Scottish Parliament, 1 April 2004

563 contributions from 78 members. The official report.

Introduction

Point of Order

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

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. According to media reports this morning, the European Commission will announce today the long-awaited outcome of the fishing negotiations. Will you give me guidance on what procedure would require to be followed to allow the Executive to make a statement before the recess? Have you received a request from the Executive to make such a statement today?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

All I can tell the member at this stage is that I have received no such request. If one were to be made in the course of the day, it would be handled in the usual way.

Planning

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The first item of business is a statement by Margaret Curran on modernising and reforming Scotland's planning system. The minister will take questions at the end of her statement, so there should be no interventions.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Parliament about our plans for modernising the planning system. Today, I am publishing two consultation papers—"Making Development Plans Deliver" and "Rights of Appeal in Planning". I am also publishing our first national planning framework for Scotland. Those are major elements in our drive to modernise the planning system and they will ensure that the system is fit for the needs of the new century. This morning, I will explain why planning remains important; set out why reform is necessary; outline the content of the three documents; and describe the next steps in our programme.

Why does planning matter so much? We all know that people and places are important and it is the planning system that brings people and places together. Planning policies and decisions make a significant impact on our economy, our environment and our communities: get them right and we make real progress on economic competitiveness, environmental protection and social justice; get them wrong and we fail to deliver on our commitment to sustainable development. We must enable things to happen where they should and prevent them from happening where they should not. That is the challenge that I am determined we will meet.

The planning system is often criticised. Sometimes the criticism is unjust, but sometimes it is justified. I believe that there are real grounds for concern about delays in decision making and failures to keep plans up to date. We know and understand that the planning system in its foundation and operation is crucial to encouraging economic growth. However, we need to be clear that different stakeholders want different things from the planning system. For example, community and environmental groups generally expect councils to take decisions in line with the development plan, whereas business and property interests often argue that councils are too inflexible.

The consultation that I am publishing today attempts to strike a balance between those two positions. It supports and takes forward the partnership agreement commitment to

"improve the planning system to strengthen the involvement of communities, speed up decisions, reflect local views better, and allow quicker investment decisions".

That commitment is, of course, set against the background of the Executive's commitments to grow the economy and to secure environmental justice.

Modernising the development planning system to produce up-to-date, relevant and accessible plans is a fundamental reform. The conclusions of the "Review of Strategic Planning", which was published in 2002, set out our decisions on the shape of the development planning system. One of the outcomes was that the current practice of having two tiers of development plans throughout Scotland should be discontinued. We agreed that there would be city-region plans for only the four largest cities—Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh and Glasgow—where land use and infrastructure issues transcend local authority boundaries.

Our new consultation paper, "Making Development Plans Deliver", sets out detailed proposals on city-region plans and ways in which local planning can become more effective in commanding support for and delivering development and regeneration. Discussions with local authorities and other key stakeholders have helped to shape the proposals, as has pilot work with Highland Council and South Lanarkshire Council.

The consultation paper notes the often poor record of local authorities in keeping their plans up to date and achieving measurable outcomes. We propose a range of options to ensure that development plans are kept up to date, including a statutory requirement to review plans at least every five years.

Our proposals to modernise development planning centre around four key themes. The first is consultation. Full and effective engagement with communities, business interests and key public bodies is critical and must be more effectively targeted. Among the options are a statutory duty for key public agencies to engage in the development plan process and the introduction of neighbour notification for site-specific proposals in local development plans.

The second theme is content. We want shorter plans that are focused on genuine planning and development issues, with greater consistency throughout Scotland in the style of plans. The third theme is management. Staff and resources must be managed effectively from the outset of plan preparation. That requires political commitment, effective leadership and a project management approach. The final theme is delivery. Development plans must focus more on outcomes, with action plans setting out the steps required to deliver the plans' aims.

Some proposals will require legislative change, but, for the most part, modernising the development planning system need not necessarily require changes to statutory procedures—it is about better management of the process. Our aim is to change the culture of development planning to one that is managed effectively from the outset, where there is greater consensus on the nature and scale of change and where proper, rigorous community consultation and delivery are key. Statutory development plans matter. They can and must make a difference. It is essential that all key stakeholders play their part.

We all know that the subject of rights of appeal in planning is controversial. Applicants have a right of appeal to the Scottish ministers against a refusal of planning permission or against the conditions attached to a consent. "Third party" is the term that is generally applied to anyone other than an applicant or planning authority. Third parties have many opportunities to participate in planning policy and decision making, but they do not have a right of appeal if they disagree with a local authority's decision. Some people see that as an imbalance in the planning system. Others consider that members of the public have plenty of opportunities to influence planning and that extending the right to appeal might cause significant and unnecessary delay.

"Your place, your plan: A White Paper on Public Involvement in Planning", which was published a year ago, set out our proposals to strengthen public involvement in the planning system. It included a commitment to consult on third-party planning appeals. The paper recognised that the matter is complex and has potentially significant implications for the planning system. The partnership agreement further defined the subject of the consultation. It stated:

"We will consult on new rights of appeal in planning cases where the local authority involved has an interest, where the application is contrary to the local plan, when planning officers have recommended rejection or where an Environmental Impact Assessment is needed."

I emphasise that the consultation that we are launching today takes a neutral standpoint. "Rights of Appeal in Planning" seeks views on whether we should introduce new rights of appeal. If we do not, are there other ways in which to address the concerns that lie behind demands for third-party appeals? If we do, how might we best design the appeal system?

One of our options is to make no change to the right of appeal. We do not want imbalance in the planning system, but it is in no one's interest to have a planning system that does not support growth or provide necessary development such as housing. We know that we shall have to make a hard decision and we shall not shirk that responsibility.

The consultation paper on rights of appeal sets out four possible ways forward, but it does not recommend a specific proposal and we will listen to the views that we receive. The first model that we are consulting on involves a right of appeal for third parties in the circumstances set out in the partnership agreement. Secondly, at the other end of the spectrum, we might not introduce further rights of appeal. However, that would not mean that there would be no change in the planning system; we would still intend to advance our existing programme of reform to tackle the issues that underlie the current calls for third-party appeal. A third possibility is to improve procedures in local authorities for dealing with controversial planning applications without altering the right of appeal. The final model sets out a new system for planning appeals that differs from the current process and involves some related changes to the planning system.

I know and understand that there are passionately held views both for and against a third-party right of appeal. We worked with a stakeholder group that was drawn from a wide range of interests to ensure that we explored those points of view. Some people believe that the issue of a third-party right of appeal is straightforward and that, quite simply, there should be such a right or that, quite simply, there should not. The issues and potential implications are aired in the paper.

The debate is important and it is essential that stakeholders engage in the process. The outcome of the consultation is far from being a foregone conclusion. We want people to respond to us, to inform our final decision; we want them to ensure that the decision that we take is informed and consistent and meets the needs of Scotland in terms of economic growth and social justice.

The third and equally important publication that we are issuing today is the "National Planning Framework for Scotland". We announced the decision to draw up the framework as one of our conclusions on the review of strategic planning. There has been extensive stakeholder engagement in drawing up the framework. We held a range of seminars across Scotland and I am pleased that there was strong support for tackling issues such as economic development, transport, water and drainage, affordable housing and waste.

The national planning framework is a key element in our package of planning reforms and it represents an important first step in addressing the challenges of Scotland's long-term development. The framework examines how Scotland is likely to change over the next 15 to 20 years, analyses the underlying trends in Scotland's development and the key drivers of change, and links with other key Executive policies on economic development and regeneration. The framework will help to guide the spatial development of Scotland and will provide a context for development plans and planning decisions. We plan to update it every four years.

The framework considers key points, such as the challenges and opportunities of Scotland's location and the importance of the Edinburgh-Glasgow relationship. It identifies the east coast as a key strategic corridor and it emphasises Ayrshire—where Prestwick airport and Hunterston play such an important role—and, of course, the key role that rural Scotland plays in our development. The framework is a planning document and will feed into the strategic projects review on transport and into decisions on area regeneration and priorities for expenditure on water and drainage.

In conclusion, the consultation papers, "Making Development Plans Deliver" and "Rights of Appeal in Planning", will be out for consultation during the next four months. The consultation will be a very active process. My deputy Mary Mulligan, officials and I will take the debate to our stakeholders in business and property, in environmental and community groups and in professional organisations. The Deputy First Minister will also continue his dialogue with business and planning will be on his agenda.

It is important to remember that other issues are being taken forward in relation to the planning reform agenda, including e-planning, design and the modernisation of our planning inquiry system. The Barker review of housing supply, our review of affordable housing and the implications of those reviews for the future of housing in Scotland are factors that we will consider in our reform of the planning system.

We are undertaking a large programme of important work and, to assist stakeholders, I will bring our final proposals together in a single document, which will identify elements that require primary legislation, elements that require secondary legislation and elements that can be dealt with through guidance.

The planning system deals with wide and complex issues, but we are determined that it should be modernised to meet the challenges of 21st century Scotland and to balance the needs of community and business. Today represents another stage in our reform of Scotland's planning system.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The minister will now take questions on her statement. I have a long—and lengthening—list of names on my screen, so I ask members to be very tight indeed with their questions.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

I thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement. I know that the Executive is keen on producing documents and, in particular, on consultations, but it has surpassed itself today, with a bumper issue of three documents and two consultations in one go.

I will focus my questions on affordable housing, which is an important issue. The minister is aware of cross-party calls for better planning guidance, more up-to-date local plans and the need to address land availability and price in order to deliver more affordable housing in many parts of Scotland. How will she avoid confusion and duplication and ensure that there is a consistent and coherent approach to the reform of the planning system, given that all those separate elements relate broadly to the same issues? Specifically, how will the new national planning framework and the consultation paper "Making Development Plans Deliver", which have been published today, link with the current review of affordable housing that the Scottish Executive Development Department is carrying out?

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I am delighted that so many members are taking an interest in planning and, in the interests of consensus, I say that Shona Robison has asked a key set of questions. The Executive has given serious attention to those matters, which are an issue for us all.

As Shona Robison indicated, we are carrying out our own review of affordable housing. We are also considering the implications of the Barker review for Scotland. Jo Armstrong, who has a considerable record in the field, has joined the Executive for a short period to undertake the financial analysis that we need.

I am clear that there must be consistency and that our proposals on social housing, on affordable housing and on strategic development for housing in Scotland must link with the proposals that we take forward on planning. Indeed, it is opportune that we are conducting the review on affordable housing at the same time as a consultation on substantial issues around planning. We intend to bring those areas of work together and I would be happy to discuss that work and have debates about it in the chamber.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I, too, welcome the minister's statement, the national planning framework and the two consultation papers. As the real Opposition party, the Conservatives will discuss those papers with councillors and key stakeholders in business and the community.

I have a few brief points. First, I ask that we do not allow the debate simply to focus on the third-party right of appeal. That issue should be considered in the wider context of the national planning framework and the consultations. If the debate were to focus simply on the third-party right of appeal—which could happen—the wider consultation that the Executive seeks would not take place and the process would fail.

Secondly, as part of the drive towards the modernisation of the planning system, will the minister ensure that Historic Scotland and others are accountable and responsive to public views?

Finally, page 11 of the advance copy of the minister's statement mentions Scotland's location in north-west Europe. Will the minister also remember north-west Scotland? I do not mean just the Western Isles, which are mentioned in the statement, but Shetland, which faces serious challenges, particularly in relation to fishing, and Orkney.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

It will be very tedious if I compliment all the Opposition speakers on the points that they raise. Indeed, that is completely outwith my character, but I am driven to do so. Mary Scanlon makes a significant point and I would be grateful for her support on the matter. It is essential that the debate does not focus entirely on third-party rights of appeal, important though that matter is. We have an opportunity to address issues that are consistently raised about the operation of the planning system and, indeed, the consultation papers raise many significant issues.

I am pleased that Mary Scanlon has referred to matters that are associated with the national planning framework. In drawing up the framework, we did not want to produce a shopping list that said, "These areas are important, ergo other areas are not important." We are trying to provide a spatial framework that emphasises connectivity and the growth and development of Scotland that we envisage. The framework will genuinely allow us to consider matters as we make decisions along the way, so we should not be concerned if a specific area was not mentioned in my statement. The north-west of Scotland will, of course, continue to receive serious attention and, as the debate about the national planning framework continues, I look forward to Mary Scanlon's continuing emphasis on that part of Scotland.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

The minister need not congratulate me.

The main thrust of the Liberal Democrats' concern about planning is that we should create a system that has enough well-trained staff to speed up its operation. Complaints about delays in the system come from all sides, so I hope that the minister will focus on that matter. We want to be fair, but above all we must speed things up. Secondly, will the minister ensure that planning takes sufficient account of transport issues, which are increasingly important? We build hospitals that nobody can get to, for example.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

Donald Gorrie is particularly reasonable today and I must congratulate him on that. His point about staff is significant and we must give great consideration to the matter. I have talked to a number of people in the field in recent months and I have been concerned about what I understand to be a reduction in the number of students who take up planning courses and the changes that have taken place in some university planning departments. Officials and I have acknowledged that we must give serious consideration to finding ways of assisting students to come forward.

Of course, that issue relates to a programme of staff development. Good staff who are confident and on top of their job and who can engage effectively are critical to much of the operation and implementation of the planning system. The ability to articulate issues about planning in a lively and engaging manner is a technique that I have never mastered, although there are certainly members on the Labour back benches who have done so—I will not talk about Sarah Boyack in particular.

We need to take planning out of the doldrums and have a public discussion of what planning means. Planning really matters to ordinary communities and businesses. We cannot allow it to be regarded as a dry subject. It is vital, which I think is what Donald Gorrie was driving at. We have to encourage staff to consider it in that way.

Transport is vital, too; I wanted to emphasise that more but was short of time. Donald Gorrie will know that Nicol Stephen would whole-heartedly support an emphasis on transport, so I would not have any choice in the matter anyway.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The minister leaves me no choice but to call Sarah Boyack.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

That is a bit of a poisoned chalice.

I welcome the minister's statement and the various documents that have been issued this morning, which represent a big step forward towards a more streamlined and focused planning system. I particularly welcome her national planning framework and the four city-region planning documents, which are absolutely central.

I welcome the minister's comments on a third-party right of appeal and ask her to take a genuine overview of the whole system. One of the main frustrations for members of the public is that they do not see the development plans. Many development plans are totally out of date and those that are up to date are often not taken very seriously at a political level by the people who make the final decisions that shape our environment. I welcome the minister's acknowledgement that we need to improve third-party rights—that must be one of the ideas that she acts on in the summer. She has to make the development planning system much more meaningful and she has to give it political weight. I also ask her to ensure that we have appropriate staff resources and that management is improved.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I agree that we will have to give serious attention to how the system is staffed and supported. I may well discuss that with Sarah Boyack again, because it will be an on-going issue.

There is no doubt that the momentum behind the call for a third-party right of appeal has come from deep-rooted frustrations among local communities. Communities have felt left out and disfranchised and I do not doubt that there is substance in that argument. Many development plans are shockingly out of date and we are determined to put that right. When plans are so out of date, they do not serve the purpose for which they were designed. People have no confidence in such plans, which will not have kept up with developments in local communities. People do not feel that their concerns are being paid attention to. Changing and modernising the development planning system is a big part of ensuring that communities are properly enfranchised and properly informed about what is happening in their areas.

Eleanor Scott (Green, Highlands and Islands)

The partnership agreement says that the Executive

"will consult on new rights of appeal in planning cases".

However, it seems to me that only one of the four options that the minister outlined really gives such rights. Will the Executive be prepared to settle for something that does not include some form of third-party right of appeal?

The minister did not mention strategic environmental assessment, which will come into force in July under a European directive. How does the Executive envisage incorporating strategic environmental assessment into planning?

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

When Eleanor Scott reads the consultation documents, she will see that such issues are addressed. I would not want to suggest that we are limiting the consultation in any way. I am tempted to say that we genuinely mean that, although that implies that if we say it in a different way we do not genuinely mean it. The consultation is an attempt at having an informed and proper debate about planning, accountability and democratic participation. This Parliament allows us that possibility—we are small enough to do it and we can have a public debate in which we all engage with one another. We can ensure that proper forums exist for that debate. So many people have access to the Parliament, so many people can influence the Parliament and so many views are represented in the Parliament, that we can have a genuine debate.

Whatever we do, we must achieve two things. We need to address the disfranchisement that many people feel in relation to the planning system—I am sure that Eleanor Scott is familiar with that issue, given her political background. People see a profound imbalance in the planning system and feel that desperately unfair things have been done to them.

We must also ensure that we have affordable housing in Scotland, that we have economic growth and that we provide services for people—be that women's aid refuges or whatever. We have to strike a balance. We cannot run away from that. We cannot allow ourselves to address one point—such as democratic imbalance—without thinking through the consequences for housing, for services and for economic growth. The Executive will have to think those issues through, but we also ask the chamber and the rest of Scotland to think them through. We have a real opportunity to have a debate about planning.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I, too, welcome the minister's statement, the consultation on third-party rights of appeal and the national planning framework. I want to deal with the principles that underpin effective engagement with communities. Existing planning guidelines are robust in talking about involving communities right from the start, rather than consulting after the event, but for too many communities the experience is one of disengagement. Does the minister agree that it is essential to include communities from day one when devising local plans, not least because that will give them a much more strategic role, which will ultimately reduce the likelihood of objections and appeals? Does she feel that local planning forums, involving community representatives, should have a central role?

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

Yes, that is part of the answer to some of the issues that we face. I have spoken about earlier and more targeted engagement with communities and stakeholders—I presume that that means from day one, but the earlier, the better. We must also ensure that we receive regular feedback so that we know whether people understand what is being proposed and what stage the process has reached. We have to explain the planning process to people.

The possibility of having local planning forums was suggested in "Your place, your plan". We are examining ways of making progress with that idea, with which I am sympathetic. If members have proposals, we would be interested to hear them. I think that we are all agreed on the principle, but it is the delivery that is critical. What we do must be done in a sustained and systematic way. That work is on-going.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I congratulate the minister on responding so promptly to target 7 in the communities section of the "Annual Evaluation Report 2005-06", which says:

"In 2004, we will publish proposals for improvements to the planning system".

If only the minister could achieve such promptness in everything. The "Review of Strategic Planning" was published in 2002 and today the minister has published proposals for consultation, but when will we actually achieve change? What is the minister's target?

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

We intend the consultation to last four months. Obviously, we will then review the outcome of the consultation. I will be happy to explain the details of that. We have indicated that we want to legislate appropriately and a planning bill will be introduced. When appropriate, I will give details of the legislative schedule for that bill. Stewart Stevenson will appreciate that it is more for the First Minister than for me to determine the priority that will be given to different pieces of legislation, but I assure him and the chamber that we have made public commitments to make legislative change. We will make progress when we hear the outcome of the consultation. I do not think that I will be able to delay things, because I do not think that my colleagues in the Cabinet would allow me to. I am sure that Stewart Stevenson would not allow it either. I will be happy to give details of the timetable.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

Does the minister agree that we must have a system that guarantees that local plans are updated regularly and in genuine consultation with communities? Does she further agree that any review of the planning framework must end the inequity that allows communities such as Greengairs in my constituency to shoulder the unacceptable burden of landfill and opencast activities? More than cultural change is required; we need to place obligations on developers that they know will be enforced.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I have listened intently to Karen Whitefield's points on the planning system over recent months. There is a lot in what she says. We have to get local plans right and we have to do so within a proper timescale. Ensuring that the documents are live and real is a big part of that, as is ensuring that there is systematic, realistic and effective local engagement. I am not talking simply about people turning up at meetings; I am talking about people understanding the planning system and being told when decisions are made. People must be kept well informed about their rights in the system.

Often, development is necessary and to be warmly welcomed. However, we must ensure an appropriate balance throughout Scotland. I am on record as saying that certain communities have taken a disproportionate share of certain developments. Things need to be done more fairly.

Karen Whitefield's final point on enforcement is critical. I have always been interested in ensuring that enforcement works. Enforcement will remain at the centre of our agenda and close attention will be paid to it.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I welcome the minister's references to the centrality of economic growth. She will be aware that business organisations are concerned about the third-party right of appeal; I think that businesses are equally concerned that the planning system, as it is reformed, should become less cumbersome, less time consuming and less expensive for all. Can the minister assure us that those principles will be built into any necessary reform?

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I feel like I have arrived on another planet: I agree with Murdo Fraser.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Steady on.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I know—I will be agreeing with Mike Rumbles before I know what I am doing. That was too much—I apologise to Mike Rumbles.

Murdo Fraser is absolutely right, and the business community has never hidden its concern about third-party rights of appeal, about the way in which the planning system is constructed and operated—how its day-to-day decisions are made—and about living with the consequences. Jim Wallace has engaged thoroughly with the business community and the Executive will continue to do so. We know that we need economic development in Scotland—I need it to address housing issues. We all need economic development to make Scotland grow.

We will listen intently to the business community. However, wherever people stand on the third-party right of appeal, we can improve and modernise the planning system and make it more efficient and effective. It would be a good signal for businesses if they knew today that there is consensus in Parliament about improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the planning system.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

I hope that the minister will agree that it is a discourtesy to Parliament and to back benchers in particular that the national planning framework, the two consultation documents and her statement were not available at the back of the chamber when she sat down at the end of her statement. That is a lapse in the high standards that members have come to expect. Wherever responsibility lies, I think that that has undermined members' ability to contribute meaningfully on the statement.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I apologise. I am sure that Wendy Alexander, of all people, knows that there are procedures to ensure that such things are done. I assumed that those procedures had been followed this morning. I will ensure that it never happens again and that members get all the appropriate documentation that they require.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I am sure that members will appreciate that.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

I warmly welcome the statement on the review of the planning system, especially the focus on social housing. I hope that the minister will be considering rural housing.

On the business issue, I draw the minister's attention to Penicuik Home Improvements, in my constituency, which is being crippled because of existing inefficiencies in the planning system. I am grateful to the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning for meeting representatives of Penicuik Home Improvements and me. Will the Minister for Communities ensure that the business community has the opportunity to engage in the process, and that there is a clear ambition under the review to reduce burdens on the business community?

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I assure the member that there will be full and proper engagement with business on the range and complexity of the issues that we are addressing. We will engage with housing interests and other wider interests under the review of affordable housing. In bringing together our various proposals, we will of course engage with business. We will ensure that the business community's recommendations on improvement of the planning system are taken on board. As Jeremy Purvis would expect, that will be balanced with the other interests that will be represented.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I welcome the statement and recognise the importance of strategic planning at the city-region level. Can the minister assure me that the mechanisms for delivering a city-region approach will allow all the local authority stakeholders in the area to engage fully in the process? Does she recognise the pressures that are faced by small local authorities, such as Midlothian Council, at a time of massive growth in the housing sector and of economic development?

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

Yes—absolutely. Cases such as Midlothian illustrate the arguments for some of the proposals that we have made through the city-region plan. Wider structural interests must be addressed, so that councils other than city councils can offer input and so that the wider economic regeneration impacts are taken into account. It is up to all councils to work together in partnership and to agree on the priorities for the wider areas concerned. Midlothian Council should have full opportunities to participate in the key decisions that will affect it.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I, too, welcome the minister's statement. As a representative of North East Scotland, where many of the local and structural plans of recent years have been viewed as either shambolic or inaccurate, I hope that we can move forward.

I appreciate the fact that a consultation is being undertaken, but the Executive must have some views, and I would like the minister to confirm two objectives. First, will our communities' views be not simply registered, but acted on and genuinely taken into account? Secondly, in the minister's view, must the planning system be changed to make it easier to make land available for building affordable housing? Does the minister appreciate that we could throw as many millions of pounds as we like at rural housing, but it will not make the slightest difference? Rather, it will simply make landowners richer unless we use the planning system to make more land available, thus allowing the value of land to be reduced. We could then talk about a genuine increase in affordable housing. Is it the minister's objective to use the planning system to make more land available, not just in rural communities but in urban communities, so that we can increase the availability of affordable housing?

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I think that I have addressed a number of those points. We see that there is a need to balance the interests and views of communities with housing and other developments that may be required. There is a trick and a challenge in this. I do not know whether Richard Lochhead has properly acknowledged that communities sometimes want to prevent developments from happening: sometimes they want to say, "We want this all for ourselves." If we were to give certain communities absolutely untrammelled rights, we might kill some housing developments stone dead. As the minister who has responsibility for housing, I must—unfortunately—take that sort of thing into account.

We are trying to achieve a proper balance in which it is appropriate for communities to be involved, so that decisions are consistent and transparent. Communities should be involved not just at the beginning of the process, but throughout it. We should also ensure, however, that appropriate development takes place.

To move on to the issues that Richard Lochhead raises about land, I am very glad to hear about his support for the idea that we do not solve problems simply by throwing money at them. We need to examine the use of land and we need to consider planning systems in different sorts of locality. There are general statistics, but there are different patterns throughout Scotland. As Richard Lochhead knows, there are absolute shortages of affordable housing in certain rural areas. I reassure him that we are considering the details in that regard, both in our planning review and in the affordable housing review.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I welcome the publication of the consultation documents today and I look forward to encouraging my community to take part in the consultation. The minister posed the question why planning matters so much. I hope that all members recognise how much it matters. Unfortunately, local views often come forward only once an application is on the table when the community has not had the opportunity to be involved in preparing plans. I agree about the significance and importance of people being consulted and involved in the preparation of local plans—

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Could you ask a question, please?

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

How will the minister convince people that planning is important to them? How will we not just consult them but involve them in the whole process of developing plans?

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I hope that the work that we are talking about today will create opportunity at Scottish level—as part of a big public debate—and locally. It is our responsibility to engage with communities and to indicate to them the significance of planning. It is perhaps a feature of human psychology that we only ever realise the significance of a decision when it is right under our noses, and we wish that we had learned about it earlier. It is our job as political representatives—perhaps it is partly also the job of local authorities—to ensure that communities are informed as early as possible.

As I said in response to Donald Gorrie, it is important that planning is not seen just as a dry issue, but is viewed as being critical to the life and the dynamic of communities. That is how we will engage with communities properly. Communities will engage when they think that it is worth their while to do so, when they think that they can influence, when they think that they can create change and when they think that their views really have an effect. That way, we will create momentum and encourage involvement and participation. We need to work hard and seriously at that; the four-month consultation will be about looking at the proposals and details.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

Like others, I very much welcome the national planning framework, the test of which will be whether it ends up propping up shelves in local planning department offices, or even in the Scottish Executive's planning department. The framework should be a tool that allows us to develop local initiatives as key elements in delivering national priorities. My test will be whether the framework can be used to help regenerate Clydebank, on which I have spent a great deal of time and effort, as have local and national agencies. Will the minister assure us that the national framework is an instrument for achieving that kind of transformative change?

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

Yes. I think that I can give Des McNulty an absolute guarantee on that. I acknowledge the work that he has done in Clydebank and on the wider debate on the regeneration of west central Scotland. The national planning framework is about trying to ensure that we have connectivity throughout Scotland, so that big projects and investments benefit not only the areas in which they are located and their immediate surroundings, but some of the outlying areas. In Glasgow in particular, some peripheral estates do not benefit from economic growth in the city centre. That is a big challenge, which we must face.

More broadly, as Rhona Brankin said, we need to ensure that wider areas benefit from the wider regeneration. The national planning framework is designed precisely to take that forward, not so that we can sit and argue about the details of one application, but to help us to see some of the big-picture issues and some of the big challenges that we must face in the coming period.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

I welcome the Executive's neutral stance on the third-party right of appeal. Parts of my constituency are suffering from urban cramming because planning law has, on balance, favoured the developer over communities. The third-party right of appeal must be a feature of planning law, so will the minister consider a community right of appeal that would allow a review or appeal based on strict criteria, if it could be shown that that would not significantly delay the process for developers?

Will there be scope for the proposed planning bill to place a duty on planners to ensure that new developments include affordable housing? I am concerned that we might relax planning law and conventions such as green belt at the expense of affordable housing. I do not believe that that is the way forward.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I thank Pauline McNeill for putting the case for a community right of appeal, which we will consider seriously as we proceed with the consultation. It is interesting to see from recent debates that most people have begun to recognise that a completely unfettered right of appeal would be inappropriate. However, other models are emerging. Some ask for a community right of appeal, but there are questions to be asked about that too, such as how to define "community". Nevertheless, some serious models are emerging that would address issues such as those that Pauline McNeill faces daily in her constituency, and which we have all to face in trying to strike a balance throughout Scotland. A community right of appeal is a model that could easily be proposed in the consultation and it is one to which we will pay serious attention as we take the debate forward.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I extended the time that was allocated to the statement in view of the high number of members who wished to participate. I had 21 requests to speak, so I apologise to the remaining four members whom it was not possible to include. We must now press on.

Business Motion

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S2M-1139, in the name of Patricia Ferguson, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a timetable for stage 3 of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Bill. I call on Patricia Ferguson to move the motion.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees that, during the Stage 3 proceedings of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Bill, debate on each part of those proceedings shall be brought to a conclusion by the time-limits indicated (each time-limit being calculated from when Stage 3 begins and excluding any periods when other business is under consideration or when the meeting of the Parliament is suspended or otherwise not in progress)

Groups 1 and 2 - no later than 40 minutes Groups 3 and 4 - no later than 1 hour 10 minutes Groups 5 to 8 - no later than 2 hours Groups 9 and 10 - no later than 2 hours and 30 minutes Groups 11 and 12 - no later than 3 hours and 10 minutes Groups 13 to 16 - no later than 3 hours and 30 minutes Motion to pass the Bill - no later than 4 hours.—[Patricia Ferguson.]

Motion agreed to.

Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The next item of business is stage 3 of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Bill. I make a point of advising members that they should, for stage 3, have a copy of the bill as amended at stage 2 and the revised marshalled list, which contains all amendments that have been selected for debate, including seven manuscript amendments that were lodged yesterday—as a consequence, there are also revised groupings.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Group 1 is on children aged two or over. Amendment 61, in the name of Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, is grouped with amendments 64, 65 and 72.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

Amendments 61, 64, 65 and 72 concern children who are aged two to three years. The minister asserted during stage 2 in the Education Committee that children who have extensive needs would have co-ordinated support plans from upwards of age two and a half. However, that does not go quite far enough: the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 allows children to have records of needs from two years and thus gives parents legal rights. Under that act, education authorities have a duty to identify children aged two or over but who are not yet of school age who have, or appear to have, special educational needs that are pronounced, complex or specific. Such children can also have records of needs opened and maintained for them, and the Conservatives wish the same right to apply to children aged two years and over but under five years old, because we wish our most vulnerable young people to be looked after as well in future as they were in the past.

Amendment 72 explains that "school age" should be construed as stated in section 31 of the 1980 act. That would make for consistency. I have lodged amendments 61, 64, 65 and 72 because early intervention is in the best interests of children who may, for example, have cerebral palsy. The amendments would ensure early intervention for such children and for children with other medical conditions.

I move amendment 61.

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Amendments 61, 64 and 65, which are similar to amendments regarding children aged two that were considered but not pressed at stage 2, would present real practical difficulties, because they would in effect require an education authority to identify pupils for whose education they may or may not become responsible in future. It is questionable how an authority would identify such pupils: it would either have to instigate some form of inquiry or guess parents' intentions on future decisions on where to send their children for education. That would impose an unrealistic and impractical burden and would not be a sensible way for authorities to plan.

The Executive believes that amendments 61, 64 and 65 are unnecessary, because the bill will give a power to authorities to make provision for children in their early years. For example, it will introduce a duty on education authorities to prepare co-ordinated support plans for children who require them from when they attend pre-school education, and for children who are approaching that stage. In layman's terms, that will allow children with the most extensive needs to have co-ordinated support plans from two and a half years old or thereabouts. In addition, there will be a duty on education authorities to provide additional support for disabled children under three, or under five if they are not in pre-school education, if those children have been brought to their attention by health boards. The bill will also provide education authorities with a power to help all other children under three in their areas who may have additional support needs. For those collective reasons, I ask members to reject amendments 61, 64 and 65.

Amendment 72 is unnecessary because section 24(2) of the bill covers the definition of "school age" by referring to the definition in section 135(1) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, which in turn refers to section 31 of the 1980 act—the subject of amendment 72. That amendment would therefore duplicate what is already in the bill, so I hope that Lord James Douglas-Hamilton will consider not moving it.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I support amendments 61, 64, 65 and 72 in Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's name. The amendments address a key area of the bill and cut to the heart of the issue with which we have wrestled over many months: although Parliament wants to put children at the heart of our policy in so many areas, our problem is that, although we might have joined-up thinking, we do not have joined-up legislation. A group of children are being excluded from the bill purely because the Executive wants to define what is in education authorities' remit but not what is in the health service's remit. It is not satisfactory that the Executive seeks to bounce back to the health service the responsibility to bring to education authorities' attention children of two and over—particularly those aged two—who have additional needs. It is important that we strengthen the provisions.

We heard reassurances from the Executive at stage 2 that existing legislation would cover remits in respect of two, three and four-year-olds. The problem is that there is no guarantee that every local authority has a partnership arrangement for three and four-year-olds who are in pre-school education. Are we really saying that, even if all local authorities had such arrangements, additional support would be provided only for the two and a half hours during which children were in nursery education and that, for the rest of the time, the children would be excluded from such support despite the fact that everybody knows that learning through play is vital in early years? The amendments cut to the heart of the approach to the bill. On that basis, I support the amendments.

Rosemary Byrne (SSP, South of Scotland)

I, too, support the amendments. The minister said that the system was not in place, but that is not the case. We already have a pre-school assessment team system and the record-of-needs system, which would be simple to transfer.

I was shocked to hear the minister say that we cannot have joined-up working. The Education Committee has just taken evidence on child protection, which focuses on joined-up working. The most vulnerable children need all agencies to work for them, including education services, at the earliest stage.

I appeal to the minister to reconsider what he said. It is important that we deal properly with children aged two or over and that we meet their early needs. Not all young people go to pre-school facilities; some go to private nurseries, because their mothers work and cannot fit in with pre-school facility hours. That means that many children will be left out of the equation. I ask the minister to think again and I hope that everyone will support the amendments.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I listened intently to the minister, but his response was wholly unsatisfactory. He asked how local authorities would be able cope with the amendments, but we know that local authorities coped with records of needs for two-year-olds. He then contradicted his argument by saying that other sections of the bill will place a duty on local authorities in relation to pre-school children. That surely means that local authorities can cope. Why should he be so parsimonious?

Rosemary Byrne made the point well that people will fall through gaps and will not be covered by the bill. The way to cover those people is by voting for Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's amendments, which are fair and considered. The amendments would simply ensure that all children were catered for equally.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

I ask Lord James to reconsider his amendments. My colleagues on the Education Committee—and Brian Monteith, I hope—will appreciate that we discussed the subject at length at stage 2. As Lord James said, concern has been expressed about children who have cerebral palsy and who may wish to benefit at an early age from the facilities of a school such as the Craighalbert Centre. The committee was also concerned that the bill might remove rights that children enjoy under the 1980 act. However, the Executive has addressed those concerns. The bill was amended to place on education authorities a duty to

"provide such additional support as they consider appropriate".

It is difficult for an education authority to address needs that have not been brought to its attention, which is why health boards have a duty to identify needs and bring them to an education authority's attention. In such cases, an education authority must act. That compromise is satisfactory and will address the needs of children who attend the Craighalbert Centre. I hope that it also addressed the concerns of the committee to its satisfaction at stage 2.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

I support Lord James's amendments. We must follow the philosophy that support should be provided as early as possible for all children in Scotland. For instance, a deaf child would need input almost from birth. To provide that is something that education authorities must, not just can, do.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I support the Executive's position—

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Oh, yes.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I am sorry to hear such comments. The Education Committee considered in detail all the issues that arose from the bill. It does not behove people who were not involved in the committee's extensive and largely non-party-political work to make such background comments. We should deal with the issues.

The amendments in the group raise an important subject, but it has been discussed. The reality is that section 3(3A) deals with the matter to all intents and purposes. The issue is not simple; it is complex, because it ranges from involving people whose conditions or problems arise at an early stage to those whose problems are identified later, so the matter is not susceptible to the application of a single pattern. The Executive responded at stage 2 to concerns that committee members expressed in the stage 1 debate and afterwards. The Executive has produced a practical and workable response that deals with the issue.

I am not in favour of the amendments, which would add nothing. Despite Lord James's good intentions, the amendments would confuse the matter.

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

We tried to address the matter at stage 2. We believe that health authorities will identify the children involved and that the amendments would add nothing practical, but would, as I explained, create practical difficulties. As the Education Committee's convener and Ken Macintosh said, the matter was the subject of considerable debate at stage 2, when we lodged an amendment that was agreed to, to take members' concerns into account.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

I am afraid that the minister's arguments are not persuasive, especially because he mentioned "practical difficulties". Local authorities have dealt with the situation under the record-of-needs system and have not found the "practical difficulties" to be insurmountable, so I do not see why they should be insurmountable under the bill.

We lodged the amendments to make clear the strength of our commitment to young children. We believe strongly that early intervention for a child who has special learning difficulties is extremely important. Because of that commitment, I intend to press all the amendments in the group, as they would clarify the position beyond doubt.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The question is, that amendment 61 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

There will be a division. Members have two minutes to vote.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The result of the division is: For 46, Against 61, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 61 disagreed to.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Group 2 is on matters that give rise to the requirement for a co-ordinated support plan. Amendment 4, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 73, 5, 62, 6 and 7.

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Amendment 4 aims to clear up a possible ambiguity in section 2 that the Education Committee identified at stage 2. The criteria for co-ordinated support plans include the necessity for the additional support needs of the child or young person to be enduring—they must be expected to last for more than a year. The factors that give rise to those needs can be one-off events or can perhaps happen intermittently, but the impact on the individual's learning must be long lasting. The bill is currently worded so that it is possible to read section 2(1)(b) as meaning that the factors that give rise to the additional support needs must last for more than a year. That is not the case and amendment 4 clarifies that point.

Amendment 73 is not necessary because, as I have said, Executive amendment 4 clarifies that the additional support needs must be enduring and last for more than a year rather than the factors that give rise to those needs. Regardless of that, amendment 73 would be difficult to apply in practice. It is obviously well intentioned, but it would require a prediction to be made on what was likely to recur at any time throughout a child's school career. That could involve a forecast that covers 12 years or more. I ask Fiona Hyslop not to press amendment 73. I hope that she accepts that amendment 4 covers the matter.

I oppose amendments 5, 6 and 7, as they are an attempt to broaden out the criteria for the co-ordinated support plan to a greater number of pupils. I sympathise with the reasons behind the amendments, but I do not believe that we should take such a course of action. The purpose of the co-ordinated support plan is to co-ordinate services from across agencies over the long term for the most vulnerable children and young people. That group of children and young people are those with extensive additional support needs who require additional support from a variety of sources. If the co-ordinated support plan was to be available to a wider group, for whom the impact on education and the support required were not significant, the focus would be removed from those with extensive needs to include those with much lesser needs and those who might need only minor, short-term support. That is not the intended purpose of the co-ordinated support plan.

From discussions on similar amendments at stage 2, I remember that there was concern about the use of the word "significant". I reassure members that the code of practice will address that issue—I think that we made that clear at stage 2. Section 23 specifically provides that the code will give guidance on the identification of complex and multiple factors and the nature of the significant additional support provided, for the purposes of deciding whether a co-ordinated support plan is required. It should not be forgotten that education authorities will have duties to identify additional support needs, to make adequate and efficient provision for those needs and to keep under consideration those needs and the adequacy of provision for each individual for whose school education they are responsible. Education authorities will be able to use other plans—such as individualised educational programmes—to plan the learning and additional support requirements of pupils who do not have a CSP. That matter will also be addressed in the code of practice. I therefore ask Lord James Douglas-Hamilton not to press amendments 5, 6 and 7.

I oppose amendment 62 for similar reasons. It also seeks to widen the criteria for a CSP to include pupils who receive additional support from only within education. As I have already said, the purpose of the co-ordinated support plan is to co-ordinate services from a variety of different agencies to provide the most effective package of support for the pupil. Amendment 62 would in effect undermine one of the fundamental principles of the bill. Again, I remind members that the bill already places a duty on education authorities to identify and to make adequate and efficient provision for each child and young person for whom they are responsible, irrespective of whether they have a CSP. Therefore, I ask Fiona Hyslop not to press amendment 62.

I move amendment 4.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I will speak first to amendments 73 and 4, which are connected. I acknowledge the fact that the Executive has taken on board the point that the SNP made at stage 2 about the factors themselves not being the passport to the co-ordinated support plan. The concerns are particularly about children in bed-and-breakfast accommodation that will not last for 12 months and whose parents have episodic mental health problems, for example. Perhaps the most tragic example would be the child of a murder victim. The incident and the factor might have occurred only once, but the need for support might continue for a long time. Therefore, I welcome amendment 4.

Amendment 4 goes part of the way towards addressing my concerns. However, I lodged amendment 73 because it does not address the particular issue relating to the 12-month period. The minister said that my amendment 73 is well intentioned, but I suggest to him that it is also well sourced, as the wording comes from the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The amendment reflects the wording of paragraph 2(2) of schedule 1 to that act in trying to define a situation in which needs might not be conclusive or continuing over 12 months, but are likely to recur, so that there is a need for a co-ordinated support plan over a period of time. The needs may be episodic just as much as the factor that caused them in the first place may be episodic. I gave the example of a child of a murder victim. The consequences of the murder might be long standing, and the educational support needs might vary and recur over a period of time; support will not necessarily be required only once. My intentions in lodging the amendment were good, although I recognise the Executive's efforts in amendment 4.

As the minister said, amendment 62 concerns the fundamentals of the bill. The aspect of the bill that causes the greatest concern is the two-tier, or three-tier, system for co-ordinated support plans and additional support for learning in general that is being developed. The Parliament has persuaded the Executive to include in the bill section 2A, which imposes a general duty in respect of additional support needs, but the Executive has not addressed the fundamental point about why children whose needs can be met solely by the education authority—in particular, children who have dyslexia or autistic spectrum disorder—should be excluded from having the rights that other children in relation to whom the health authority is involved will be given. Is it not ironic that the Executive has just rejected an amendment because it did not want health authorities to be integral and wanted them to identify two-year-olds but, all of a sudden, health authorities are part and parcel and a fundamental part of the bill? There is muddled and disjointed thinking by the Executive.

If the issue comes down to resources, why does the Executive not admit that the bill is only about administration? It is about reducing the number of children who currently have records of needs from 4,000 to the 2,000 who will get a co-ordinated support plan. The minister has made great efforts to say that those who will not have a co-ordinated support plan will still have their additional support needs met, but anybody with any experience of local authorities and support provision will know that some criteria must be used for limited resources. I believe that the approach is very much to be regretted and that amendment 62 is fundamental.

Individualised educational programmes and personal learning plans are ideas whose time is yet to come. They might be part of a universal system in the future, but they are not in the bill here and now. We have a right and a duty to stand up for children who have additional support needs but who will not get a CSP, and we should allow them the same legal rights. The issue is one of fairness and equity. Amendment 62 is fundamental to the bill and I support it.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

I will speak to amendments 5, 6 and 7. On amendment 5, the word "significant" needs to be deleted to avoid the current practice of some local authorities and health boards, whereby the service that is offered is based not on the child's needs, but on what staffing is available given case loads and so on. That could mean that a child would not qualify for a co-ordinated support plan not because of their needs, but simply because of restrictions on the availability of provision.

With regard to amendments 6 and 7, the word "significant" could exclude many children who could usefully be considered. The adverse effect that arises from a child's additional support needs will be different in every case. Each child's potential is different, so it would be impossible to determine the effects of factors or multiple factors.

I do not think that the minister's responses to Fiona Hyslop's amendments at the committee meetings were persuasive. The crux of the matter is that each child's additional support needs should be weighed on their merits and should not be excluded because they are not considered to be significant.

I support Fiona Hyslop's amendments, particularly amendment 62, which rightly widens the criteria for a co-ordinated support plan. We lodged amendments that were broadly similar at stage 2, and I believe that it is right for the Parliament's opinion to be tested.

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I will speak to amendment 62. Despite the minister's assurance that education authorities will have a duty to identify and address the additional support needs of all pupils for whom they are responsible, there is a great deal of scepticism among parents about whether such an approach will operate in practice.

The resources that are available to education authorities are limited. Such resources should be allocated in a targeted way, according to need. The reality is that children who are in receipt of a co-ordinated support plan will have first call on those resources. With the best will in the world, I cannot see how we can avoid a situation in which a CSP becomes a passport to services, in much the same way as the record of needs is now.

Possession of a CSP will confer legal rights and, crucially, will provide access to the new tribunals. Many children have complex and multiple difficulties that require a co-ordinated response from education authorities—children with autism or dyslexia come to mind. There is a great danger that those children, many of whom are currently provided for by the record-of-needs system, will fall through the safety net that the bill designs. Amendment 62 would allow for an appropriate expansion of the eligibility criteria for a CSP, to ensure that that does not happen.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I oppose amendment 62. It is important for people to understand that one of the main reasons for the bill is to include a much wider group of pupils. A major group that the bill includes under the definition of additional support needs is pupils with emotional and behavioural difficulties. One of the problems in the past was the fact that those youngsters could not be included in consideration for a record of needs, even if they had major problems and required extensive interagency work. I welcome the fact that the bill is more inclusive.

Another reason for the bill was to address the failure of agencies to work together effectively. The bill gives local authorities and other agencies the duty and responsibility to work together. Overall, the bill includes a wider range of pupils, but it is important to remember that the children with the greatest needs have the greatest protection. I urge members to oppose amendments 62, 73, 5, 6 and 7 and to support amendment 4.

Rosemary Byrne (SSP, South of Scotland)

I welcome amendment 4 in the name of the minister. I support all the amendments in the group, but I will focus on amendment 62.

It is crucial to broaden access to co-ordinated support plans. Under the bill, we have a three-tier system, but we could have had a single, universal system with access for all children who require it. We now have an adversarial system and, at the outset, parents will seek redress through the tribunals to have their child considered for a CSP. There was no need for the bill to go along that road, but given that it has, the best that we can do is to try to broaden access to CSPs.

Rhona Brankin says that we are looking to create an inclusive system, and I agree with that. I welcome the broadening of additional support needs to include children with social, emotional and behavioural difficulties. However, we are also narrowing the definition and, as Adam Ingram and Fiona Hyslop said, we are excluding the large and significant group of young people who have dyslexia, are on the autistic spectrum or have dyspraxia or other syndromes. In many cases, those children have a lot of needs, but they will not be dealt with by more than one agency. That should not be a reason to exclude anyone from access to the support that they require, so I ask the minister to reconsider and to support the amendments.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

There has been a broad welcome for amendment 4, but I am bound to say that the arguments that have been adduced in favour of the other amendments constitute a fundamental misunderstanding of the bill. I have some difficulty in seeing how some of Rosemary Byrne's comments could be made following the Education Committee's consideration of the bill.

We are not reducing rights, but changing rights—a different system will come into place. The record-of-needs system applied to children in certain situations; however, under the bill's provisions—particularly those in section 2A—there will be a general duty on local authorities to provide for additional support needs. There is a mainstreaming approach to the matter, and within that approach there is a focus on co-ordinated support plans, which, as Adam Ingram said, lead to certain rights in relation to tribunals. There is a specific issue about that, but it is quite wrong to say that the bill will lead to an adversarial situation. It will not do so; the bill is designed to encourage mediation and the early sorting out of problems. It encourages a situation in which things are dealt with at the school level and it mainstreams the arrangements that are made for the provision of additional support. I oppose the amendments, which would damage the bill. They would not achieve the objectives that their proposers intend.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

I endorse Robert Brown's and Rhona Brankin's comments. I support the Executive's amendment 4, and I urge members to reject the other amendments in the group. I alert members to the fact that the issues and concerns that are coming up today are not new. They were debated extensively at stage 2 and the committee reached agreement on them.

I will not pretend that there are not anxieties, particularly for those who have enjoyed a record of needs and are concerned either that the statutory entitlements that they had will not be echoed in a CSP or that they will not get a CSP. However, it is wrong to see co-ordinated support plans as the be-all and end-all of the bill. The rights that were previously the preserve of those who benefited from a record of needs are now extended to all children with additional support needs.

The danger of widening the definition of those who qualify for a CSP is that we could merely replicate the failings of the record-of-needs system, which the bill is designed to counter. The co-ordinated support plan is not the gatekeeper or, as Adam Ingram called it, the passport to the support or resources that a child needs—that is the role of the bill. It is not the CSP that guarantees resources, but the bill, and the bill does that for all children. The CSP recognises that for some children a level of co-ordination is required between the different authorities. It recognises the fact that a statutory document might be required for those with complex needs, to ensure that the joined-up approach that we all talk about actually happens. I urge members to reject the amendments—except the Executive amendment—in the group.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I support amendments 5, 6 and 7 because I believe that the word "significant" is a weasel word that should be removed. Children that are deserving of additional support are just that. Imagine, for instance, that we said that an MSP may become a minister only if they have a significant majority. How would we define that? Would Euan Robson be defined as having a "significant" majority? Would Peter Peacock, who does not even have a majority at all? "Significant" is a weasel word. Both men are worthy of being ministers; all children who are deserving of additional support deserve that support. Let us remove the word "significant".

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I am glad that members have generally welcomed amendment 4, which I believe covers the circumstances that Fiona Hyslop mentioned.

On additional rights, the bill will for the first time give children and young people who have additional support needs a right to that support. Section 2A, which was thoroughly debated at stage 2, is inclusive, as it covers the whole spectrum of needs. The point about co-ordinated support plans is that they will focus on the most vulnerable children who have the most extensive needs. In addition, section 2A extends the duty of education authorities by requiring them to assess all children and young people for whom they are responsible. Furthermore, section 2A, which was inserted at stage 2, makes it perfectly clear that education authorities have an on-going duty towards those children. Moreover, as I said at stage 2, that new duty is inspectable by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education.

Amendment 62 would undermine the bill. It would be divisive in a way that the bill is not. Robert Brown and Ken Macintosh are correct to say that amendment 62 would significantly extend the duties of education authorities. I hope that Parliament will reject amendment 62. Members should be reassured that the new extension that is provided for in section 2A will be generally welcomed.

Amendment 4 agreed to.

[Amendment 73 moved—[Fiona Hyslop].]

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The question is, that amendment 73 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

There will be a division.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The result of the division is: For 50, Against 61, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 73 disagreed to.

[Amendment 5 moved—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton].]

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The question is, that amendment 5 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

There will be a division.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The result of the division is: For 44, Against 61, Abstentions 5.

Amendment 5 disagreed to.

[Amendment 62 moved—[Fiona Hyslop].]

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The question is, that amendment 62 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

There will be a division.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The result of the division is: For 50, Against 61, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 62 disagreed to.

[Amendments 6 and 7 not moved.]

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Group 3 is on children and young persons who lack capacity. Amendment 8 is grouped with amendments 8A, 16 to 19, 21, 24, 26, 27, 29, 31, 34 to 37, 39, 41, 43, 46, 54 and 59.

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Amendment 8 and amendments 16 to 19, 21, 24, 26, 27, 29, 31, 34 to 37, 39, 41, 43, 46, 54 and 59 are all intrinsically linked.

We lodged the amendments in response to the Education Committee's concerns that the bill's use of the term "incapable" is presentationally insensitive and possibly pejorative. We consulted Sense Scotland, which had also expressed concerns about the presentational impact of the word "incapable", and I believe that Sense Scotland is pleased with the amendments.

Amendment 8 sets the scene for the other amendments because it defines children who lack capacity and moves that definition up front. The other amendments will replace the term "incapable" with "lacks capacity", but amendment 8 is important because it sets the context for each and every time that the term is used.

I hope that members will agree that the amendments are a satisfactory solution to the concerns that were rightly expressed by the Education Committee. The Executive has taken those concerns on board, so I recommend that all those amendments should be accepted.

I ask Parliament to resist amendment 8A, which would include children and young people with developmental disorders in the definition of those who lack capacity. My main concern with amendment 8A is that the term "developmental disorder" is very broad. In practice, the term can be used to describe delayed development of language and of communication and social skills and delayed physical growth. Ken Macintosh provides no further definition of what is meant by a developmental disorder in this context. That means that, for example, a child or young person who is dyspraxic or who has not physically grown as expected might be considered to lack capacity when that might not be the case. I ask members to reject amendment 8A primarily for that reason.

Frankly, I would be concerned if the scenario that I have described were to become a reality, given the potential for the assumption to be made that, because someone has a developmental disorder, they automatically lack capacity. Clearly, that is not always the case. I doubt that it is Ken Macintosh's intention to suggest otherwise and invite him not to move amendment 8A.

I move amendment 8.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

Before discussing amendment 8A, I will deal with the other amendments in the group. Two concerns about capacity were expressed during stage 2. The first was that the language of the bill is pejorative. Like all other members, I am grateful to the minister for the series of amendments that the Executive has lodged to tackle that issue. The second concern, which was floated by my colleague Scott Barrie, in particular, was that we are not consistent in offering children with capacity the opportunity to make decisions that affect their future. The Executive amendments do not address that issue and I would welcome comments from the minister on how it will be addressed as we move forward.

Having seen Executive amendment 8, the National Autistic Society contacted me to point out that the amendment names different groups of disabilities but that autism does not fall into any of the categories that are specified. Autism is a developmental disorder, not a mental health problem or a learning disability. I say in response to the minister that it is recognised as a developmental disorder in the 10th edition of the "International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Injuries and Causes of Death" and in the fourth edition of the "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders". I have lodged amendment 8A to ensure that the bill recognises children and young people with autistic spectrum disorder and does not leave them in a legal black hole when it comes to issues relating to capacity.

I was not persuaded by the minister's argument that there could be confusion and that anyone with a developmental disorder would automatically be assumed not to have capacity. There is no such presumption, just as there is no presumption that anyone with a mental health problem will not have capacity. It is not possible for the logic that applies to the minister's definition not to apply to mine. I would welcome further comments from the minister. In particular, I would like to hear from him how he intends to address the situation of children who have autistic spectrum disorder and do not appear to be covered by Executive amendment 8, but who would be covered if the minister accepted amendment 8A.

I move amendment 8A.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I want to address the issue of extending rights to children under 16. I appreciate the amendments that the Executive has lodged, which take on board concerns that the Education Committee, in particular, has raised. However, the Executive recognises that the issue of how we treat the rights of children aged 12 and over is outstanding. The minister has suggested that it may be addressed in a proposed children's services bill. This is not necessarily just a children's issue or a matter for the Education Committee—perhaps the justice committees should consider the spectrum of legal rights in relation to capacity and age. I recognise that the bill makes provision for consultation with children and young people throughout and that the Executive amendments help to address the matter in the bill. However, this is an outstanding issue to which I hope the Parliament will return in future.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

We support the minister's amendments. Amendment 8A, in the name of Ken Macintosh, is designed to ensure that children with autism do not fall into a legal black hole and has the support of the National Autistic Society. There is grave concern among people who care for those who suffer from autism. We are sympathetic to amendment 8A and hope that the minister will accept it.

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

Ken Macintosh indicated that at stage 2 I lodged a series of amendments that sought to address the issue of capacity, with particular reference to children's and young persons' rights. The aim of those amendments was to ensure that a child or young person with capacity should be able to initiate the process through which decisions are reached about his or her additional needs. It is particularly important that the principle contained in the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000 should be reiterated in the bill. Too often in the past, children's and young persons' rights have not been consistently dealt with throughout our child care legislation.

I am grateful to the minister for the assurance that he gave at stage 2 that he would meet me and for the series of meetings that we have had. It is clear that we need to ensure that the bill is consistent not only with the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000 but with other major pieces of legislation, such as the Age of Legal Capacity (Scotland) Act 1991 and the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. I agree that it is essential that the principle is established across the range of our child care law and thank the minister for his recent letter, in which he reiterates that point. I assure him that I look forward to working with him and the Education Committee to address the issue and to ensure that all our child care and child welfare legislation is consistent on the important point of children's rights.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Like other members, I support Executive amendment 8. I want to comment briefly on amendment 8A, in the name of Ken Macintosh, which does not hit the nail on the head. There may or may not be an issue, but there is not a legal black hole. If we inserted the reference to "developmental disorder" where the member suggests, it would not meet the objective that he has set himself. As the minister said, that would mean placing people with developmental disorders automatically in the situation of incapacity, which is not Ken Macintosh's intention. The issue may be to do with the point in the bill where the member seeks to insert the term. It may be possible to deal with the matter in another way and I do not think that amendment 8A is the right way of dealing it.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

I welcome amendment 8 and acknowledge the work that Scott Barrie, in particular, has done to bring this matter to the attention of the Education Committee. I am grateful that the Executive has taken his arguments on board and has dealt with the issue in this way.

I, too, am not convinced by the minister's arguments against amendment 8A. Neither am I convinced by Mr Brown's arguments. I admit that "developmental disorder" is a wide term and can cover all manner of things. However, "mental illness" is also a wide term—someone does not necessarily lack capacity because they have a mental illness or, indeed, because they have a learning disability. If someone has a developmental disorder, they will not necessarily fall into either of those categories. If a young person has an extreme form of autism that makes them unable to communicate their wishes, they may fall into category 1. However, if they have a condition such as Asperger's syndrome they will not fall into that category, any more than a child with a mild form of mental illness would. I do not follow the logic of the minister's argument and would like to hear a little more.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

I rise to support the amendment in the name of Ken Macintosh. I have received a large mailbag on this issue, mostly from parents of autistic children who feel that their children have been excluded from the bill and who have urged me to vote against it. The Executive will be glad to know that I do not intend to take that course. However, it is very important that the parents to whom I refer should be able to see that the bill addresses their concerns in some way. I urge members to vote for amendment 8A.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

I am sympathetic to the amendment in the name of Ken Macintosh. The minister needs to provide further explanation of why amendment 8A is not necessary, because I do not accept the arguments that he has made to date. The amendment is one way of addressing the position of children with autism. I hope that he will reconsider the matter.

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I will respond first to the point made by Scott Barrie, whose amendments were an important contribution to the work of the Education Committee at stage 2. I appreciate that he made that contribution in the form of probing amendments. We have made it clear that we will examine in more detail the issue of children's and young people's rights by working with the Education Committee and interested members such as Scott Barrie. We were concerned that if such an amendment were made to the bill we would be making piecemeal legislation when a more comprehensive view of the existing body of statute is needed. Scott Barrie was right to refer to the relevant provision of the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000, which does not, however, appear in other pieces of legislation. Consultation on and wide discussion of the matter is needed. We would be pleased to undertake such consultation.

I turn to the important issue that Ken Macintosh has raised. I am sensitive to the point that he made about autism, but I do not believe that there is a legislative black hole. Although we acknowledge his concerns about this matter, we are concerned that amendment 8A might have unintended consequences in certain areas. For example, a child who has dyspraxia might not actually lack capacity; however, amendment 8A would affect a child in that particular circumstance.

We feel that we can cover members' concerns on this matter in the regulations and the code of practice. Although I understand the point that Ken Macintosh is making and acknowledge that amendment 8A is very well intentioned, it is not our view that one particular group will be affected by some black hole in the legislation. That said, if members still have doubts, I am prepared to consider Mr Macintosh's specific points in the regulations and the code of practice.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

I welcome some of the minister's comments. Indeed, I welcome many of the comments that members around the chamber have made and the support that they have expressed for amendment 8A. I also generally welcome the Executive's amendments on capacity issues.

That said, I am still not persuaded by the Executive's argument. I do not accept that adding the term "developmental disorder" does anything other than cover a condition that is not currently covered in subsection 1 of amendment 8. After all, the Executive clearly does not intend to exclude children with autism from these provisions.

Robin Harper made the very good point that many parents and children with autism are anxious about the bill and have many reasons why they feel that the bill does not address their needs. I think that they are wrong and that their anxiety is misplaced. In fact, I hope that the bill's provisions will mean a huge improvement for all children with autism. However, if amendment 8A is agreed to, we will send out a strong message that children with autism and developmental disorders are included in these provisions. As a result, I will press the amendment.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The question is, that amendment 8A be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

There will be a division.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The result of the division is: For 56, Against 50, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 8A agreed to.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

There is very little time to speak on this matter, but I have to ask the minister whether he intends—

Dennis Canavan (Independent, Falkirk West)

To resign.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I think that that might be a bit excessive at this stage. At the moment, I am interested only in knowing whether he intends to press amendment 8, as amended.

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Yes.

Amendment 8, as amended, agreed to.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I ask Lord James Douglas-Hamilton to indicate whether he intends to move amendment 64, which was previously debated with amendment 61.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

As we have already voted on the principle, I will not move amendment 64.

Amendment 64 not moved.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Group 4 is on the general powers and duties of education authorities. Amendment 9, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 10, 74, 11, 12, 14, 15 and 25.

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Amendments 9, 12 and 15 have been lodged in response to debates during stage 2 on the application of subjective rather than objective criteria by education authorities. At stage 2, I undertook to examine the bill to ensure that there was consistency in that matter.

As a result, amendment 9 seeks to replace the subjective criteria in section 2A(1)(b) with an objective criterion in relation to the authority's arrangements for monitoring and reviewing the additional support needs of each child and young person. The effect of the amendment will be that, instead of education authorities simply considering whether the arrangements are appropriate, they must ensure that the arrangements are appropriate.

Similarly, amendments 12 and 15 seek to replace the subjective criteria in section 3(3A) and (4) in relation to the additional support that will be provided for the individual. Instead, the additional support must be appropriate rather than what the education authority considers to be appropriate.

On amendments 10 and 25, I listened carefully at stage 2 to Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's comments about adequacy and effectiveness. Indeed, the issue of effectiveness was raised several times at stage 2 but was rejected each time. Amendment 10 and the similarly worded amendment 25 are unnecessary. An education authority that makes adequate and efficient provision must also, by the very nature of that provision, be providing effective provision. If provision is ineffective, it cannot be adequate. We feel that it is sufficient to keep the adequacy of additional support under consideration, as that will also ensure that it is effective. As a result, I ask members to reject amendments 10 and 25.

Amendment 74 is intended to remove any consideration of public expenditure when an education authority makes provision to meet the additional support needs of the pupils for whom they are responsible. However, remaining silent on that matter, which would be the consequence of the amendment, is unrealistic. After all, an education authority should not be obliged to incur unreasonable expenditure. I should make it clear that the consideration of costs is not the primary concern when making provision for additional support needs. It is right that, as a public body that is accountable for public funds, an education authority should consider the reasonableness of incurring any public expenditure. As we feel that we have achieved the right balance in that respect, I ask members to reject amendment 74.

Amendment 11, in the name of Rosemary Byrne, is unclear and unnecessary. For example, its reference to "the best interests" of the child or young person is not clear. Does that mean the best interests in an educational context or does it include all types of interests? Moreover, the amendment is unnecessary because we already have legislation that governs education authorities' duties with regard to individual children. Indeed, that legislation includes a duty to ensure that education is directed at developing the personality, talents and mental and physical abilities of the child or young person to their fullest potential. As a result, I ask members to reject amendments 11 and 14.

I move amendment 9.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Because of time pressures, I ask Lord James Douglas-Hamilton to take only a minute to speak to amendments 10, 14 and 25.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

I will cut short my remarks and speak in particular to amendments 10 and 25. At stage 2, the committee convener, Robert Brown, had the courage to lodge amendments that suggested that the word "effectiveness" was better than the word "adequacy". Indeed, when the minister disagreed, Mr Brown went so far as to resist the minister's blandishments by abstaining in the vote.

If the Executive was described as adequate rather than effective, that might be taken to mean that the Executive was less than whole-hearted in its purpose. If the bill is to stand the test of time, it will have to be not just adequate, but effective. According to the dictionary, "adequate" means that something is able to fulfil a need or requirement without being abundant and "effective" means that something is productive or is capable of producing a result. All members would wish to pass a bill that is capable of producing a result for children with additional support needs.

I appeal to the minister as a fair-minded man to be fair to himself and accept amendments 10 and 25. Would it not be better if in his handling of the bill the minister was remembered for his effectiveness and not just for his adequacy? After all, none of us wish him to be remembered for having delusions of adequacy.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I call Donald Gorrie to speak to amendment 74. You also have only one minute, Mr Gorrie.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

Amendment 74 would delete from section 2A the words:

"would result in unreasonable public expenditure being incurred."

The minister has moved a little on that subject, but the wording in the bill still leaves the door open for councils not to provide adequate facilities. The background to my amendment is the widespread scepticism that has been repeatedly expressed to the cross-party group on autistic spectrum disorder, especially by parents of people with autistic spectrum disorder. They are totally sceptical about councils fulfilling their duties.

It is essential that the minister either accepts amendment 74 or ensures that the guidance and the code set out very clearly what he has said. There should be wording to the effect that the priority is to meet the best interests of the child in terms of adequate and appropriate levels of support. There must be no room for manoeuvre for a council to fail to provide adequate support just because it has a wee problem with its budget. It is an important issue and what the minister says is of great significance.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Rosemary Byrne also has one minute.

Rosemary Byrne (SSP, South of Scotland)

I want to speak to amendment 11, which is in my name. The wording that I want to add to section 3, under the heading "General functions of education authority in relation to additional support needs", is important. I disagree with the minister. Amendment 11 seeks simply to ask that the best interests of the child be taken into account by every education authority in any of its functions in connection with the provision of school education and, in this case, specifically in connection with the additional support needs of children and young people.

I can cite many instances in which the best interests of the child are not necessarily always at the forefront. For example, there are children on the autistic spectrum who are at present being taught in support bases in our mainstream schools and whose parents are at odds with the education authority because they desire an autistic-specific education rather than an autistic-friendly education. That is a good example of an instance in which young people are being let down by the system. I urge members to support amendment 11.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I am afraid that there is no time for anyone else to contribute or for me to call the minister to respond.

Amendment 9 agreed to.

[Amendment 10 moved—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton].]

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The question is, that amendment 10 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

There will be a division.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The result of the division is: For 50, Against 60, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 10 disagreed to.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Amendment 74, in the name of Donald Gorrie, has already been debated with amendment 9. Mr Gorrie, do you wish to move amendment 74?

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Is it possible for the minister to respond? Whether or not I press my amendment depends on that.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

No, that is not possible.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

I shall press the amendment.

Amendment 74 moved—[Donald Gorrie].

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The question is, that amendment 74 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

There will be a division.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The result of the division is: For 13, Against 82, Abstentions 17.

Amendment 74 disagreed to.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The question is, that amendment 11 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

There will be a division.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The result of the division is: For 52, Against 61, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 11 disagreed to.

Amendment 12 moved—[Euan Robson]—and agreed to.

Amendment 14 moved—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton].

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The question is, that amendment 14 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

There will be a division. Members who wish to support amendment 14 should press their request-to-speak buttons now. I am sorry—I mean that they should press their "yes" buttons now. My tongue is working faster than my brain, I am afraid.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

That is not hard.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

No change there. I look forward to Ms Brankin's next speech in three years' time.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The result of the division is: For 52, Against 58, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 14 disagreed to.

[Amendment 15 moved—[Euan Robson]—and agreed to.]

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Group 5 is on assessments and examinations. Amendment 66, in the name of Rosemary Byrne, is grouped with amendments 67 and 71.

Rosemary Byrne (SSP, South of Scotland)

I shall discuss all the amendments in this group together, as amendments 66 and 71 are consequential on amendment 67. I have had concerns about section 6 from the outset, and my colleagues on the Education Committee will be aware of the fact that I have taken up the issue of assessment since the beginning of our deliberations. I have looked at the issue in many different ways and I had hoped that there would be some improvement.

My concerns about section 6 are about multidisciplinary assessment and correct diagnosis so that appropriate support can be put in place for children and young people. In my experience, one of the most crucial areas of concern to parents is often the fact that the correct assessment has not been carried out on their child. I have met many parents who have taken years to discover that their child is dyspraxic when problems in the early stages of school had been put down to bad behaviour or bad parenting.

I have looked carefully to see whether the bill improves that situation, because a new bill should, after all, introduce something that will make life easier not only for the parents and the child but for the education system, which should be able to assess, examine, diagnose and provide the correct and appropriate support. Children and young people with autistic spectrum disorder often require the expertise of many agencies in order to get a proper diagnosis and proper support. All too often, that is an area of great concern. A huge amount of expertise is needed to diagnose and assess in those areas. Amendments 66 and 67 would allow multidisciplinary assessments to be carried out and I hope that the amendments will be supported.

I move amendment 66.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

We support amendment 66 because we believe that it would allow more people to be considered for the carrying out of assessments. Amendment 67 tightens up the duty on local authorities, which is appropriate. Amendment 71 would provide that the code of practice could make it clear which appropriate professionals can request a multidisciplinary assessment. The amendments are worthy of support.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Rosemary Byrne identifies an important issue, which the committee, too, was concerned about. However, the remedy that she suggests is not right. The issue is complex and different situations require different remedies. The proper way to deal with the detail of the issue is through the code of practice. I urge the chamber to reject the amendments.

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

The effect of amendment 66 would be that anyone could have a say in who is or is not an appropriate person to carry out an assessment or examination. I do not believe that that is what Rosemary Byrne intended. The bill includes provision for ensuring that the views of parents, children and young people are taken into account. Education authorities must also take into account any information that parents or young people submit or that has been submitted on their behalf.

Amendment 67 is not necessary. Section 6 already allows the parent or young people to request an assessment and there is nothing to preclude the parent from requesting a range of multidisciplinary assessments. Amendment 71 is consequential on amendments 66 and 67, so I also resist that.

Rosemary Byrne (SSP, South of Scotland)

I disagree with Robert Brown. I believe that this is the correct road to take. Although I welcome the broadening out that gives parents access to request assessments, I do not think that we have gone far enough. In many cases, parents already request assessments, but they do not get the correct assessment, and the appropriate people are not making those assessments. I will press amendment 66.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The question is, that amendment 66 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

There will be a division.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The result of the division is: For 50, Against 59, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 66 disagreed to.

[Amendment 67 moved—[Ms Rosemary Byrne].]

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The question is, that amendment 67 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

There will be a division.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The result of the division is: For 50, Against 59, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 67 disagreed to.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Amendment 20, in the name of Rhona Brankin, is grouped with amendments 1, 22, 23, 28, 30, 91, 2, 3, 33, 33A, 33B, 33C, 33D and 93. If amendment 20 is agreed to, amendments 1 and 21 are pre-empted. If amendment 91 is agreed to, amendments 2 and 31 are pre-empted. If amendment 33A is agreed to, amendment 33B is pre-empted. If amendment 33C is agreed to, amendment 33D is pre-empted. I hope that you have all got that.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I will speak to amendment 20 and the consequential amendments 91, 33A, 33B, 33C and 33D. Section 7(1A) states that education authorities

"need not comply with the duty"

to prepare co-ordinated support plans when the parent or young person agrees with that. That could fundamentally undermine the rights of parents and young people to have a co-ordinated support plan opened when the criteria are met.

One of the main policies driving the bill is the need to ensure that children with additional support needs have the same right to have those needs met wherever they live in Scotland. One of the main criticisms of the previous record-of-needs legislation was the variation with which it was applied in different local authorities.

Another main policy behind the bill is the need to ensure continuity of provision when children with a CSP move to a school in a different local authority. In such cases, the CSP is vital to ensuring that the receiving authority can make appropriate provision quickly.

The bill seeks to establish new rights for children with additional support needs and their parents. However, as it stands, the bill will allow local authorities too much flexibility in interpreting the legislation. The danger is that it tips the balance away from the rights of parents and children and towards the rights of local authorities. There is also a danger that it could act as a get-out clause for local authorities that might be concerned about bureaucracy. One of the bill's benefits is that it will reduce bureaucracy.

There is also a concern that looked-after children could be seriously disadvantaged. If the local authority is acting as the parent, how can it agree with itself not to open a co-ordinated support plan? How are the rights of the young person protected in that instance?

Parents who are well aware of their rights under the legislation will be able to insist that a co-ordinated support plan is opened, but there is a danger that those parents who are less well informed about their rights might be persuaded that a co-ordinated support plan is not necessary even though it might be in their and their children's interests to have a plan. Those are the reasons behind amendment 20 and the consequential amendments.

I move amendment 20.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I, too, have serious concerns about the stage 2 amendment that was lodged at the suggestion of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. Amendments 1, 2 and 3 seek to protect the rights of looked-after children in particular. As Rhona Brankin said, the local authority will have rights as a provider and as the parent. I lodged amendments 1, 2 and 3 because I was concerned that the balance had shifted from the rights of parents back towards those of local authorities.

We have grappled with that issue throughout consideration of the bill, as has the Executive—hence amendment 33. If the Executive were so relaxed about the fact that there might be agreement not to have CSPs, why is there an extensive amendment to compensate for the fact that there might be problems? I realise that if amendment 20 is passed, it will pre-empt amendments 1, 2 and 3, but I think that the logical path is to support amendment 20. Although Rhona Brankin and I have disagreed on a number of issues while considering the bill, I think that we can come together on this one.

If there is logic to it, COSLA's case can be made at a later stage when the legislation has bedded in. The issue is to do with trust, and the jury is out among parents as to whether they can trust local authorities to deliver. We should wait and see before accepting that case. I urge members to take the commonsense approach and support amendment 20. If that fails, they should support amendments 1, 2 and 3.

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I start by speaking to amendment 33 and consequential amendments 22 and 28. In light of the committee's deliberations, I lodged those amendments to qualify the amendments that were accepted at stage 2 on the provision for agreement not to prepare or continue a co-ordinated support plan. I have since had further discussions with members, and I listened carefully to Rhona Brankin's eloquent summary of the reasons for her amendments. I am now prepared to accept amendments 20, 93 and 91. I will therefore not move amendment 33 and consequential amendments 22 and 28.

Amendment 23 is straightforward. Its purpose is to ensure that a co-ordinated support plan contains the name and contact details of the person who is co-ordinating the provision of the additional support under the CSP, whether that person is part of the authority or outwith the authority. As the bill is worded, the details would be recorded on the CSP only when the person was outwith the authority. That was not the intention and it needs to be changed. It is likely that the majority of CSPs will be co-ordinated by a member of the education staff. It is important that the CSP is specific about who is taking the co-ordinating role. Amendment 23 will ensure that that happens.

Amendment 30 is a minor technical amendment to tidy up section 9(6). I will not go into the details.

I understand fully why Fiona Hyslop lodged amendments 1, 2 and 3 but, in accepting amendment 20, we will accept the will of Parliament.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

I am grateful that the minister is going to accept amendment 20, for which we have considerable sympathy. The interests of the child should be paramount, but there might have been exceptional circumstances in which section 7(1A) did not find itself in accordance with the best interests of the child.

Rhona Brankin gave a persuasive speech. There is strong support for her amendments from Children in Scotland and Barnardo's Scotland. The research and policy officer of Barnardo's Scotland sent a strong e-mail to that effect. He goes by the name of Douglas Hamilton and, in all fairness, I see no reason why Douglas-Hamilton cannot support Douglas Hamilton.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

I, too, am pleased that the Executive has accepted amendment 20. Rhona Brankin is to be congratulated on the doggedness with which she has pursued her concern. Section 7(1A), which was introduced at stage 2, was stimulated by confusion, originally from COSLA, about who might be eligible for a co-ordinated support plan. That confusion has been erased and there is now considerably more clarity about who is eligible. I am grateful to the Executive for agreeing that subsection (1A) should be removed.

Amendments 33A to 33D are unnecessary, because amendment 20 will supersede amendment 33.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

I congratulate Rhona Brankin on lodging amendment 20 and the Executive on accepting it. There was an unacceptable risk in the bill that young children would not get the service that they deserve. That risk will now be removed, for which I am thankful.

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

I, too, congratulate Rhona Brankin on amendment 20 and the consequential amendments, and I am glad that the Executive is accepting them. The record-of-needs system has led to wide differentiation in the way that records of need are used in Scotland, particularly since the creation of 32 local education authorities under local government reorganisation. If we are to have a new way of dealing with youngsters who require additional support, it is important that we have a much more consistent system throughout Scotland. Section 7(1A), which was inserted at stage 2, would have led to the opposite, and to the system that we have at the moment, so I am glad that the situation will be remedied by the removal of that subsection.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I very much welcome the Executive's change of heart. There may have been a fundamental misunderstanding on the part of COSLA. Any potential new bureaucracy around the bill will need to be monitored closely. I welcome the Executive's change of heart, which restores my belief that the bill will give parents and children significant new rights.

Amendment 20 agreed to.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Minister, will you move amendment 22?

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

It is consequential, so I will not move it.

Amendment 22 not moved.

[Amendments 23 and 24 moved—[Euan Robson]—and agreed to.]

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I remind members that if amendment 91 is agreed to, it will pre-empt amendments 2 and 31.

Amendment 91 moved—[Rhona Brankin]—and agreed to.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Amendment 3, in the name of Fiona Hyslop, has been debated with amendment 20. Are you moving amendment 3, Ms Hyslop?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Can you clarify whether amendment 3 is pre-empted by amendment 20?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

It is not pre-empted.

Amendment 3 moved—[Fiona Hyslop].

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The question is, that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

There will be a division.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The result of the division is: For 53, Against 60, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 3 disagreed to.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Group 7 is on education authorities' duty to inform. Amendment 32, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 90, 53 and 55. If amendment 90 is agreed to, amendment 53 will be pre-empted.

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Amendment 32 is a minor technical amendment to tidy up the bill to avoid duplication of the provision that it is intended to introduce with amendment 55. It will delete reference in section 9(9) to the form and manner in which an education authority will be required to give information to parents, young people and managers of independent and grant-aided schools.

Section 23A makes specific provision on information that is to be provided when authorities decide not to comply with requests. Amendment 55 is intended to add a provision on the form in which information is to be given to parents and young people. Amendment 55 provides that when an education authority communicates with parents or young people under the bill, they do so in writing. Alternatively, that communication may be in another form that is capable of some permanence, where that other form is appropriate, given the communication needs of the recipient. Therefore section 9(9)(g) is no longer required.

On amendment 53, I gave a commitment at stage 2 to consider the wording of an amendment lodged by Fiona Hyslop. I said at the time that I wanted to ensure that when a refusal of a request gives rise to a right of referral to the tribunals, that right is highlighted in any education authority response. The bill has been examined for any inconsistencies. Amendment 53 will plug the gap. Reference will be made in section 23A to section 4(2)(b), which refers to an education authority's refusal to consider a child or young person's requirement for a co-ordinated support plan.

I oppose amendment 90 on the ground that the bill already adequately covers the circumstances that can and cannot be referred to the tribunals. In addition, amendment 53 already addresses any inconsistency in the bill with regard to notification of rights of referral. I ask Adam Ingram not to move amendment 90.

I move amendment 32.

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

With amendment 90 I want to ensure that everyone who has the right to appeal to the tribunal after a legitimate request is refused is provided with the relevant information as to their rights to do so. I acknowledge that, by introducing amendment 53, the minister has responded to the natural justice arguments that Fiona Hyslop raised at stage 2, but in doing so he has limited the scope for referral to requesting the establishment or review of a CSP. We want to expand the scope for referrals to tribunals beyond those narrow parameters and I have lodged amendments to that effect that Parliament has yet to consider. Amendment 90 would not pre-empt that debate, but, by contrast, amendment 53 is too restrictive.

Amendment 32 agreed to.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Group 8 is on the duties that arise when a child or young person nears completion of school education. Amendment 68, in the name of Elaine Murray, is grouped with amendments 76, 38, 77 and 92.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

Amendment 68 may seem a rather strange little amendment because it would simply change wording from the present tense to the present perfect tense. However, I believe that it has caused a fair stir among the draftspersons because it is unusual for wording to be in that tense. I lodged amendment 68 because concerns have been continually expressed about the way in which arrangements will be made for transition from school. The amendment would make it clear that the process is to be completed 12 months before the child leaves rather than commence at that point. As written, the duty could imply that consideration of the information may take place during the 12 months before the child leaves rather than before that period. I believe that the Executive's intention is that that should not happen, but changing the tense might make the intention a bit clearer. I introduced a similar amendment at stage 2, but I did not press it because the Executive wanted to consider alternatives.

Amendment 76, in the name of Rosemary Byrne, probably has the same intention, but it might require education authorities to ensure that children receive adequate support after leaving school. That is not really within the competence of education authorities; it will be an obligation on the organisations to which young people go after leaving school. The Executive's amendment 38 is intended to have the same effect as my amendment would have, but I am not convinced that it will do so. I wait to hear from the minister how amendment 38 will achieve the same effect as amendment 68.

Amendment 77 would require education authorities to provide information to the relevant agencies 12 months before a child transfers from school. However, that could be simultaneous with the completion of the examination of the arrangements that are needed, which might be somewhat impractical.

I move amendment 68.

Rosemary Byrne (SSP, South of Scotland)

Amendments 77 and 92 aim to tighten up anomalies in the bill. Information on young people who are leaving school should be exchanged between the agencies that support the young person. That should be done a minimum of 12 months, not six months, prior to the transition from school. However, although section 10(5)(a) states that education authorities must request information at least 12 months prior to the transition, section 11(1)(a) states that they must provide information to other agencies at least six months prior to that date. We should tidy that up and make the period 12 months in both cases.

Amendment 76 relates to the duties to seek and take account of advice and information. Alongside amendments 77 and 92, amendment 76 has been lodged to ensure that everything possible is done to make the transition from school to college, training or other placements as smooth as possible. Amendment 76 would make section 10 read "in ensuring that adequate support is co-ordinated or provided for the child or young person during the period before the child or young person ceases to receive school education", rather than

"in considering the adequacy of the additional support provided for the child or young person during the period before the child or young person ceases to receive school education."

The change in wording would strengthen the commitment to ensuring ease of transition. The present system uses formal needs assessments and good practice exists. Amendment 76 would ensure that that good practice continues. We do not want to diminish it. I ask members to support amendments 76, 77 and 92.

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

In response to the possibility of misunderstandings about timescales on post-school transition, I undertook to consider the introduction of an amendment to clarify the situation. Amendment 38 will change the wording of section 10(6) from "support provided" to "support to be provided". The amendment is intended to make it clear that, while education authorities must have obtained information and views and taken account of them before they reach the point 12 months prior to the child or young person's expected leaving date, that information is to be used to inform the adequacy of the provision that is to be made for the period leading up to the leaving date. I reiterate that that has always been the policy intention and I regret that it was not clear from the original wording.

I resist amendment 68 on the ground that it is unnecessary in the light of amendment 38. Amendment 68 is also inconsistent with drafting elsewhere in the bill and in other legislation. Elaine Murray is correct that there was considerable debate about the matter with the parliamentary draftsmen. Section 11(1) might cause confusion if the present perfect tense were used in section 10(5). Amendment 68 might be interpreted as a deliberate move to distinguish section 10(5) from others, which would be unfortunate. Amendment 38 should help to give a clearer sense that action must have been taken 12 months before the leaving date. Elaine Murray and I had recourse to English grammar texts in discussing the issue, but I hope that she agrees that amendment 38 clarifies matters sufficiently and that she will withdraw amendment 68.

I resist amendment 76 because it is unnecessary. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that education authorities co-ordinate and provide adequate support during the 12-month period before the young person leaves school. However, the bill already places a duty on education authorities to identify and support the additional support needs of all children and young people for whom they are responsible. That duty applies throughout a child or young person's school career. If a young person needs additional support that requires an element of co-ordination, that will be done through the young person's CSP or individualised education programme. I ask Rosemary Byrne not to move amendment 76.

I resist amendment 77 on the same grounds on which I resisted a similar amendment at stage 2. Amendment 77 proposes that information should be passed to post-school support agencies no later than 12 months before the school leaving date. However, such a timescale would not achieve the aim of providing information. The policy intention behind the duty on education authorities to pass information to agencies that provide post-school provision is to alert those agencies to the young person's imminent leaving date. Amendment 77 would oblige education authorities to pass on information that may be premature or no longer relevant by the time the young person leaves school. Amendment 92 is consequential on amendment 77 and I resist it accordingly. I ask Rosemary Byrne not to move amendments 77 and 92.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

In view of the time, I will invite Dr Elaine Murray to wind up on the group this afternoon and to say at that stage whether she intends to press amendment 68. We will then decide on the other amendments in the group.

First Minister's Question Time

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-784)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

At the next meeting of the Cabinet, we will discuss taking forward the partnership agreement to build a better Scotland.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Does the First Minister believe that it is undesirable to resist the loss of Scottish corporate headquarters?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The retention of Scottish corporate headquarters in Scotland is, in my view, extremely important for the Scottish economy, for the confidence of Scotland and for the confidence of our financial services sector. That is why it is particularly important for us to maintain the close links that we have, not just with Standard Life, in the context of yesterday's announcement, but with the Royal Bank of Scotland and HBOS. In doing that, we need to ensure that we create the kind of environment in which those companies want not only to keep their corporate headquarters in Scotland, but to expand their operations. That is exactly what we seek to achieve.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I am a bit surprised by the First Minister's answer. I refer him to a document published by his Government, which provides

"the overarching vision of the Scottish Executive"

and is entitled "The Way Forward: Framework for Economic Development in Scotland". In the section dealing with key principles, it states:

"It is ... undesirable ... to resist the loss of Scottish corporate headquarters."

Can the First Minister explain why his Government believes that it is undesirable to fight to keep corporate headquarters in Scotland? What is he going to do to change the Government's economic strategy to prepare us for the difficulties that we now face?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

If there is a document that says that, it is wrong. If that document is the "Framework for Economic Development in Scotland", I am glad that we are updating it. If that document was agreed by the Cabinet in which I served before I was First Minister and I saw that sentence before it was published, I assure Mr Swinney that I would deeply regret that.

I want this chamber and Scotland to be in no doubt that the primary objective of the regular meetings that I have had with the six main companies in Scotland that have their corporate headquarters in this country, and with those in other key sectors, such as the power sector and the food and drink sector, which lead the way for Scotland in their areas of business throughout the world, has been to ensure not only that they keep jobs in Scotland and remain profitable companies, but that they have their corporate headquarters in Scotland.

We cannot legislate to ensure that individual private companies keep their corporate headquarters in Scotland but we can fight to retain them and ensure that we create the right conditions to make that possible. That is why we need to have a strong, stable United Kingdom economy and, in Scotland, the best skills and infrastructure. Mr Swinney's plans for so-called financial independence for Scotland would destroy that regulatory framework and drive those corporate headquarters out of Scotland as quickly as they could go.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I do not know whether the First Minister has been reading the newspapers, but he might like to know that the Liberal Democrats also believe in fiscal independence for the people of Scotland. It is not just me who is leading the way with these innovative arguments. However, let us leave the misdirection of the First Minister's answer and get back to the core of the serious issue that I have raised.

As he always does when there is a problem with the documents that the Government produces, the First Minister has distanced himself from the document that we are talking about. He does that on all sorts of issues, but we should return to the detail of the matter. The "Framework for Economic Development in Scotland" was produced when he was a member of the Cabinet. On 6 November 2003, when he was the First Minister, the Scottish Executive issued a statement that said:

"Scottish Ministers believe that the principles of FEDS remain the right ones for economic development in Scotland, and that there is no need to re-write or re-invent any of its fundamental principles."

One of its fundamental principles is that it is

"undesirable ... to resist the loss of Scottish corporate headquarters".

All the rhetoric from the First Minister is fine. All the brave talk about defending the competitive position of Scottish companies is all very well. What matters is what the Government is doing to safeguard the position of those companies. Why does the First Minister not accept that there is a genuine competitive threat to the financial services sector in Scotland and that, unless the Scottish Parliament has the ability to put our country at a competitive advantage, we will lose out in that competition? Will the First Minister accept that there is now a compelling need for the Parliament to have the powers to safeguard the future of our financial services sector?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

If Mr Swinney quotes accurately from that document that was published in 2000, then it is clear that that document is wrong. Although Mr Swinney might have a smart moment today—quoting a sentence out of context—and might enjoy that point, I tell him that all the evidence shows that this is a serious situation. Some 1,000 job losses at Standard Life were announced yesterday. We have a long-term fight on our hands to retain the corporate headquarters of that company in Scotland. The making of trivial, cheap points in the chamber does not help that case at all.

There is a fundamental difference between those Liberal Democrats who support some additional taxation powers for Scotland and Mr Swinney. Mr Swinney does not support fiscal autonomy for Scotland—he supports independence for Scotland. The first thing that would happen if Scotland were to have its own employment regime, its own fiscal regime and the higher taxes and cuts in public expenditure that would result from SNP plans is that those corporate headquarters would go—and Mr Swinney knows that. That is why his party hides its policy dishonestly behind a smokescreen of fiscal autonomy.

We need to ensure that we have that competitive edge in Scotland, but that we also have it off the back of a strong, stable United Kingdom economy that is stronger and more stable than any of our competitors. Here in Scotland, the skills that are available and the growth of our financial services sector still compete well, not only with the rest of Europe, but the rest of the world. We will continue to promote that.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Standard Life faces demutualisation because of decisions taken by the UK Financial Services Authority that undermined the position of that company. The First Minister presides over an economic strategy that says that it would be

"undesirable ... to resist the loss of Scottish corporate headquarters".

Why does the First Minister not stop ranting and raving to the Parliament and start delivering protection for the Scottish economy?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Mr Swinney is keen on quoting documents so I will quote what he said yesterday:

"other countries are increasing employment in the sector by aggressively using ... powers".—[Official Report, 31 March 2004; c 7278-9.]

He implied that we in Scotland are not. I hear his members saying that that is true. Today they seek to run down the financial services sector in Scotland. The truth is that Ireland, the country that is most often cited by the nationalist party, has seen its financial sector employment grow at half the rate of the Scottish financial services sector over the past six years. Employment in the Scottish financial services sector is growing at twice the rate of that in Ireland. That is something that we should be proud of, that we should promote and not run down. We all know that how that rate will grow is by ensuring that Scotland remains—not just becomes—the place in all Europe with the most financial services-related graduates, with the best skills mix and where American companies have increased their investment in our financial services sector by 50 per cent in recent years. In US Banker magazine last year, American experts said:

"Scotland is generating the same kind of excitement as Dublin did a while back. It's the new Ireland."

That is where we want to be—not where Mr Swinney is—and that is where we will get to.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

To ask the First Minister when he next plans to meet the Prime Minister and what issues he intends to discuss. (S2F-787)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I have no immediate plans to meet the Prime Minister.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

I hope that when the First Minister and the Prime Minister next meet they compare notes on the subject of inquiries. That is something about which the Prime Minister knows a thing or two.

Will the First Minister tell us what contact he or his office has had with the BBC during the past six months to persuade it to co-operate fully with the Fraser inquiry? How many meetings have been held and how many nice letters have been written, and to what end?

The First Minister will know that the Fraser inquiry expressed its disappointment at the outcome of yesterday's vote in Parliament. In the light of that, and of the First Minister's repeated pledges fully to support the inquiry, what does the First Minister intend to do to ensure that Lord Fraser is given access to the interview tapes on terms that are acceptable to the inquiry, rather than on terms that are dictated by the BBC?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

In relation to contact, not just between my office and the BBC, but between the Executive and the BBC during recent months, I am not aware that any meetings have taken place and I am not aware of any written correspondence, but there have been several attempts by senior officials in the Executive to persuade both the BBC and those who are responsible for the inquiry to get together and resolve that particular disagreement. I thought that that was in the interests of the inquiry and that it was certainly the will of the Parliament, as yesterday's vote showed, and as a result I have sanctioned occasional—and sometimes regular—contact with both parties to try to ensure that they come together.

I am not just disappointed, but angry that that has not come about. I believe very strongly in the position that the Parliament took yesterday. I believe that the Conservative motion was a danger to democracy: for politicians to instruct independent broadcasters to provide information to them would be a dangerous step too far, except in really exceptional circumstances. I believe very strongly that the will of the Parliament, as it was clearly expressed yesterday—I remind Mr McLetchie that the Conservatives voted against it—is that the BBC should co-operate with the inquiry and allow Lord Fraser to see the tapes. That will should now be implemented by the BBC in Scotland. The BBC is damaging its own reputation by its failure to do that and it needs to co-operate—and co-operate quickly.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Of course, the First Minister is not telling me anything that I do not already know or have not been calling for during the past six to eight months.

I am somewhat surprised at the limited nature of the contact between the Executive and the BBC, given the importance of the issue and the pledges that the First Minister has repeatedly made to the Parliament about the conduct of the inquiry. I remind the First Minister that on 19 June 2003 he told the Parliament:

"If, when the Parliament reviews Lord Fraser's report, it wants to take action to supplement Lord Fraser's interventions and assessment of any non-co-operation, it"—

that is, the Parliament—

"has the powers to do so."—[Official Report, 19 June 2003; c 952-53.]

Are the powers to which the First Minister referred on 19 June the same powers under section 23 of the Scotland Act 1998 that he and his colleagues now find so unacceptable and yesterday voted against using, on a matter of so-called principle? If the BBC is judged by Lord Fraser to have failed to co-operate satisfactorily with his inquiry, will the First Minister continue to oppose the use of those powers?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

First, I remind Mr McLetchie—because none of us should ever forget this—that the position that I have just outlined and that the Parliament supported yesterday is not the position that he has been calling for in recent weeks. He has been calling on the Parliament to instruct the BBC to hand over confidential tapes to politicians so that politicians can decide what to do with them.

That would be dangerous in a democracy. The worst memories of Thatcherism recall such a scenario. In the new democracy in Scotland we should stand firm against such a populist—in Mr McLetchie's mind—but entirely unthinking use of an important power. It is one thing for this Parliament to have a power, but another thing for it to use it wisely. I hope that this Parliament will use its powers wisely. If it ever uses the power in section 23 of the Scotland Act 1998, it must use it with great care and attention, and with the absolute principle in mind that a precedent created here could be far more dangerous further down the line in someone else's hands.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

What is the answer to the question? I repeat: if the BBC is judged by Lord Fraser to have failed to co-operate satisfactorily with his inquiry, will the First Minister still oppose the use of powers that are available to this Parliament? Will he still do that—yes or no?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I think that I made my position very clear: any use of those powers at any stage should be considered very carefully by this Parliament. Unlike Mr McLetchie and one or two other members in the chamber—who should think very carefully about how they conduct themselves in this whole process—I have said consistently, since the beginning of the inquiry, that none of us should prejudge the inquiry's outcome. We should support Lord Fraser in his attempts to ensure that he gets all the facts into his report and that he gets the right analysis that allows us to learn the right lessons for the future. He continues to have my full support in trying to achieve that. I am not going to prejudge him, pre-empt him or try to influence him at this stage.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

We have an urgent constituency question. I call Dennis Canavan.

Dennis Canavan (Independent, Falkirk West)

In view of the fact that the Mayflower Corporation went into administration yesterday with a resultant threat to around 1,000 jobs in my constituency, will the First Minister contact the administrator and any prospective buyer to see what the Scottish Executive can offer by way of assistance or advice? When I meet management and trade union representatives at TransBus International tomorrow morning, can I convey to them an assurance that the First Minister will do everything possible to try to save the jobs of the workers at Falkirk and Larbert, who make such an important contribution, not just to the local economy but to the economy of Scotland as a whole?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I would want Dennis Canavan to convey my absolute support to the work force, which does not deserve to be affected by the way in which this company has apparently been managed over recent times. The work force has converted the company from what was part of the old bus system in Scotland into a modern international company that sells an excellent product at a competitive rate on the worldwide market. The company is a successful part of the Scottish manufacturing industry today and we need every part of that manufacturing industry that we have. We will give every support that we can, and we will make every intervention that we can, to ensure the continued viability and success of the work that takes place on the site.

I understand that Deloitte & Touche has been appointed as the administrators. We are already making contact with Deloitte & Touche to offer any assistance.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

To ask the First Minister what action is being taken to ensure that the activities of gangmasters are properly regulated. (S2F-795)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

We co-operate with the actions of the different United Kingdom Government departments that take the lead in this area. We are currently participating in discussions at a UK level to address the issue of tightening controls over gangmasters. We support in principle legislative proposals requiring gangmasters to be licensed.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

The First Minister will be aware of recent arrests made by Grampian police in Aberdeen and Fraserburgh as a result of investigations into illegal activities by gangmasters. Does the First Minister agree that, although some businesses, including fish processing businesses, have genuine recruitment problems, resorting to the use of illegal labour is not the answer? Does he agree that the measures proposed in Jim Sheridan's private member's bill at Westminster represent a significant step forward in regulating the work of gangmasters; and does he agree that, although we welcome people coming to this country legally to work, those who are brought here illegally are too often being exploited for the benefit of unscrupulous gangmasters?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

We should certainly come down very hard on those who are employing people who are here illegally and are exploiting them in the process. The recent actions of UK Government departments and those responsible for pursuing those involved in such exploitation have our full support. The Executive is also involved, and where its departments can assist with that, they do so. For example, when complaints are made about agricultural wages and the exploitation of agricultural workers under those systems, our inspectors consider the circumstances and take action if required. The Executive will continue to work closely with UK Government departments on that, and it will co-operate with plans for legislation.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

Have discussions been held with industry interests, such as organisations representing fish processors, to give them guidance on employing staff through agencies and on ensuring that those arrangements are legal and that the agencies are held accountable? What discussions has the First Minister had with his counterparts in Westminster to achieve that end?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

There have recently been a number of discussions with those who represent the fish processing industry. I believe that, at about this time last year, there was a proposal for some financial support from the Government for the industry to attract more migrant labour. As a result of state aid rules, we were unable to provide that support, but the industry was able to secure support from the Sea Fish Industry Authority. The agencies that work with the industry, and the Government, are in regular contact with the industry. We would wish to give the industry every assistance in doing the right thing, and ensuring that people who come from abroad to work legally in this country are paid proper rates, are treated properly, and are not exploited by intermediaries.

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

Gangmasters are not the only people who are in the business of exploiting vulnerable foreign workers. Is the First Minister aware of the situation at Monaghan Middlebrook Mushrooms at Drem, where local employees have been squeezed out and replaced by foreign workers, who are supposedly on the national minimum wage, but who have money deducted for accommodation and transport? Will the First Minister ensure that the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board intervenes to protect east European workers from exploitation and to safeguard the jobs of local staff? Will he support the efforts of the Transport and General Workers Union to represent all the workers at Monaghan Middlebrook Mushrooms?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The Executive would certainly want to monitor any situation that was being drawn to its attention. If members are aware of specific instances in which there are accusations of exploitation that are not already being tackled, they should write to me, to Ross Finnie or to Allan Wilson, to ensure that action is taken. However, the Executive prefers that the introduction of new labour from overseas is not at the expense of local people as a result of how the new labour is exploited. The best protection that people can have in those circumstances is the protection of their trade union.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

To ask the First Minister whether people who contracted hepatitis C through contaminated blood products will have to waive their right to legal action in order to receive an ex gratia payment. (S2F-803)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

No, they will not. People who receive awards from the Skipton fund will not be required to sign such a waiver.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

I very much welcome that response. However, what is the status of the Scottish Executive briefing paper that is referred to in a Sunday newspaper? The briefing paper reads:

"People who receive payments under the scheme will be asked to sign an undertaking not to institute proceedings against the NHS or ministers in relation to their having been infected with hepatitis C from blood, blood products or tissue received from the NHS before September 1991".

Given the alarm among those who have contracted hepatitis C, what action will the Executive take to reassure them that they will not be debarred from seeking compensation through the courts?