide basis. In any case, the companies that operate under the emissions trading scheme do so across the UK. Additionally, when the issue is non-controversial, I am quite happy, as a good Aberdonian, to use Westminster time and money to process bills.

The bill takes forward policies on waste management and climate change. It would establish a framework that will require local authorities to reduce progressively the amount of biodegradable waste that they send to landfill sites and would set up a system of tradable landfill allowances.

We have had a landfill tax since 1996, with an increasing tax per tonne, but that disincentive has not yet started to bite. There have been criticisms of the landfill tax credit scheme, but it has made money available to voluntary organisations to carry out small local projects and has worked well in that regard.

Part 2 would introduce statutory financial penalties for direct participants in the UK greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme who fail to comply with their emission reduction targets and would make it possible to attach penalties to future trading emissions schemes.

There is no dispute about the necessity of tackling waste and greenhouse gas emissions. Recent floods across Europe and closer to home have made apparent to the most casual observer the fact that global climate change is real and is causing damage here and now. There is widespread acceptance that action is needed. The bill would provide mechanisms to effect action. Trading credits have been demonstrated to be an effective way of levering action. They allow all players to participate and ensure that those with the potential to contribute most have an incentive to do so.

Removing biodegradable waste from the waste stream flow into landfill sites makes sense. That is only one element of the waste stream and much more needs to be done, but we are beginning to do more. The national waste strategy will kick in next year and there are encouraging signs that ordinary people are willing to do their bit if they are given information about what they should do and what services are available locally to enable them to do it. That was highlighted in a report that was based on a two-year, in-depth survey of 9,000 people across Scotland that was published this week. That survey provides good information on which to base effective action.

In the meantime, the bill moves us along the road to being less wasteful and less damaging to our environment. It should be supported.

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

I have one request, from Bristow Muldoon, to speak from the floor. I take it that you will speak on behalf of the Labour party rather than as the convener of the Transport and the Environment Committee.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

I confirm that I speak on behalf of the Labour party in the debate.

The debate is important, but it is also interesting in two respects. The first is what the bill, which is being considered at Westminster, will do; the second is that it exposes yet again the Scottish National Party's obsession with constitutional issues. That is what lies at the base of the concerns that the SNP has expressed.

The bill demonstrates Labour's strong credentials on improving the environment on a United Kingdom level and on a Scotland level. I encourage environmental non-governmental organisations to study the SNP's contribution to the debate, because it lays bare the fact that the SNP has no claim to any environmental credentials. The bill would ensure that the commitments that the Prime Minister and the First Minister have made that the UK and Scotland will contribute towards improving our environment—whether by changing the way in which we manage our waste or by reducing carbon emissions into the atmosphere—will be met.

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Bristow Muldoon talked about the fact that the First Minister made commitments. Ross Finnie made a commitment that we would have a mandatory target for recycling, but we have lost that commitment. The bill that we are considering and through which we are about to pass responsibility to Westminster says that, if agreement between the Administrations cannot be met, there will be a fallback rule. Would that fallback rule mean that Scotland has to dae whit it's telt by Westminster?

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

Much as it may distress the SNP, Scotland is still engaged in a partnership with its colleagues in the rest of the UK. [Interruption.] Indeed, as Mr Home Robertson points out, we are also engaged in a partnership with the rest of the world. We are internationalists, not nationalists.

The SNP tries to distort the Executive's position. There has been no move away from any Executive commitment to set waste management targets. My understanding is that the Executive still intends to publish a national waste plan, which will be based on the 11 area waste plans that already exist. It is absolutely dishonest to say that the Executive is disowning the issue in any way, shape or form. The reality is that the Executive is moving forward in improving Scotland's deplorable record on waste management. The UK Government is moving forward on the same issue. That is what the SNP does not like.

Bill Clinton's campaign slogan was, "It's the economy, stupid!" I think that John Swinney goes to bed every night with a sign above his bed that says "It's the constitution, stupid!" The longer that the SNP's obsession with constitutional issues continues, the longer it will continue to be an irrelevance on the sidelines of Scottish politics.

I encourage members to support the bill and its positive environmental measures and reject the SNP's narrow, constitutional navel gazing.

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

I call Allan Wilson again to respond to the brief debate.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

Is it me? That was quick. You took me by surprise, Presiding Officer.

I welcome the Conservatives' support for the bill. They have obviously placed their commitment to environmental protection above the nationalists' constitutional navel gazing. We welcome that, just as we welcome the support of our coalition colleagues in the Liberal Democrat party.

As ever, Bruce Crawford is simply wrong on many aspects of the matter. Participation in the UK emissions trading scheme is a voluntary, cost-effective way of achieving emissions reduction commitments that conform with our climate change programme and that make a valuable contribution in global terms to our national climate change strategy.

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

rose—

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

Bruce Crawford has had his chance. I will deal with the points that he raised and move on.

The UK scheme offers invaluable early experience of trading in advance of an EU scheme, which we expect will be introduced in 2005. That is an important provision.

On the allegation that we are giving up powers, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, powers for UK ministers to apportion international and EU targets are in section 106 of the Scotland Act 1998. The orders made under those powers are called splitting orders. All that is happening is that a power equivalent to those splitting powers would be created under the bill. That power would be used following statutory consultation. In that context, Mr Crawford is wrong.

As Bristow Muldoon pointed out, the 25 per cent target for recycling and composting in 2006 is a key Executive interim objective for waste. There is no inconsistency between that and the landfill directive targets, or with the measures that we are discussing today. The first landfill directive target for the UK is for 2010. I expect the national waste plan to aim for recycling and composting around 40 per cent of waste by then. That is why, as a step towards that goal, we are setting the intermediate target of 25 per cent by 2006.

The bill would provide instruments that the Scottish ministers—who are accountable to the Scottish Parliament—may use to pursue Scottish policy goals. Where the bill would place obligations on the Scottish ministers, we would have to take them on under the European directive.

Nora Radcliffe spoke about the landfill tax credit scheme. I am sure that she will join me in welcoming the announcement made yesterday by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the reform of that scheme. One third of the allocations made under the scheme will support local environment projects; two thirds will support a public spending scheme for waste management. That is very good news for Scotland.

I have much pleasure in again commending the motion.

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

I remind members that today's meeting of the Parliament will resume at 2.15 pm.

Junior Minister

David (None, Lothians)

Our first item of business this afternoon is the debate on motion S1M-3656, in the name of the First Minister, on the appointment of a junior Scottish minister. It is a short debate.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Before speaking to the motion, I thank Dr Richard Simpson for the contribution he has made to devolved Government in Scotland. [Applause.] He made a major input as Deputy Minister for Justice, particularly on important matters such as the fight against drugs and the reform of prisons. I am sure that Hugh Henry will successfully advance those key issues. I wish him well in his new post.

Since devolution, the importance of the role of deputy ministers has increased substantially. Deputy ministers allow the Executive to be more accessible and more accountable to Parliament. They provide an extra resource within ministerial portfolios, assisting ministers in meeting their responsibilities and driving forward specific projects. They have enabled the Executive to focus further on delivery.

Des McNulty has a strong understanding of the importance of delivery. He has a proud pedigree of working for the people in Strathclyde and the city of Glasgow. From that experience, he understands clearly why we in the Executive put the winning of social justice for all Scotland's citizens at the heart of all that we do. He knows that, for us, working for growth in the economy and closing the opportunity gap is the foundation on which we are building a better Scotland.

We face a range of opportunities and challenges in the social justice area. We are making progress on housing stock transfers and the Building (Scotland) Bill, as well as tackling planning issues, equality issues and the regeneration of communities throughout Scotland.

Des McNulty's background is in strategic planning and economic regeneration. From his involvement in the Glasgow social inclusion inquiry, as well as from his work as a board member of Greater Glasgow Health Board and with the World Health Organisation, he has first-hand knowledge of the problems of poverty and ill health. He has a history of commitment, which augurs well for his work in the post. He has considerable experience in the critical work of the Parliament's committees, most recently as convener of the Finance Committee.

With that wealth of knowledge, experience and personal commitment, he will bring new insight and expertise to the important work of Deputy Minister for Social Justice. I want to harness that expertise to advance our policies. I have no doubt that Des McNulty will bring knowledge, energy and enthusiasm to his new post, that he will boost the social justice team led by Margaret Curran and that our work for the people of Scotland will benefit from his appointment. I commend the appointment of Des McNulty to the Parliament.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that Des McNulty be appointed as a junior Scottish Minister.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

In speaking against the approval of Des McNulty, I make it clear that I do not do so on a personal basis, although if members have read Rab McNeil's column today, they will be aware that it is not a risk-free appointment. I speak against the nomination because of the way in which the vacancy has occurred—circumstances that are exacerbated by the failure of the First Minister to come to the chamber and explain the sequence of events that have unfolded.

If the letters exchanged between Dr Richard Simpson and the First Minister are to be believed, it is the first resignation in political history that took place because the minister involved had done nothing wrong and said nothing untoward. Apparently he has resigned simply because he did not want to add to the Executive's problems. If that were the test, many more Executive ministers would be leaving office in exactly the same way.

In these serious times, when confronted with the reality of a strike in one of the most important public services, every politician has a choice about whether to be part of the problem or part of the solution. The Scottish National Party believes that the role of ministers and of the Government is to be part of the solution. That is why we abhor the actions of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the inaction of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, who have failed to broker a solution and deliver stability to the fire service. However, even their culpability pales into insignificance beside that of a minister who was directly responsible for the fire service but who was prepared to shoot his mouth off at a dinner and to do so in terms of the worst saloon-bar prejudice.

Even more disgracefully, for a full 48 hours, Dr Simpson hid behind a cloak of anonymity while speculation rose, damaging his colleagues in office. In fact, even once Dr Simpson had outed himself, the First Minister continued to offer him full support. He had the First Minister's complete confidence at 11 o'clock on Tuesday, but by 4 o'clock he had gone. It took the full facts to be laid before the people before the First Minister realised that the game was up and that he could not protect his own appointee any longer.

The reputation of the Executive has been further tarnished by the saga, and the Executive has been plunged further in the public's esteem by the continued inability of the First Minister to act with the dignity and principle that his office demands. That is why I oppose the nomination: because of the actions of the nominator rather than the suitability of the nominee. It is time that Scotland had not just one new minister but a completely new team of ministers. I look forward to the coming election, when I am sure that the people of Scotland will choose a team from this side of the chamber. The SNP is determined to improve our public services, restore dignity to Government and make Scotland the best that Scotland can be.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

Here we are again—another day, another reshuffle—as the accident-prone Government stumbles towards its date with destiny on 1 May next year. For those who like to keep count, there are 123 reshuffling days left before the dissolution and opportunity may yet knock for the mere seven Labour back benchers who have still to be given a job of any description.

It would be remiss of me not to comment on the circumstances that have led to the elevation of Mr McNulty to the dizzy heights of junior minister. Two years ago in this Parliament, Jim Wallace announced proposals to reform family law in Scotland. He said:

"We will end the status of illegitimacy in Scotland."—[Official Report, 14 September 2000; Vol 8, c 262.]

End? End? Far from ending it, Labour politicians talk of little else. The vulgar and intemperate Dr Simpson is, of course, not the first. Members will recall that infamous taped conversation between Helen Liddell and Henry McLeish in which the parentages and pedigrees of John Reid and Brian Wilson were discussed in less than flattering terms. We know that the Labour party in Scotland struggles with numeracy, but its language is not much better.

With Dr Simpson's departure, Hugh Henry moves to the justice portfolio at a highly opportune time. Thanks to the Scottish Conservatives, the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill has been significantly improved. There has been a partial U-turn on the ludicrous proposals to criminalise parents for disciplining their children and a humiliating retreat on the plan to send 16 and 17-year-olds to children's panels. Accordingly, the bill has been shed of some of the higher nonsenses of the Wallace-Simpson era, although little did we know that it would also be followed by an abdication. So I say— [Laughter.] Come on. Members will have to be quicker than that. I say to Hugh Henry that if he wishes to prosper in that portfolio and make a real difference to tackling crime in Scotland, he would be well advised to listen to Bill Aitken, James Douglas-Hamilton and others in the chamber who are in touch with reality, rather than to Jim Wallace.

I turn to Mr McNulty. I hope that he will not take it personally if I say that he should never have been appointed. This was an opportunity missed by the First Minister to make a start on cutting Government down to size in Scotland. However, it seems that he and the Liberal Democrats are determined to persist with their overblown Administration, so that we continue to have five times the number of ministers governing Scotland today than was the case only three years ago.

However, as far as Mr McNulty is concerned, I think that his contributions to this Parliament have been considered and measured and that, in his new portfolio, he may prove to be the perfect foil for the more passionate and combative style of Margaret Curran. We all know that we should never underestimate the determination of a quiet man. On a personal level, we wish Mr McNulty well in his few months in ministerial office. However, the truth is that Scotland does not need another mini-reshuffle, but a wholesale clear-out. Next May, the people will get their chance.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

This week has been a poor week for the Scottish Parliament. [Interruption.]

David (None, Lothians)

Order. This is a short debate. There should be no interruptions.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

I hear SNP members saying that it has been a bad week for the Scottish Executive. They are correct. Unfortunately, many members of the public do not differentiate between the Executive and the Parliament and therefore what the Scottish Executive does wrong sheds poor light on the rest of the Parliament.

A minister in the First Minister's Government has made remarks that are deeply offensive to some of the most dedicated men and women in this country. Before the vote for his new appointee, I invite the First Minister unreservedly to do what has not yet been done and apologise to the firefighters and control staff of this country. He should apologise for remarks that were made by a minister who should have known better. If he does not publicly apologise here and now, some of those men and women might begin to think that the views that Dr Simpson holds are also held by others.

David (None, Lothians)

Dennis Canavan has one minute.

Dennis Canavan (Independent, Falkirk West)

In congratulating Des McNulty— [Interruption.]

David (None, Lothians)

Just a minute. There should be no interruptions from the gallery, please. This is not a participative meeting.

Dennis Canavan (Independent, Falkirk West)

In congratulating Des McNulty on his appointment, I hope that he will use his new position to ensure that the Scottish Executive takes more effective action to eradicate poverty and fight for higher standards of social justice.

There is widespread and understandable concern about the circumstances that led to the ministerial mini-reshuffle. The remarks that were attributed to Richard Simpson were inflammatory, deplorable and inexcusable. It is essential that the Scottish Executive apologises publicly to the firefighters and builds bridges with the Fire Brigades Union. The current pay of firefighters does not recognise their professionalism and dedication to duty in saving lives and properties. Sometimes acts of heroism are demanded that are well beyond the call of duty. That is why the Scottish Executive and the Government must ensure that resources are made available now to enable the employers and the union to return to meaningful negotiations and ensure a fairer deal for the firefighters so that they can return to work with dignity and justice done.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

In response to the absolutely outrageous comments that Mr Sheridan made, I want to make absolutely clear to the chamber what has been made clear in other places this week. On Sunday at lunch time, within hours of the publication of the newspaper in question, I made it absolutely clear that I unreservedly rejected the remarks and that, if they had been made, they should never have been made and would not be made by someone who is a minister in the Administration. On Tuesday, Dr Richard Simpson apologised in his letter to me.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

What about apologising to the Fire Brigades Union?

David (None, Lothians)

Order.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Mr Sheridan can shout and make things up as much as he wants to, but Dr Richard Simpson apologised in writing on Tuesday. If more members took such an honourable approach, we would have a better reputation in the country.

I am delighted that Mr Canavan mentioned the important issues with which the Deputy Minister for Social Justice will be involved.

It is fine and well in a debate such as this for the Opposition leaders to refer to comments that have been made, although I think that it is a little bit rich, when the previous Conservative Prime Minister referred to the current Conservative leader in terms similar to those quoted in a certain Sunday newspaper this week, for the Conservative party to reflect on illegitimacy.

It is important in this chamber for us to discuss the issues as well as the personalities. I am deeply disappointed that we have heard a very short debate about the appointment of a deputy social justice minister in which neither the leader of the Scottish National Party nor the leader of the Conservative party in Scotland referred to the key issues in that portfolio: poverty in Scotland, housing in Scotland, and the regeneration of Scotland's communities.

Those issues—not the personalities nor the petty backstabbing of politics, but the real issues that face Scotland today—are the issues for which, if we deal with them, people in Scotland will respect us. Therefore, we will continue in Scotland to concentrate on the issues of tackling poverty, improving housing and boosting urban regeneration. The work of this portfolio goes on. The Opposition may not like it, but we will make a difference in Scotland.

David (None, Lothians)

The question is, that motion S1M-3656, in the name of the First Minister, on the appointment of a junior Scottish minister, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

David (None, Lothians)

There will be a division.

David (None, Lothians)

The result of the division is: For 61, Against 28, Abstentions 16.

Motion agreed to.

That the Parliament agrees that Des McNulty be appointed as a junior Scottish Minister.

Question Time

David (None, Lothians)

I give notice to the chamber that I will add two minutes to each section of question time to make up for the time lost.

SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

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

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it has any plans for the removal of the council tax rebate on second homes. (S1O-5973)

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

We have today published a consultation paper seeking views on the removal or reduction of the discount on second homes and long-term empty properties. We have previously indicated that we are open to making changes in this area of policy.

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

I thank the minister for that encouraging response. The minister will be aware that before the implementation of the poll tax and the dreaded community charge, crofters on small agricultural holdings enjoyed a 50 per cent reduction on their domestic rates. Will the minister ensure that any amended legislation will retain that benefit in the crofting counties and will not discriminate against indigenous homeowners?

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

As I indicated, we published a consultation paper today. I would be happy to hear from John Farquhar Munro about the issue to which he referred. We would consider that in the context of the consultation. He raised an important issue in relation to the Highlands and Islands because many second homes there are croft homes that have been inherited by families who remain in the Highlands and Islands. I will be happy to look at that issue within the consultation.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I welcome the consultation that was announced today. If the outcome of the consultation were that councils would have powers to levy full council tax on second homes, would the Executive consider allowing such councils to retain that money to deal with housing in their areas?

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Again, the consultation paper covers a wide range of issues and we will be asking questions on the issue of the distribution of resources that may be raised if the Executive decides to change policy after the consultation.

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

Is there not, in fact, a huge problem of housing shortage in rural Scotland? Is that problem not considerably exacerbated by the number of second homes and the fact that the people who own them often push the price up well beyond the means of local people? Is it not time that the people who have second homes pay the full whack, as local people do?

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

That is part of the nature of the consultation and is one reason for it. The consultation paper contains the arguments that Alasdair Morgan makes. One of the reasons that we are about to reopen consideration of policy on the matter is because there is an argument that the taxation regime is an incentive for people to buy holiday homes in rural areas, which forces house prices up and forces local people out of housing. That argument is one underlying reason for the possible policy change.

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it plans to make any changes to the law on sexual offences as a result of changes announced in the Queen's speech. (S1O-5990)

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

With the exception of changes to the notification requirements of the Sex Offenders Act 1997, the changes in sex offence legislation announced in the Queen's speech relate to England and Wales. We keep the area of the law under review but have no current plans to change legislation.