Scottish Parliament, 6 October 2004

395 contributions from 79 members. The official report.

Introduction

Time for Reflection

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Good morning. Our first item of business is time for reflection. Our time for reflection leader today is Graeme Sinclair of Deaf Action.

Business Motions

George Reid (None, Ochil)

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S2M-1824, in the name of Margaret Curran, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, which sets out a revised programme of business for this morning.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees the following revision to the programme of business for 6 October 2004— Wednesday 6 October 2004 after,

9.30 am Time for Reflection followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions leave out, followed by Ministerial Statement on Efficient Government - Efficiency, Effectiveness and Productivity followed by Executive Debate on Ministerial Statement on Efficient Government - Efficiency, Effectiveness and Productivity and insert, followed by First Minister's Motion to appoint a Minister followed by First Minister's Motion to appoint Junior Scottish Ministers.—[Ms Margaret Curran.]

Motion agreed to.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S2M-1825, in the name of Margaret Curran, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, which sets out a timetable for stage 3 consideration of the School Education (Ministerial Powers and Independent Schools) (Scotland) Bill.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees that, during Stage 3 of the School Education (Ministerial Powers and Independent Schools) (Scotland) Bill, debate on each part of the proceedings shall be brought to a conclusion by the time-limits indicated (each time-limit being calculated from when the Stage 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 30 minutes Motion to pass the Bill - 1 hour.—[Ms Margaret Curran.]

Motion agreed to.

Minister

George Reid (None, Ochil)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-1822, in the name of Jack McConnell, on the appointment of a minister. Members who wish to speak in the debate should please press their request-to-speak buttons. I call the First Minister to speak to and move the motion.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I begin by thanking Frank McAveety and Mary Mulligan for their service as Executive ministers. While our Opposition has run down Scotland, Frank McAveety has been responsible for the establishment of a tourism marketing budget for Scotland that puts tourism marketing spend at twice the rate south of the border, which is no mean achievement. He has also been responsible for producing a strategy for bringing international events to Scotland and has put in place a strategy for sports facilities throughout Scotland that shows our ambitions for Scotland and how we want our country to succeed.

Mary Mulligan has contributed much to the work of the Executive and Parliament over the past five years. In particular, I acknowledge her leadership through the committee system of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill last winter and spring, in the teeth of opposition from the Conservatives and the nationalists who were totally opposed to communities' taking back more control of their environments.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

rose

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 gives people real rights and powers and allows them to see the action that is being taken to address problems. Mary Mulligan's record in taking the bill through Parliament is to be admired. I thank her and Frank McAveety for their efforts.

However, the main purpose of today's motion is to propose that Parliament make Tom McCabe an Executive minister—I propose that for a number of reasons. First, I believe that Tom McCabe has a record, both from before he was a member of Parliament and since, that indicates not just that he is competent, but that he will be innovative and imaginative and that he will progress the agenda in his portfolio in a way that will benefit Scotland. He is one of the few MSPs to have achieved 2 per cent efficiency savings year on year in a public organisation, which he did when he was leader of South Lanarkshire Council. Also, in his time as convener of the Finance Committee, Tom McCabe showed willingness and ability to work with members of other parties to ensure that Parliament's finance systems and budgets worked effectively.

However, it has been in his time as the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care that we have seen how Tom McCabe can galvanise an issue and make progress on it in the interest of Scotland—not just in addressing key problems that exist in many communities throughout Scotland in relation to provision of dental services and not just in relation to improving standards of care for elderly citizens but, more recently, in leading the biggest consultation exercise that Parliament or the Executive has ever undertaken. The consultation on smoking in public places has been a huge success for those on both sides of the argument. Over the next few weeks, it will lead us to make a decision in Cabinet, on 10 November, on the action that we will take to ban smoking in public places and to produce legislation as speedily as possible.

It is also important for us to recognise that, if the motion is successful, Tom McCabe will be joining a team that works in the interests of Scotland—a team that, in five years of devolution, has seen standards in our schools, the level of performance of our teachers and education staff and the level of investment in our education system rise every year.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The First Minister did not want to take an intervention from me earlier.

Will the First Minister tell us why it is that more people are leaving school now without any qualifications than was the case five years ago?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

We heard from the Conservatives during the summer that too many young Scots were getting qualifications—that was their argument back in August. They resent the fact that young people throughout Scotland are now able to get qualifications that suit them and they are envious of the fact that we have managed to implement a policy that reverses what the Tories did to education in Scotland; we have brought vocational education back into our schools so that all young people have a chance to maximise their talents. That policy was destroyed by the Tories' educational policies in the 1980s. We have given education an opportunity to work for Scotland again.

The work of the ministerial team has also improved the Scottish health service. It is not just that there are new facilities and centres in communities throughout Scotland; the longest waits in our health service are coming down, lives are being saved and there are more doctors and nurses in our health service to ensure that people have the highest-quality care.

Tom McCabe will join that team and will ensure that we have the budgets with which to succeed. Through the budgets that we allocate, police numbers in Scotland will reach their highest-ever levels year on year. The crime clear-up rate in Scotland is higher than it has been since the second world war. We have taken action in legislation and in allocation of resources to tackle drug barons and the most serious criminals in Scotland, and to reform our courts to ensure that such people are prosecuted properly.

Those achievements are all financed by the budget for which Tom McCabe will be responsible. He will also have responsibility for other matters, not the least of which is our external relations strategy, which is our initiative to promote Scotland abroad, to represent our interests in Europe and to ensure that we attract fresh talent to our shores.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Will the First Minister clarify where ministerial responsibility lies for external affairs? There is some confusion on the Scottish Executive website about whether that responsibility rests with Mr McCabe or with Patricia Ferguson as the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport. Will the First Minister tell us what responsibilities Mr McCabe and Patricia Ferguson will have?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I will be delighted to do that, and I am not surprised that Mr Swinney is a bit confused. We have enough ambitions for Scotland to share responsibility for external relations between the two ministers. We have so much to do for Scotland and so much in the way of ambition for Scotland that we are ensuring that all our ministers are involved in promoting Scotland at home and abroad.

If the motion is successful, the Labour and Liberal Democrat team that works for Scotland will ensure that we have efficient and well-managed budgets from which money is spent on the right things and invested for Scotland in the long term. That team will not support the Alex in Wonderland economics that have returned to Scotland from London to haunt us again. Nor will this team go down the road that is proposed by the Conservatives and drop our fresh talent scheme that will promote Scotland and ensure that we have the talent in our country to prosper in the years ahead. This team will continue to work for Scotland. I hope that after today's vote Tom McCabe will be a member of it. That will ensure that we have efficient budgets and it will also ensure that we deliver our ambitions.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that Mr Tom McCabe be appointed as a Minister.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

That glowing tribute to Tom McCabe makes me wonder why one of Jack McConnell's first acts when he became First Minister was to sack him from the cabinet. However, that tribute was as nothing compared to the glowing tribute that we heard to Frank McAveety this morning, which leads me to my next question: Why did he get the boot? Surely it was not all down to pie and beans in the canteen.

I do not oppose the motion out of any personal animosity towards Tom McCabe; I wish him well in his new post and I am absolutely sure that he will be as able as Andy Kerr was to distribute the portion of our money that Gordon Brown decides to give us back in pocket money each year. I leave it to Tom McCabe to work out whether that was a commendation or not.

As someone who always likes to look at the bright side of any situation, I have at last managed to come up with an advantage in having a Parliament that has no responsibility to raise the money that it spends, no power to set its own tax rate, no ability to take effective measures to stimulate economic growth and none of the powers that normal grown-up Parliaments and Governments the world over take for granted. The advantage is that there is limited scope for the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform to mess up. Given the Executive's track record, that can only be a good thing. Jack McConnell is shaking his head and writing furiously; it seems that he clearly wishes to reserve Tom McCabe's right to mess up.

I oppose the motion more for what it does not say than for what it does say. To be frank, when we consider the big challenges that face Scotland and the failure, over the lifetime of Jack McConnell's Administration, of his ministers to meet the challenges and to deliver real improvements, it beggars belief that the only new face—if it does not stretch the imagination too much to refer to him as such—is Tom McCabe. Jack McConnell's whole approach to the crisis in the health service appears to be to change the face at the top, rather than to change the policy that is doing all the damage to our health service.

If we follow the First Minister's flawed logic, it raises a host of questions about the rest of his Executive. Given that we have an economy that is limping along behind that of the rest of the United Kingdom, is the First Minister saying seriously that Jim Wallace is up to scratch as the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning? The business community certainly does not seem to think so. The prison population continues to rise, despite repeated promises to reduce it, so is there really no argument for giving someone else a chance to honour the Government pledges that Cathy Jamieson only ever seems to break? When six out of 10 head teachers say that indiscipline in our schools is a serious problem—despite our having been told for years that it is one of the Executive's top educational priorities—might not it be time for a new broom in the Education Department?

The answer to all those questions might well be yes; but of course it is not as easy as that for Jack McConnell, because he does not have much choice before him. In yesterday's newspapers, one of his closest allies—which is usually code for Andy Kerr—was quoted as saying:

"Jack only had limited room to manoeuvre. It's not like the back benches are packed with talented MSPs bursting to get into the Cabinet."

In other words, he said, "If people think the ministers are bad, just look at how awful the rest of us are." Well—it is good to know that there is at least one thing on which those of us on this side of the chamber can agree with the First Minister.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

Will the member give way?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Not just now. [ Interruption. ] Clearly, Jack McConnell does not think that his back benchers are talented enough to be in the Cabinet, so far be it from me to give them a platform.

The people of Scotland might reasonably look at the Executive's performance and conclude that the reshuffle should have taken the form of radical surgery rather than a game of musical chairs. However, I suspect that what they want to see even more than new faces at the Cabinet table is new policy, especially in the health service. The truth is that replacing Malcolm Chisholm with Andy Kerr will not in itself result in the reprieve of a single one of the hospital services that currently face the axe. The new minister might well be able to shout louder than the old one, but the First Minister should be aware that all the people who are campaigning all over Scotland to save their local hospitals will not be bullied into submission. They want the Executive to get a grip on the NHS; they want local services where they are appropriate and they want a moratorium on the centralisation of services until there is in place a clear national strategy that points the way ahead. That is the real change that the people want in the health service; it would have been far more effective than the poor excuse for a reshuffle that we witnessed on Monday.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I have from my French class in school two enduring memories: plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose; and a poem aptly entitled "La pluie"—the rain. That, to me, characterises the Cabinet reshuffle. It is more and yet more of the depressing grey sameness. My objection to the motion is not based on any dislike of Mr McCabe; what he deserves in abundance is pity. The first minister says that the reshuffle is a refreshing exercise, but it is nothing of the sort; rather, it is a parade of the recycled, redesignated and recalled cronies of the First Minister.

The former Minister for Health and Community Care, who was last week—while facing a Conservative vote of no confidence—publicly endorsed and effusively applauded by the First Minister, wakes up this week to find the First Minister's reshuffle dagger in his back and that he has been sidelined to the communities portfolio. In his place is Mr Kerr, the Brylcreemed acolyte of the First Minister; a man whose capacity to shine has so far been restricted to the pomade on his hair.

Even more perversely, the one member of the Executive who has gained respect as a colourful, gutsy and combative performer—Margaret Curran—is rewarded by being stuck in a job that restricts her talents to standing up in the chamber and prating parrotwise, "Formally moved." What an advertisement for government in Scotland. My advice to Mr McConnell's ministerial colleagues is this; "If you earn the First Minister's public support, be very afraid, and reach for the hair gel—it may be your only hope. And in the singularly unlikely event that you display any ability, you are done for." The people of Scotland, who are open about their disappointment with devolution and saddened that the great wave of emotion that accompanied the inception of this Parliament has failed to translate into a better health service, into improved literacy, numeracy and discipline in our schools and into a business-friendly and buoyant economy will derive little comfort from the new ministerial assemblage. The people of Scotland yearn for spark, vibrancy and innovation. The Cabinet is atrophied, stale and devoid of vision. It is thirled to policies that do not work and fearful of policies that might work.

Nowhere is that paradox more apparent than in this morning's business. Today, we were to have a statement about efficiency in Government—no doubt a glowing account of all the so-called economies in public spending that the Executive is going to deliver. Instead, we have a dazzling display of Government inefficiency, with the First Minister's announcement about his bloated Cabinet—oversized, overpaid and, most regrettably of all, over there on the Government benches.

Is that the same First Minister who said, when announcing his ministerial team last year:

"I believe that a reduction in salaried Cabinet Ministers and deputies was justified"?

So much for that hollow declaration of prudence. After another year of Executive failure, the self-awarded prize is to shell out another £30,000 in ministerial salaries. What hypocritical bilge.

The Executive is beyond saving by dint of a mere Cabinet reshuffle. We need new policies that will work for Scotland, but there is not the remotest hope that that will happen for as long as we have that Cabinet.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

There being no requests to speak from the floor, we will move to closing speeches. I call Brian Monteith.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I rise to support the opposition to the First Minister's motion. Because of procedural difficulties, we have to propose amendments to the motion to appoint new ministers, but there are of course a host of ministers in the reshuffle about whom we could talk. Johann Lamont and Rhona Brankin are not the only ones; we could also talk about Patricia Ferguson and Tom McCabe. As Nicola Sturgeon said, a minister who was already sacked once by Jack McConnell has shown—with his return to the Cabinet as Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform—that he truly has bounce-back ability.

Who is to say that the former Labour don from South Lanarkshire is not the consigliere for the job? After all, he will have to tell the other local bosses in the Labour family that they are getting no more money and will have to increase their council tax. If they do not, he will see to it that, politically, they will sleep with the fishes. This is not personal; it is strictly business. Tony Soprano could do no better a job in Don McConnell's Cabinet than could Signor McCabe. We merely use his name to point out the sickness at the heart of the McConnell regime.

The regime has the wrong philosophy of life. After all, it was the First Minister who said on taking office that he would "do less better". That reminds me of the true architectural genius Mies van der Rohe who, when describing minimalism, said, "Less is more." The First Minister's credo is the opposite: for him, more is less. We have had more spending on health, but less health care; more spending on education, but less school discipline; more spending on tourism than is the case in England, but fewer tourists; and more ministers with limousine lifestyles, but fewer positive results. If ministers were on performance pay, it would be they would face cuts, not our hospitals.

The reshuffle was an opportunity missed: it was an opportunity to show that less government is the best government because less government means more self-reliance, more personal responsibility and more economic growth, which would give our people the room to breathe, to excel themselves and to prosper. If the reshuffle was about more tax cuts, more services and more freedom, that would be fine. If it was about less Executive initiatives, interventions and illusion, we would support the First Minister. However, it is none of those things and, for that reason, the Conservatives will oppose the reshuffle by voting proudly against it.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

We live in a democracy that imposes a separation of powers and a system of checks and balances. It also imposes an independent judiciary, an elected legislature and an Executive that is accountable to this legislature. In turn, such a democracy imposes responsibilities as well as endowing rights. Clearly, in normal circumstances, it is the right of the Executive to select and appoint its Cabinet. However, it is also the Executive's responsibility to take account of the views not only of Parliament but of the mood outwith it in the country. To do otherwise is not an exercise of right, but an act of irresponsibility. The Executive is acting not as is fitting in a democracy; it is acting as if it was an elected dictatorship.

Sadly, the actions of the Executive are not about exercising its right; they are about imposing its will. Clearly, it is doing so at a time when its will is opposed not only by many of its back benchers and the Opposition, but in the country. I am thinking not only of the mood in the country but of the mood of Labour party members and their representatives down in London. It is clear from the precursor to the reshuffle that Mary Mulligan is intent on continuing the fight, but there is no change in policy: the Executive is attempting to drive through its will against the mood and the wishes of the people, which is unacceptable.

We had the unedifying spectacle—indeed, the humiliating spectacle—of an elected minister of the Scottish Parliament having to go down south, cap in hand, after having been summoned to answer for his sins. It is unacceptable that that should happen, given that all members of this Parliament are supposed to be rising to the occasion and to be raising their game.

If the reshuffle was supposed to signal a shift in policy, it would be the Executive's right to choose whomsoever it wishes, but when the reshuffle is simply a shuffling of the pack to continue the Executive's failed policies, that is unacceptable. It is the duty of the Opposition to oppose the reshuffle. In seeking to act irresponsibly, the Executive is abusing its rights.

What was the precursor to the change in the Administration? It was Mary Mulligan's resignation. Why did she resign? Because she wishes to continue the fight against policies that the Executive is imposing—policies that are opposed by people but which the Executive is forcing on them.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

Will the member give way?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Not at the moment. What about the changes that have been made? The First Minister has simply moved around his most loyal supporters. Surely we are supposed to have a Cabinet of the Executive, not a version of Lanarkshire friends reunited—albeit in a different environment? Appointment to the Cabinet is supposed to be based on ability and talent, not on servility and biddability. It serves Parliament ill that the Executive seeks to impose its will in such a manner.

What have the two strands of the coalition done? The Lib Dems claim that they are making the difference, but what difference are they making on health policy? We saw their party leader Charles Kennedy wax lyrical about the inadequacies of the Executive, but we now see the Lib Dems propping up and maintaining not only a shift in policy but the continuation of a Cabinet that is intent on enforcing that policy. Are they going to kowtow to Mr McConnell or are they going to accept the directions of their party leader? Propping up a failed administration is unacceptable for the Lib Dems. They are equally culpable and their sins will not be forgiven.

What about the First Minister? He has spoken in this chamber about raising the game. Everybody has taken cognisance of that. I am not aware of anyone from any party who does not accept it. However, it is equally incumbent upon him to raise his game, but he is singularly not doing that. He is not imposing new ministers in order to improve matters; he is rewarding those who have failed by reassigning them. He is not bringing in fresh talent to drive forward new policies; he is seeking to drive forward the policies that have failed miserably in order to secure the support of his own back benchers, never mind anybody else.

In raising his game, the First Minister has to remember that this is not North Lanarkshire Council, nor is it Strathclyde Regional Council writ large. This is the debating chamber of the national Parliament of Scotland—he has a duty to act accordingly. He talks about Scotland being the best small nation in the world, but all we can say is, "Not a chance under this Administration." We oppose the motion.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I am proud enough of Scotland to say that I believe that we are the best small nation in the world. Even if the SNP were in charge, I would still believe that Scotland was the best small nation in the world. That is what patriotism is all about.

I remind Mr MacAskill that it is not Labour or the Liberal Democrats in this chamber who take instructions from a leader in London. It was not my party leader, Tony Blair, or Jim Wallace's party leader, Charles Kennedy, who described the performance of MSPs as mediocre and said that that was why he had to come back and lead his party again. Not only are our party leaders prepared to let us run this Parliament, but they support us in ensuring that Scotland is taken forward. They believe in this Parliament and the policies that we pursue.

It is telling that this morning neither of the two Opposition parties has put up a new policy idea as an alternative. They carp, criticise, complain and attack personalities, but produce not one new policy idea.

Both Opposition parties talked about the importance of business to the economy. It does not behove members of the Parliament to describe the £30 billion budget for which we will be responsible as "pocket money". Not one person in Scotland—not even my good friend Tom Hunter—would describe that money as pocket money. We have a duty and a responsibility to manage the budget, to deliver efficiencies and reforms and to make that money work for the people of Scotland. Not one business in Scotland would deny that our responsibilities for research and development, for education and skills, for transport and for promoting Scotland at home and abroad are important in taking forward business and giving real opportunities.

As ever, Annabel Goldie delivered a witty address. I only hope that the position of Brian Monteith and Bill Aitken up top does not preclude them from ever serving, with or without hair gel, in a Conservative Cabinet.

One of our most experienced and talented ministers has been appointed to take over the ministerial portfolio with responsibility for delivering affordable housing and a better planning system. Given that businesses throughout Scotland want us to act on those issues and view them as central to their future prosperity, to describe that appointment as sidelining is very wrong indeed.

This Cabinet will have Tom McCabe to deliver a more efficient budget and to ensure that we are represented well at home and abroad. It will take forward that agenda and use the powers that we have to promote Scottish businesses, giving them the skills, back-up and support that they need. It will also ensure that we have planning and housing systems that no longer act as a restriction on growth, but allow our businesses to grow. I whole-heartedly endorse the nomination of Tom McCabe to his new position. I ask the Parliament to support that nomination and to back the policies that will take Scotland forward.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

The question is, that motion S2M-1822, in the name of Jack McConnell, on the appointment of a minister, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

George Reid (None, Ochil)

There will be a division.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

The result of the division is: For 62, Against 36, Abstentions 4.

Motion agreed to.

That the Parliament agrees that Mr Tom McCabe be appointed as a Minister.

Junior Ministers

George Reid (None, Ochil)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-1823, in the name of Jack McConnell, on the appointment of junior Scottish ministers, and two amendments to the motion.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I will be brief and will not reiterate what I have already said, but I want to make a number of important points about the nomination of Johann Lamont—I have been making mistakes about the pronunciation of her surname for 20 years and I am determined to get it right today—and Rhona Brankin to be junior ministers in the Executive.

Johann Lamont has made a considerable contribution to the work of the Parliament, not least through her convenership of the Social Justice Committee and the Communities Committee. She has steered through and been involved in consideration of some of the best legislation that the Parliament has passed on housing, sexual offences and—in the past year—antisocial behaviour. Johann Lamont—[Laughter.] I will get it right. Johann Lamont has shown that the Parliament and its committee system can work with the Executive. She has also demonstrated an ability to drive forward a policy issue and to turn it into action and achievement. I am certain that she will be an excellent junior minister in the Executive.

Rhona Brankin, who has served well in the Executive before as Deputy Minister for Culture and Sport and Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development, has an understanding of the importance of the national health service that many members cannot share. I believe that she will bring that experience to her ministerial portfolio and that it will complement her skills and abilities and her belief in our policies—which will not only take forward Scotland's health service, but improve our national health—in a way that will support the direction in which we are travelling.

Both those junior ministers will join a team that is committed to improving Scotland's national health and our national health service. As well as being committed to record levels of resources and record staffing levels, that team is committed to reforming the national health service in Scotland, to delivering localised services in every case in which that is appropriate and to ensuring that we have the specialised services that can save lives and cure people in a way that was unimaginable 10 or 20 years ago. Our team, which will be assisted by Rhona Brankin, will take forward the health improvement agenda. It will deal with issues such as mental health, the health of our young people, including their diet and exercise, and smoking and alcohol abuse.

Just last Thursday, Margaret Curran outlined the communities agenda of progressing the provision of affordable housing throughout Scotland. Thousands of new homes are desperately needed in urban and rural communities. The communities portfolio includes the agenda of tackling poverty in Scotland, not simply by delivering more handouts, but by giving people the opportunities to work—through the provision of child care, new skills and support in the community for them and their families—so that they can get into work, stay in work, earn a living and ensure that their families can prosper. Those are important agendas for the Executive, the Cabinet and the junior ministers, who I hope will join us after today's vote.

Those agendas are in stark contrast to the Scottish National Party's opposition over the past five years to the housing investment in Glasgow and elsewhere through the transfer of housing stock to local people and tenants, who will now control their own housing. They are in stark contrast to what we hear from the Conservatives, who have not challenged Rhona Brankin's appointment but usually like to talk about their policies for the national health service. Their policies would break up the NHS and would mean that those who can afford to pay for operations are subsidised so that they can have those operations more quickly; their policies put aside the needs of those who cannot pay for their operations but need a health service most and need it when they have to have it.

There is a stark contrast in the Parliament between the policies that take Scotland forward and the Opposition policies, which show poverty of ambition. Our policies will see Johann Lamont and Rhona Brankin take forward the work that has begun to a new stage after our new Parliament building is formally opened on Saturday. Our policies will ensure that, in future, young Scots have a better community in which to live.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that Rhona Brankin and Johann Lamont be appointed as junior Scottish Ministers.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

Mr McConnell will need to start practising Johann Lamont's name.

I have no personal grudge against Rhona Brankin, although her appointment shows the benefit of asking ministers no-brainer questions at question time, but the way in which her appointment came about symbolises everything that is wrong with the Executive's approach to the health service. First, we were told that the reshuffle was kicked off by one deputy minister resigning due to—wait for it—hospital cuts in her area. We were then told that the so-called new team, which is anything but new, is the right team for the right time.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

I make it clear that I resigned from the Executive to ensure that the people of the Linlithgow constituency get the best possible health service, but I am certain that they will get that only through the policies of the Labour-led Scottish Executive.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

I find that hard to understand, as I am sure Mary Mulligan's constituents will, because the same Labour-led Executive is causing the problems that her constituents face in the hospital services. I will let Mary Mulligan try to explain that to her constituents; I am sure that she will have a good time doing so.

We have been told that the new Cabinet is the right team for the right time, which one national broadsheet translated into:

"The shortage of talent shines through".

As I prefer to say, the sacked are back.

We are expected to believe that the appointment of one of Jack's lads—the straight-talking Mr Kerr—with assistance from Rhona Brankin, will sort out those pesky members of the public who simply do not listen hard enough to the Executive's explanations of why it is closing down their local services. We are expected to believe that, if the Executive says those things a bit louder, all will be well. We are told that Mr Kerr and Ms Brankin are a team that will be able to explain better to the public why services are being cut—presumably in the same way as Ms Brankin explained to the fishermen why they should lose their jobs when she was in control of the fishing industry. We are expected to believe that, if the public would only listen a bit harder, they would understand why all the cuts are necessary and would meekly accept their local hospitals' fate. I suggest a different tack: perhaps the public are right and the Executive should listen to their views and change policy direction.

The problem is that, even among Mr McConnell's back benchers, many do not believe that the change of face matters. As Bristow Muldoon said, the issue is the health policy, not the face in the job. I could not agree more. As we know, Mr Kerr could not wait to get in front of the cameras to tell us that there would be no change in policy, which raises the question of the point of the reshuffle in the first place. We are supposed to believe that a fresh—or, in Mr Kerr's case, not-so-fresh—face is enough to turn round a health service that faces major problems and a lack of strategy.

John Swinburne (SSCUP, Central Scotland)

Does Shona Robison agree that the health service in Scotland is in crisis? Does she also agree that no political party has the answer to all the health service's problems and that we will find a solution to the health problem only when the Parliament stops treating the issue as a political football and gets cross-party agreement on the health service, with all parties pulling together?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

I certainly agree with Mr Swinburne that no one party has all the answers. Every party has issues to bring to the table. What I would say is that we will never agree to hospital cuts. That is where any cross-party co-operation stops. If Mr Kerr refuses to listen to the views of the people, it will be his Westminster colleagues who will suffer the effect at the elections next year—something that they are acutely aware of and jumping up and down about.

Some have gone further and have suggested:

"Even if the executive had a vision, Mr Kerr would not be the politician to advance it. Health needs a skilled, confident, articulate politician to enunciate policy ... He is no communicator."

While that may or may not be true, the issue is whether there is a coherent strategy even to try to articulate. There is not. There is a complete lack of Government strategy and vision. Despite having been in power for five years in Scotland, the Executive has no strategy for the health service. At the Health Committee yesterday, we heard that there is no national strategy for work force planning to ensure that we have the right staff to do the right jobs.

Today, it has been revealed that the Executive will not meet its target of recruiting 600 new consultants by 2006. The Executive has no clear way of meeting the pledge for 12,000 nurses, which will hardly match the number leaving the profession, as the Royal College of Nursing said yesterday.

The common failing, whether on hospital closures and downgrading or on the lack of work force planning, is that the Executive has not developed a clear national strategy and plan for delivery. Ministers are flailing about, having to deal with one crisis after another. [Interruption.] I can tell Mr Kerr that merely changing the faces and shouting louder will not change a thing. Only a change of policy will do that.

I move amendment S2M-1823.2, to leave out "Rhona Brankin and".

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

To parody the old song, what a difference a week makes. Is this the same Jack McConnell who, only last Thursday, enthusiastically applauded Malcolm Chisholm and gave him his full support? Within a few days, poor old Malcolm finds himself kicked into the long grass. One minister down, two hospitals saved—that just shows what effective opposition can do.

Looking around the chamber, I can see Karen Whitefield, Gordon Jackson, Helen Eadie and Richard Baker. What do they all have in common? As well as effectively being candidates for the Scottish minorities group, they are four of only 17 people on the Labour benches who have not held ministerial office or been given committee convenerships. Helen Eadie should not worry: her chance will come and, next time, she will be a minister.

What is happening here today is illustrative of exactly what is wrong with the Executive. Politicians once talked about ministries of all the talent. Here we have ministers totally and utterly bereft of talent. What does the First Minister do? Largely, he moves the same old, tired faces round the Cabinet room table. Nevertheless, as the justice portfolio falls into disrepute and despite all that is going wrong there, Cathy Jamieson retains her post. At a time when business and commerce are seriously concerned about the future of Scottish business, the First Minister does not negotiate with the Liberals to see whether a change in that ministry would be necessary.

What we are seeking to do today is not aimed at Johann Lamont personally. We have to practise the pronunciation of that name—only a Glasgow guy can get it right.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I point out that my obsession with the pronunciation of my name is intended to ensure that nobody thinks that I could have any connection with the Tory ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, Norman Lamont.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

As I have pointed out before: a fragrant, if prickly, rose by any other name.

Is it not rather sad that Margaret Curran, who is one of the most effective ministers and with whom I have enjoyed many jousts over the years, should again be sidelined? She has been sidelined because she has shown a degree of ability. If she thinks that that is to damn her with faint praise, she should ask herself why she was moved. The reason was that Jack McConnell reckons that, like Lady Macbeth, Margaret Curran will be, if not the one to plunge the dagger into him, the one to arrange the mechanics of the deed.

This is a rather depressing morning because, with due apologies to Johann Lamont and Rhona Brankin, we are simply being asked to reshuffle the old, tired pack. That is not good enough. The reshuffle will not make a whit of difference to the way in which Scotland is run because it is not the faces that need to change but the policies. Imagination has been singularly lacking from everything that the Executive has done over the past five years. The no fresh talent initiative that Jack McConnell has introduced today will not make things better at all. I urge all members to support our amendment in the spirit in which we will be supporting the SNP amendment.

I move amendment S2M-1823.1, to leave out "and Johann Lamont".

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

I have rarely heard anyone speak to an amendment without referring to it once, as Bill Aitken has just done. However, I rise to speak in support of the appointment of Johann Lamont as Deputy Minister for Communities. I know that, when the Parliament approves her appointment, she will make an excellent minister. I also know that she has proved to be a doughty fighter for social justice, the social economy and co-operation and collaboration for the benefit of our communities. She has kept me fully informed of the work that has been going on in the Communities Committee, which she has convened, and my constituents in Levenmouth and Glenrothes have benefited from the work that she has done. As a fellow Co-operative Party group member, she has consistently argued for the development of social enterprises and local co-operatives to bring the benefit to local areas of local economic development led by local people.

I cannot for the life of me understand why some people do not recognise the traits and abilities that Johann Lamont has shown. I find it inconceivable that anyone could suggest that she is not an ideal candidate for the job for which she has been nominated today—a nomination that I am proud to support. I also find it inconceivable that the communities brief should be so denigrated by members when our constituents are telling us day in, day out that they want better social cohesion in our communities and legislation to reduce binge drinking and to improve health. That is just what the Executive is doing in cutting deaths from cancer, strokes and coronary heart disease, in moving services closer to the people and in encouraging local enterprises with the involvement of local people. If any member thinks that that is not what we are here to do, I say to them that they do not know what the voters of Scotland want from our Parliament.

John Swinburne is right to say that there must be a consensus on the way forward on health. We cannot improve people's health, ensuring that they are sick less often, only to demand that there be thousands of hospital beds that are no longer needed to deal with traditional illnesses, as those illnesses are being dealt with in our communities.

The Cabinet reshuffle is about refreshing the team. It is about establishing a team behind which we can get and that we can lobby for improvements in our communities. I urge the Parliament to oppose the amendment in Bill Aitken's name and to support the First Minister in the appointment of the junior ministers.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I support the First Minister's motion. I am proud and happy to be one of the 17 perpetual back benchers. The 17 Tories all have some title, so it ill behoves them to cast aspersions.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

Will the member give way?

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

No.

I recently had the privilege of receiving a letter from Fergus Ewing, who addressed me as the minister for the Highlands and Islands, and I am pleased to be known as such.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

Good idea.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I thank Frank McAveety—it is a good idea.

I will speak particularly in support of Rhona Brankin's appointment as Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care. She has a proven record as a depute minister, having served well in the culture and sport brief, when she was generally agreed to have done an exceptionally good job for the arts and for women's sport.

As Deputy Minister for Rural Development, Rhona Brankin had to deal with the fishing brief at a time of difficult change for the industry. She had a reputation for being hard working and for not being afraid to confront difficult issues, despite the intimidation and bullying that she experienced, of which some parties should be ashamed.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will the member round up her tribute by giving us her views on why, if Rhona Brankin was so good, Jack McConnell sacked her as a minister?

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Such decisions are for the First Minister. The intention is to refresh the team. [ Interruption. ] Andy Kerr is prompting me, but I will not say what he suggests, because I do not think that Nicola Sturgeon would recover from it.

I am especially pleased to welcome Rhona Brankin as Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care because I know of her genuine interest in and commitment to the provision of health and care services and of her commitment to promoting healthy living. As an MSP for the Highlands and Islands, I am also pleased that the deputy minister will be a woman who lived for many years in Ross-shire and who has first-hand experience of rural health issues. I look forward to working with her and Johann Lamont and I support the First Minister's motion.

Ted Brocklebank (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Members should make no mistake—an opportunity has been lost. Okay, it might be a bit melodramatic to talk in terms of deckchairs and the Titanic, but the event looks like the reshuffling of a well-worn deck of cards.

I take nothing away from the two ladies who are to join the ministerial team. I imagine that Johann Lamont—with the stress on the first syllable—or Lamont—with the stress on the second syllable—or, as the late, lamented Rab McNeil used to describe her, Johann Sebastian Lamont, is a capable lady. I know that Rhona Brankin created a bit of a stir in her fisheries days in places such as Peterhead and Pittenweem, where she was described as the incredible "No" woman. Never mind—I do not suppose that either regards herself as an ace in Jack's reshuffled pack.

As for the Executive's wild card, Frank McAveety, although I do not always share his taste in Armani tee-shirts, he would certainly never have chosen a pin-striped kilt to go with the highland jacket that the Parliament bought for him. I have always found him to be courteous and his tastes to be wide ranging—and I am not just talking about culinary aspects.

I do not understand why the rate for the job of Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport, which was £73,000 a year for Frank McAveety, has suddenly risen to £87,000 a year for Patricia Ferguson. I have no problem with people receiving the rate for the job and I am sure that Patricia Ferguson and her husband, Bill Butler, need every penny of their joint £137,000 in parliamentary salaries, but Frank McAveety must be baffled. Why does his untried successor automatically merit £14,000 a year more than he received? Why is Nicol Stephen apparently worth an extra £14,000 a year at the same time? The important point is that, far from setting an example and taking a key opportunity to cut ministerial jobs in line with his pledge to be tougher on efficiency in Scotland, Jack McConnell has added another £30,000-plus to the ministerial wage bill. So much for leaner and more efficient government.

So much, too, for open and transparent government, as Annabel Goldie and Bill Aitken have pointed out. Last Thursday, after seeing off the Tory vote of no confidence, Malcolm Chisholm was surrounded by congratulatory fellow ministers. Jack McConnell even patted him on the back. Nobody noticed the dagger. Five days later, after publicly backing his Minister for Health and Community Care, Jack sacked him. Malcolm Chisholm's successor, Andy Kerr, has broad shoulders as well as Brylcreemed hair. Let us hope that he and his deputy—the winsome Rhona Brankin—keep a careful look over their shoulders to see what happens when they fail to stop the pack of cards that is the health service collapsing.

Poker players know that every hand is a winner and every hand is a loser. In the short term, those in Jack McConnell's new ministerial deck are certainly winners in a monetary sense, but Scotland's taxpayers are among the losers, especially people on fixed incomes who will see their council taxes soar, despite Andy Kerr's pious hopes last week. Jack the joker tells us that his newly shuffled team will produce the goods, but I have no doubt that the electorate will see through card-sharp Jack's latest shuffle from the bottom of the deck.

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

Will the member give way?

Ted Brocklebank (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

No.

Instead of more bloated salaries, more limos and more platitudes, when will the people of Scotland get a fair deal from the Executive?

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I congratulate Christine May; I think that I have now endured the longest job application in history. I note that Maureen Macmillan, who congratulated the First Minister on his appointments, supports him, but does not support the proposed cross-party group on hospital closures from which, I understand, she recently withdrew. I hope that the Belford protesters are well aware of that.

I say well done to Rhona Brankin, who has worked hard to get back to where she is and to earn a reprieve. I say to other members on the back benches that there is a route: they should do what Rhona Brankin did. I am sure that Christine May is paying attention to that.

Frank McAveety's ticket to the front seems to be on a rubber band, so I say to him, "Third time lucky; you never know." To Ted Brocklebank, I say that the exercise is like moving deck chairs on the Titanic. Moving the Minister for Health and Community Care, Malcolm Chisholm, has brought dismay to the professionals.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

Christine Grahame is interested in the talent on the Labour benches, but will she remind us how talented she is? Exactly what proportion of the vote from SNP members did she get when she stood for the leadership?

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I am delighted with the vote that I received from SNP members, and when our elected members voted, I came top of the list for the national executive committee, sunshine.

We are having this debate and going through all these cosmetic moves because constituents are hammering at the doors of Labour MPs and MSPs; the debate has nothing to do with addressing the concerns of Scotland's patients and professionals.

I will pose the real questions. Why is Scotland's health service so sick after seven years of Labour at Westminster and five years of Labour in the Parliament, with the Liberal Democrat lackeys propping it up? Why are there not enough consultants, nurses and dentists? NHS dentists are as scarce as hens' teeth. The list goes on. There are not enough beds. Waiting lists are growing: individuals—real people—are awaiting biopsies for seven months to find out whether they have cancer and people are waiting for seven to nine months for operations that would cure them. Professionals are talking about a crisis. Beleaguered professionals are going public on behalf of their patients.

As a former convener of the Health Committee, I have respect for Tom McCabe. He got into the portfolio and worked at it, but he had two agendas. The other agenda was the top job, but he was not going to get that, because of too much talent and—like his colleague, Ms Curran, who is a lady for whom I have great respect—too much ambition. As a result, she has been sidelined into dealing with business motions, which Euan Robson dealt with at one time—need I say more? What a fate for talent.

The other matter, of course, is the back benchers—wonderful people, but the problem is, what good is it for Scotland or the Parliament having them all parked on the back benches?

In the meantime, Scotland's health service sinks like the Titanic, despite the money invested in it, because team McConnell on the bridge has not simply charted the wrong course, but has charted no course at all. Instead, it has simply tacked this way and that according to the way the political wind is blowing. The national framework should have been started years ago, not delivered next spring.

I say to the members of the new ministerial health team that the iceberg is in their sights and they have little time to manoeuvre. In the next few days—not weeks or months—they must prove to the Scottish people that they are listening to the public, to the professionals and to this Parliament. They must apologise for the chaos that they have caused in the people's national health service, courtesy of the Liberal Democrats. I tell them to listen not to their MPs but to the Scottish public, who will hold them accountable at the next election. To coin a phrase that should come back to haunt them, the ministers have 24 hours to save the health service.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I regret the fact that Bill Aitken was not really listening to what was said about the communities portfolio. He described the allocation of that portfolio to Malcolm Chisholm as putting Malcolm Chisholm "into the long grass." I say to Bill Aitken that businesses the length and breadth of Scotland genuinely believe—and I agree with them—that resolving the problems in our planning system and ensuring that there is more affordable housing in Scotland are fundamental to Scotland's future economic growth. If Bill Aitken thinks that those issues should be in the long grass, then he is wrong and out of touch with businesses and with the people whom they employ.

With due respect, I also suggest to those who believe that the position of Minister for Parliamentary Business is not significant and important in this new building, when we all have a responsibility to win the respect of people outside the building and throughout Scotland, that they are wrong. The position is central to the success of the Parliament and to earning the respect and confidence of the people of Scotland.

However, the main points that have been made in this short debate are about the health service, and I will make just two or three points about that. First, genuine debates are taking place and, in many cases, local communities have genuine concerns about individual proposals from individual health boards. However, the way in which to deal with that is to engage in the debates and to try to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem. If members on the Executive benches, including both Malcolm Chisholm and myself, had taken the same approach as the Opposition in Oban and Fort William, by scaremongering among local people and worrying them about the future of their services, and had not done what we did, which was to encourage those responsible for the local service—the professionals and others who can help us to make the decisions—to come together to find a long-term sustainable solution for the two hospitals, we would have been giving up absolutely on our duties and responsibilities.

I believe firmly in the power of dialogue between people who genuinely have the interests of the health service at heart. We will continue to pursue that approach in other parts of Scotland, just as we have this past week when that approach has worked in Glasgow and the western Highlands.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

Will the First Minister give way?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Ms Robison need not worry; I will come back to her remarks in a second.

When we do that, we will remember that, despite some individual, controversial proposals, we have a £700 million modernisation plan for Glasgow hospitals that will replace the Victorian hospitals of the past with brand new facilities that will benefit local people in Glasgow and the length and breadth of Scotland; that, this year, we will have invested £282 million in vital new hospital buildings and equipment, which will improve the health service in Scotland, not cut it back or send it into decline or chaos; and that, as I said here last Thursday, we see more than 100 new or refurbished health centres, general practice surgeries, pharmacies and other family health facilities that are delivering care in the community where that care is most needed, which we can do nowadays with the best of technology and the best skilled staff. Those are the challenges that face the modern health service.

When I attended a charity ball organised by Enable about six months ago, I listened to a 64-year-old woman who had spent every year of her life since she was 15 in an institution in Lanarkshire. The institution has been knocked down and she is now in the community and has a job. Health care in the 21st century should be about that, not about the old buildings that the SNP wants to keep open.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

Will the First Minister give way?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

No. Shona Robison cannot change her words now. She said that the SNP could never agree to closures and changes in the health service, but her analysis is very wrong.

Subject to a vote that I believe is about to take place in the Green party, only one party does not have enough talent on its benches to be led in this Parliament, and that is the SNP. I point out that those are not my words; we believe that there are plenty of talented people in the SNP who could lead the party in this Parliament, but its members chose—

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Will the First Minister recognise that while this party has a man representing Scotland in London his party has London's man representing it here?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

For the avoidance of doubt, I repeat the point to Stewart Stevenson and everyone else: only one party in the Parliament does not have the talent on its benches to be led here. We believe that the talent exists in this Parliament to lead the SNP here, but the SNP itself does not appear to have the confidence to believe that.

I absolutely assure members that the new team that I hope the Parliament will endorse will, on behalf of the partnership that has done so much for Scotland over the past five years, take us forward into the new stage of devolution. I say to Annabel Goldie that I, too, remember a phrase from my French lessons at school: il pleut toujours. It certainly felt like that back in Arran in the 1970s. However, today the sun is shining on this team's bright new prospects for Scotland. We will ensure that we take Scotland forward and I hope that the Parliament will agree to the motion.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

We now move to the vote. The first question is, that amendment S2M-1823.2, in the name of Nicola Sturgeon, which seeks to amend motion S2M-1823, in the name of Jack McConnell, on the appointment of junior Scottish ministers, be agreed to. Are members agreed?

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

There will be a division.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The result of the division is: For 35, Against 67, Abstentions 7.

Amendment disagreed to.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The next question is, that amendment S2M-1823.1, in the name of Bill Aitken, which seeks to amend motion S2M-1823, in the name of Jack McConnell, on the appointment of junior Scottish ministers, 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 36, Against 66, Abstentions 7.

Amendment disagreed to.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The next question is, that motion S2M-1823, in the name of Jack McConnell, on the appointment of junior Scottish ministers, 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 67, Against 36, Abstentions 6.

Motion agreed to.

That the Parliament agrees that Rhona Brankin and Johann Lamont be appointed as junior Scottish Ministers.

School Education (Ministerial Powers and Independent Schools) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The next item of business is stage 3 of the School Education (Ministerial Powers and Independent Schools) (Scotland) Bill. For the first part of the stage 3 proceedings, members should have: the bill, as amended at stage 2; the marshalled list, which contains all the amendments that have been selected for debate; and the groupings. I will allow a voting period of two minutes for the first division on an amendment. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate on a group, and all other divisions will be 30 seconds.

Group 1 is on information to be included in references to ministers. Amendment 7, in the name of Euan Robson, is grouped with amendments 8, 9 and 10.

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Amendments 7 to 10 are purely technical. They clarify that a failure that Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education specifies in a reference to ministers under new section 66B(3) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 or new section 10A(3) of the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000, as inserted by the bill, is the same failure as that identified under new section 66B(2) or new section 10A(2) respectively. The amendments also ensure that the word "failure" is used consistently in the singular throughout the bill. The use of the singular encompasses the plural meaning, and the amendments remove any uncertainty that might otherwise arise.

I move amendment 7.

Amendment 7 agreed to.

[Amendment 8 moved—[Euan Robson]—and agreed to.]

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The second group of amendments is on variation of enforcement directions. Amendment 1, in the name of Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, is grouped with amendments 2 to 6.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

The principal amendment is amendment 1, which I will move on behalf of the Educational Institute of Scotland. If the principal amendment succeeds, I will move all five of the consequential amendments; if it does not succeed, the other amendments will not be moved.

The principal amendment would delete the sentences,

"The Scottish Ministers may vary an enforcement direction by giving a further such direction",

and

"A further such direction need not proceed upon a further preliminary notice under section 66C(1) of this Act."

Amendment 4 is similar and amendments 2, 3 5 and 6 are consequential.

The amendments would ensure that ministers could take only those actions that are recommended by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education. Ronnie Smith, the general secretary of the EIS has stated:

"Our concern is that the initial trigger for a ministerial intervention (enforcement direction) has to be a reference from HM Inspectors—that is to say that Ministers cannot intervene for any other reason than HMIE advising them that there has been a failure to act by the school or Education Authority."

He went on to say:

"The intervention cannot be politically motivated but must stem from the independent professional assessment of HMIE, which is at arm's length from the Executive."

Under the bill, ministers, having responded to an HMIE reference by issuing an enforcement direction, may then vary the direction without a reference from the inspectorate. That opens the door to the possibility of a ministerial direction that is not based on an inspectorate assessment or on objectivity. As it stands, the requirement to consult the inspectorate is not sufficiently robust. The power to vary an enforcement direction should be deleted so that any further ministerial direction that varies the original direction should also require to be preceded by an explicit reference from the inspectorate.

To paraphrase Dunning's resolution in the House of Commons, the power of ministers has increased, is increasing and ought to be diminished. Ministers should not be afforded unlimited powers to ride roughshod over the school inspection system. Our amendments on behalf of the EIS seek to uphold the authority and independence of the inspectorate and my purpose is to test the opinion of the Parliament.

I move amendment 1.

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I support this group of amendments. Lord James Douglas-Hamilton correctly highlights the almost unlimited powers that ministers are assuming to interfere in the management of schools. If members still doubt that that is the case, I refer them to page 1 of the bill, lines 18 to 20, which state clearly that any matter relating to a school that HMIE flags up can be used to stimulate a ministerial intervention. I suggest that that scattergun approach belies the rhetoric of ministers to date that their sole focus is on promoting quality in education as laid out in the Standards in Scotland Schools etc Act 2000.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's amendments, which seek to restrict ministers to intervening only in matters that HMIE brings to their attention, are wholly appropriate and should be supported, even though they cannot correct the fundamental flaws in the bill.

I support the amendments.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

I oppose Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's amendments on the basis that they are unnecessary. To some extent I understand Ronnie Smith's concerns, but they are already addressed in the way in which the bill has been drawn up, because ministers can give an enforcement direction only on HMIE's recommendation. The only reason why ministers would wish to vary such an order in the interim would be because the local authority or school had already carried out some of the action, and ministers might want to relax the terms of the enforcement direction. Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's amendments would remove their ability to do so.

There has been a lot of paranoia around the bill, which has been completely unnecessary and of which this group of amendments is one example. I cannot imagine why a minister would wish to sit in his office imposing additional constraints or recommendations on an authority or school willy-nilly. If a minister were doing that, it would suggest to me that he or she did not have enough to occupy them.

The bill is written in such a way as to provide that ministers can take action only if the inspectors have directed the authority but the authority has not taken action. We need to make it clear that the concerns have been addressed and that there is no need to reduce the ability of ministers to vary the conditions if an authority has already met them.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

What Elaine Murray said encapsulates the main issue and the points she made were good. I find it incredible to see the spectacle of the Conservative party, which largely emasculated local government under its regime, reinventing itself in the new guise of protector of local authorities.

We have to consider the context in which the powers will be exercised. The provision relates to the variation of directions that have already been given, so we will already be in the serious position of something being amiss in the arrangements that has stimulated a report by Her Majesty's inspectorate in the first place. As Lord James Douglas-Hamilton said, there is a requirement for Scottish ministers to consult HMIE before varying a direction, and ministers will also have to prepare a report on their exercise of the power and lay that report before the Scottish Parliament.

This is a fairly modest issue in the overall scheme of things, and a double lock is already in place. I do not think that there is any need to restrict the flexibility in the arrangements—which will be needed—as Lord James's amendments suggest doing. Therefore, I invite members to oppose the amendments.

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

From the outset of our consultations on the bill, it has been made clear that we seek the power to vary directions that Lord James Douglas-Hamilton seeks to remove. It is perhaps a first for Ronnie Smith to be quoted by Lord James, but there we are. At no stage hitherto has anyone brought to our attention the fact that the variation power could be problematic, and we do not think that it is.

There are two main reasons why the Executive does not support Lord James's amendments. First, the power to vary a direction has benefits for all the parties that are involved. The benefits are not just for ministers, but for the education authority, the managers of the grant-aided schools and, importantly, the children who are being educated in the schools or authorities that have had an enforcement direction served on them. Secondly, we believe that there are sufficient safeguards in place to prevent ministers from acting unreasonably when varying a direction.

The power to vary a direction will allow for ministers to take account of changes in circumstances during the period of compliance—a point that Robert Brown made. For example, if a direction had been served on an authority and it had been asked to comply by, say, 12 December, without the power to vary the direction, the authority or manager would have to comply by that date, regardless of any further evidence coming to light. Let us imagine that the authority then approached ministers in November to give them an update on progress and to inform them that the majority of the actions had been taken but that, due to unforeseen circumstances—say, staffing issues—the final action, although under way, could not be completed until January. With a power to vary directions, ministers could consider the evidence that the authority had put forward and might consider it appropriate and reasonable to vary the direction to make January the date for compliance. If the deadline was varied, the direction could be complied with and it would be clear that improvement was being secured for the education of young people in the authority's area.

If ministers did not have the power to vary the direction, the authority would not be able to comply fully by the established date—12 December—and would, as a result, breach its statutory duty, with the consequences flowing therefrom.

With the power to vary directions, ministers will be able to retain the option of a proportionate response at all times throughout the process. The power provides the flexibility in the process that will be required to deal with changing circumstances in a proportionate manner. We would not want to lose that; it is an important power for us to have.

As I said, we also believe that there are sufficient safeguards to prevent ministers from acting unreasonably when varying a direction. First, it is a principle of administrative law that all public bodies—including ministers—must act reasonably in making decisions. Any aggrieved authority or manager of a grant-aided school could challenge a decision on the ground that a minister had acted unreasonably in varying a direction if that were the case, which could lead to judicial review. Secondly, and more specifically, any enforcement direction is fundamentally constrained by new section 66D(2) or new section 10C(2), in that it must always relate to action that is calculated to remedy or prevent the recurrence of the failure that was originally identified by HMIE. Any variation of the direction can be made only within those constraints. A variation that was intended to require a school to take action in relation to other matters would be ultra vires. A direction must always relate back to the failure that was originally identified: it must always be within the boundaries that have been drawn by HMIE.

Thirdly, there are additional safeguards in this part of the bill. Under new section 66D(8) and new section 10C(8), ministers will not be able to vary a direction without first consulting HMIE. HMIE is the independent assessor of education in Scotland and it is right that its opinion should be sought before giving, revoking or varying a direction. Fourthly, under new sections 66D(11) and 10C(11), ministers will have to report to Parliament on any use of the powers under that part of the bill, so if Scottish ministers consider that varying a direction is appropriate, they will be aware that their decision will be brought before the Parliament.

We expect that the power to vary a direction will be used infrequently, but any circumstances in which it is used will be truly individual. As I said, it is important that ministers have the flexibility to respond to changing circumstances. The power to vary conditions will allow that. Without it, we risk placing an authority in breach of its statutory duty unnecessarily, or delaying the delivery of improvement in the education of children.

We believe that the power to vary alongside its—and I underline this—relevant safeguards is a fair and proportionate provision. I hope that I have been able to dispel some of the misunderstanding about the provision and, given my assurances, I ask Lord James to withdraw his amendment.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

I regret that I am not persuaded by what the minister has said. I make it quite clear that the position of the EIS is not that there should never be any variation; it is that if a further ministerial direction varies the original direction, that should be preceded by an explicit reference from the inspectorate. The minister is trying to take away that function from the inspectorate and concentrate the power in his hands.

I appreciate the argument that the minister would act reasonably, and I have no doubt that he might. However, there might come a time when we have a minister who is not as reasonable as the current minister is. We have seen this morning that ministers come and go with great frequency. The minister cannot give a commitment that binds all future ministers, because he cannot say who his successors might or might not be. I doubt if even the First Minister could say that at this moment in time.

I am not persuaded by the minister and I will press my amendment.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The question is, that amendment 1 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 35, Against 59, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 1 disagreed to.

[Amendments 2 and 3 not moved.]

School Education (Ministerial Powers and Independent Schools) (Scotland) Bill

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-1813, in the name of Peter Peacock, that the School Education (Ministerial Powers and Independent Schools) (Scotland) Bill be passed. I invite those members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

It is a pleasure to open the final debate on this small but important bill, which is important for the Executive and for Scotland more widely. I thank Euan Robson for all his work during the detailed stages of the bill. I also thank the Education Committee for its detailed consideration of the bill, and I thank the committee clerks and Executive staff who worked hard on it.

The bill stands as testimony to the Executive's commitment to bring about improvement in Scottish education. Ministers have a duty to improve the quality of education in all Scotland's schools. The bill will ensure that ministers have the necessary and proportionate powers to drive forward the improvement agenda.

The first part of the bill will allow ministers to ensure that education authorities and schools strive to reach the highest possible standards; the second part will give a long overdue update to existing legislation on independent schools. As we have stressed on a number of occasions during the bill's passage, failure to implement the recommendations of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education does not of itself constitute a breach of duty under the section 70 powers in the Education (Scotland) Act 1980. Therefore, there is a gap in the system. There is currently no statutory obligation on schools or local authorities to take action on HMIE recommendations. The bill addresses that gap; it is not about ministerial takeovers or the micromanagement of schools, but about ensuring that education authorities and managers of grant-aided schools take the action that they should take when that is necessary.

The second part of the bill, which is on independent schools, has met with widespread approval from both within and outside the independent sector. The changes that we will make to the existing legislation will make provisions more up to date, consistent and workable. We will continue to work with the independent sector on a revision of the regulations on independent schools.

We have taken forward all the committee's recommendations and amended the bill as a result of the committee's comments and suggestions. We have made a number of changes to the bill with the aim of ensuring that it meets the needs of ministers, local authorities, schools in the state and independent sectors and, of course, our children, who deserve the highest possible standards of school education.

The bill forms an important part of our improvement framework. I hoped that all members of Parliament would support the bill today but, sadly, it looks like that will not be the case if the behaviour of the Opposition parties at stage 1 is anything to go by. Lord James Douglas-Hamilton sought, as ever, to probe the bill at stage 2. He also sought, in his normal courteous manner, to do so at stage 3 and to make amendments. Sadly, he and his party, in cahoots with the Scottish National Party, opposed the bill in principle. Here we have another unholy alliance between the SNP and the Tories. It is opposition for opposition's sake on the one hand and purposeful destruction of constructive ideas on the other hand.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

Those of us who oppose the bill do so from a principled point of view. Only a limited amount of legislative time is available and we believe that it is a complete and utter waste of Parliament's time for the bill to be brought before us. There are far more pressing education matters that could and should have been addressed by the Executive during the time that it has available for education.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

It is extraordinary that the Opposition parties should seek to prevent a Government—any Government—from having the powers to bring about improvement in our education system. It is even more extraordinary to see members of the Tory party pretending to support local government in discussions on the merits of the bill when they propose to abolish any local government control over education in future.

It is in the interests of the Tories, who are intent on dismantling state education, to have underperforming schools in Scotland. Indeed, it is part of their agenda to have underperforming schools in Scotland, in order to make the market-driven, two-tier education system that they want work. They want chaos for the many for the sake of choice for the few. They do not want a universally excellent system in Scotland; they want one in which people will probably have to leave their communities to track down a decent education.

Destructive and disreputable though their intentions towards Scottish education are, at least voting against the bill has a purpose for the Tories, given their agenda. The SNP, as we know, does not even have an agenda for education in Scotland. SNP members have nothing to say, no ideas and no philosophy at all about education. The only idea that we have heard from the Sturgeon-Salmond manifesto is that of using our education system to indoctrinate Scotland's children in Scottish industrial history. No doubt it will be a version of history that the SNP decides and one that will blame London for any past economic ills. If SNP members vote against the bill today, it will not be for reasons of policy, because they do not have any policies, or of principle, because I do not believe that they have any principles either. Their opposition will be nakedly opportunist—opposition for opposition's sake.

The Opposition parties still have time to redeem themselves. They can still join us in standing up for Scotland's children. If they do not, I will be delighted to point out time and again to Scotland's parents that the Opposition parties did not want ministers to have the power and ability to bring about improvement in their children's schools or to be accountable to Parliament in the process. Taking the powers to bring about improvement wherever it is needed is what the bill is about. We will not turn our backs when action is needed and we will not wash our hands of our responsibility. It is right to have those powers and it will be right to use them whenever they are needed. It is right to stand up for the interests of Scotland's children. That is what the bill does and I commend it to Parliament.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the School Education (Ministerial Powers and Independent Schools) (Scotland) Bill be passed.

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I was going to start off by saying something nice about the Minister for Education and Young People, but I am beginning to have second thoughts about that. After the events of this week, it would be remiss of me not to congratulate him and his deputy on still being here to finish the job that they started in steering the bill through Parliament. Those events also serve as a reminder that ministers and, indeed, ministerial assurances can be here today and gone tomorrow.

I have no doubt that the minister is sincere in his arguments and in his intention to use but rarely, if at all, the powers that the bill, once enacted, will confer on him. However, he has failed to convince many beyond the ranks of his own department and the members around him that there is any need for the proposed new intervention powers contained in part 1 of the bill. Most, if not all, of the education authorities that responded to the consultation exercise on the bill suggested that there was already a range of checks and balances in place and that there was little or no evidence to suggest that local authorities or schools do not respond to issues raised in HMIE reports.

The notion that new powers of intervention were needed to close the loop with the inspection and monitoring mechanisms established under the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000, which allows ministers to fulfil a duty to secure improvement in the quality of school education, is at best arguable and at worst disingenuous. Many in the education world believe that the existing powers of ministerial intervention in education authorities that fail to meet statutory duties under section 70 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 would be sufficient to do the job when combined with section 2 of the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000, which places a duty on education authorities to secure improvement in the quality of education provided in schools managed by them.

It is notable that opposition to the bill has, if anything, grown over the course of its passage through the Parliament. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland have expressed alarm at what they see as the destruction of the partnership of trust between HMIE and local authorities. The recommendations in HMIE reports will, in effect, become instructions backed by the threat of ministerial intervention, which will remove management control from our democratically accountable local authorities.

The scope for intervention ranges far beyond the promotion of the quality of school education to any matter relating to the school, as I pointed out during the debate on Lord James's group of amendments earlier. Given the scope for intervention, it can easily be envisaged that ministers will yield to the temptation of interfering when political and departmental pressures are brought to bear and creeping centralisation could well set in.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Does the member accept that the professional standing of HMIE is central to the debate? However desirous it might be for ministers to intervene, they could not do that without the HMIE report that gives them the basis in fact on which so to do.

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I accept the point about HMIE. However, the legislation puts HMIE in an invidious position in which its inspectors will be made responsible for flagging up issues requiring ministerial intervention. Who knows what pressures might be brought to bear on the inspectors?

Scottish National Party members believe that part 1 of the bill is the thin end of a potentially destabilising wedge that could plunge the management of our education system into disarray. Given that part 2 of the bill is not of vital import, we are duty bound to vote against this ill-conceived bill.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

As far as part 2 of the bill is concerned, the Conservatives have no objection to Executive attempts to remove ambiguity in existing legislation to ensure that all persons who are employed in independent schools have to undergo the necessary checks to ensure that they are proper persons to work with children. The issue has been of particular concern to the Scottish Council of Independent Schools.

In his explanatory letter to the Education Committee, the Deputy Minister for Education and Young People explained that the Protection of Children (Scotland) Act 2003 provides robust safeguards for children's well-being. I welcome his assurances in that connection.

It is essential that employers seek disclosure checks for all proposed employees so that they avoid the risk of committing an offence by employing a disqualified person. It is widely acknowledged that there are unacceptable delays—in some cases, of up to 12 weeks—in processing applications to Disclosure Scotland. I ask the minister to confirm that the matter will receive his continuing attention and that he considers the welfare of children paramount.

However, it is part 1 of the bill that has given rise to controversy. Since its inception, the School Education (Ministerial Powers and Independent Schools) (Scotland) Bill has met substantial local authority opposition. That is because councils see the powers that are contained in part 1 of the bill as, at best, unnecessary or, at worst, a waste of parliamentary time.

As I outlined in the chamber during the stage 1 debate, I believe that there are no fewer than four grounds for rejecting the bill. First, there are existing powers of enforcement under section 70 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980. Secondly, there is no widespread evidence to show that local authorities are not taking the inspectorate's recommendations seriously or that they are failing to act on improvements that HMIE considers necessary. Thirdly, the bill undermines local democracy by its imposition of yet another centralising agenda, as has happened with hospitals. Finally, COSLA views the bill as a waste of parliamentary time. A considerable number of local councils have deep reservations about the bill, including West Lothian Council, East Renfrewshire Council, East Ayrshire Council and Glasgow City Council to mention but a few.

The minister rightly said that the Conservatives support a policy of devolved school management. In answer to an oral question, he said that he too supported that policy. Although we wish to see decision making in respect of standards being taken at school level, it is our conviction that HMIE inspectors are best qualified, have the expertise and should and must remain the prime movers in monitoring teaching standards and education in Scotland's schools. We also believe that local authorities should have the right to respond effectively to the inspectors' reports without unnecessary political interference from on high at the behest of ministers. We do not wish the bill to pass, as we are the champions of local democracy.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I congratulate the minister and the principal Opposition spokespeople on their attempts to engender excitement in a debate on what I can only describe as a modest little bill. It is hard to get excited about the proposals. There is not even an issue of principal behind the bill because, as Lord James and Adam Ingram pointed out, fairly substantial powers already exist for ministers to intervene in the operation of schools by local authorities.

In light of the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000 and as part of the agenda for improving education, the bill will close a loophole. Frankly, it is going over the top to suggest that the bill will destroy the partnership of trust and plunge the education system into disarray or to say "Who knows what pressures will be put on HMIE?" The unholy alliance between Lord James and the Conservative party on one hand and COSLA on the other beggars belief.

The bottom line is that this is a modest little bill, which seeks to achieve a modest but necessary part of the agenda to improve education. Nobody disputes for a minute that the principal role lies with education authorities, which are elected with a local democratic mandate but which do not exist outwith the rule of law. They exist within an HMIE monitoring regime.

It is fair to say that HMIE has the greatest reputation of all monitoring organisations in Scotland and is widely recognised as doing a good job. The idea that under the bill HMIE will be interfered with by ministers does not stand up to scrutiny. The bill will allow HMIE to draw significant issues to the attention of ministers. By amending the bill at stage 2—largely with my own amendments—we addressed some of the issues that might have given cause for concern and improved the bill, as the minister was gracious enough to acknowledge.

The bill is important but modest. It is necessary that it is passed. There is no dispute about part 2, which relates to independent schools. All the controversy centres on part 1. However, the bill will close a loophole. It ought to be passed and I urge the Parliament to back it today.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

We will have three-minute speeches from here.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

When I first read the bill—

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Mr Harper, we can give you four minutes.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

Thank you.

When I first read the bill, I also thought that it was a modest little bill but, like Lord James, I have been lobbied by the Educational Institute of Scotland and COSLA, and when one is lobbied by the EIS and COSLA one has to listen. They are seriously concerned—and their concerns are well founded—about the extra powers that are to be given to ministers. I will have to think carefully about how the Green party will vote, because it is a serious and fundamental flaw in the bill that there is no qualification on the varying powers.

At first, I hoped that the bill would be part of a process of further integration of the private education sector into the public education sector. We are out of step with the rest of Europe. Peter Peacock referred to a two-tier system. We have such a system with private and public sectors, never mind within the public sector. The system is out of date and should undergo a process of driven change with standards in public education being driven up and private education being integrated through a process of assimilation over a period of time.

Presiding Officer, I do not propose to use up all of the four minutes that you so generously afforded me, for the simple reason that there is a serious point that we shall debate among ourselves before we vote on the bill. Whether we vote against or abstain, members will have to wait and see.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

We can give four minutes to all speakers in the open debate.

Rosemary Byrne (SSP, South of Scotland)

In my opinion, this so-called modest little bill is a complete waste of time.

Yesterday, the headline on the front page of The Herald was "Indiscipline on the rise, say teachers". That is the issue on which we should be focusing. We should concentrate on how we can help our teachers to support our young people appropriately in a modern, everyday school—a school with an average number of children in an average place. We should be talking about the young people throughout the country who are railing against the establishment and who are distracting others because they are unable to settle into school. We should be asking how we can ensure that our education is appropriate for all our young people throughout the country rather than considering a bill that will give more powers to ministers to intervene.

Why will ministers need to intervene? I have no evidence of any school that has not implemented HMIE's recommendations and I know of no case in which a local authority has ignored such recommendations. We have asked the Minister for Education and Young People that question and we are still waiting for an answer. I totally oppose the giving of the new powers to ministers, as do COSLA—as has been mentioned—the EIS and the local authorities. The bill that we are debating today, which the Education Committee has had to focus on for weeks, is a waste of time. We should be doing far better things.

I am still searching for the reason for the bill. I wonder whether the damage that will be done to schools and communities when schools are singled out has been considered. Is that standing up for Scotland's children? Is the way forward to have descriptions all over the newspapers of how a particular school is failing and has not achieved the targets that have been set or of how the school or the local authority has not complied with recommendations? Do we want to devastate a school's whole community—the staff, the pupils and the parents—simply because the minister wants the powers that are in the bill?

I want to know what the hidden agenda is. Is it to drive forward the private agenda or to force through more assessments and inappropriate tests at the wrong stage, in intermediate 1 and primary 7? There is pressure on head teachers to ensure that they get above-average results in their assessments. Head teachers are being bullied by the directorate in their local authorities because their results are below average, even though they might have children who come into school with no language skills. That is what we should be considering. I am angry about the focus on the bill and all the time that we are wasting on it.

Part 2 of the bill is of no interest to me. It is important that we support changes to safeguard young people and that we ensure that such changes happen, so I do not oppose part 2.

However, I certainly oppose part 1. I feel that the minister has reached the stage at which he does not trust HMIE, the local authorities or the schools. As has been said, the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000 gave powers to Scottish ministers to request an inspection of a local authority—that can already be done. Ministers have the power to intervene in that way, so I do not think that they need the new powers in the bill.

What school or local authority in Scotland has not complied with HMIE recommendations? As someone who was a teacher for 27 years, I know that, any time HMIE inspected any establishment that I was in, I complied with its recommendations, as did the rest of the staff. We usually ended up being highly stressed throughout the process; everyone jumped through hoops to ensure that they complied with HMIE recommendations. That is an indication of how important people consider HMIE and its inspections of schools to be.

I ask the minister to give me some answers. What is his agenda? Why did he introduce the bill? I have asked those questions before and I still have not had the answers; I am waiting for them. We will not support the passing of the bill.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

I support the bill, which has now completed its amendment stages before the Education Committee and the full Parliament. It is a small but important part of the legislative framework for our schools and should be seen in the wider context of the improvement agenda. There are two distinct parts to it: one modernises the regulatory regime that governs independent schools and has been welcomed by all parties—I will return to that in a minute—and the second focuses on ministerial powers of intervention, which although not exactly controversial have generated some concern in some quarters.

The strongest criticism has come from our colleagues in local government. They are anxious that the bill might undermine their role in managing and running local schools, but I do not believe that that is its purpose. As I have pointed out on many occasions, the Government's record on devolving decision making to the most appropriate and most local level is good, and I believe that the idea of reading the bill as being about who pulls the strings—who has the ultimate authority or control—is irrelevant. The bill's focus is the local school and, in particular, the few local schools throughout the country that, to be frank, are not doing well enough. When we talk about failing schools, we mean that the pupils and the hardworking majority of teachers in such schools are being failed by a lack of clear leadership, strong management or good governance. In that situation, pupils, parents and teachers do not care whether the support and assistance that they need come from local government or the Executive; they just want to get back on track.

The bill will do nothing to prevent good partnership working from improving a school, but it will help ministers to respond when serious problems have been identified. The Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000 placed a clear duty on ministers to secure improvement in our schools. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education has put in place a new inspection regime and, together with our local authorities, all those who have a role to play in working to improve our schools are now able to do so in partnership and with the necessary legal framework to support that partnership.

The second part of the bill, which introduces a modern regulatory regime for independent schools, has not been controversial. In fact, it has been an excellent example of the Executive, the Parliament and the public working consensually to achieve a shared objective, which makes it even more extraordinary that the Opposition parties cannot bring themselves to support the bill. Some members have argued that we should not waste parliamentary time on the reform, but I do not support that line of thinking, because, on that basis, no lesser measure would ever be given parliamentary time, as we would be dealing only with the headline grabbers and the hot political issues of the day. There must always be time for thoughtful and considered reform of statute, particularly when, as with the bill, the result is to extend the improvement agenda to all our schools and all who have a role in their success. I am happy to support those measures.

I commend the School Education (Ministerial Powers and Independent Schools) (Scotland) Bill to the Parliament.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

It is interesting that the two back-bench members from the Executive parties who have spoken in this debate made speeches that almost damned the bill with faint praise. Robert Brown's opening remarks were hardly supportive of the bill, but he eventually came round to suggesting that it was modest but necessary. I am deeply unconvinced by Kenneth Macintosh's argument that we need the bill although it is not a headline-grabbing measure, because the evidence to support that contention has not been presented to the committee or the Parliament. If we examine the language of the bill, we find that it is all about teacher bashing and how the Executive will address failing schools—the word "failure" appears regularly throughout the bill. However, there is no evidence to suggest that education authorities or schools do not act on HMIE's recommendations or that they will not do so in future.

The bill significantly undermines the relationship between local authorities, schools and the Executive. Kenneth Macintosh said that that is not its purpose, but the trust between them undoubtedly could be broken as a consequence of the bill.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Why does the member think that trust would be broken by the new ministerial power, given all the other ministerial powers in this area that already exist? What is the difference between them?

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

The measures are unnecessary because the powers already exist. The suspicion that was raised by Rosemary Byrne—that there is some other agenda here—will undermine trust and confidence. I really do not understand why there is a need to use such a big stick. We have devoted considerable parliamentary time to the bill against a background of significant difficulties in education.

We have problems associated with discipline, and the Executive's well-motivated inclusion agenda—which had support from throughout the chamber—has led to some difficulties. Exclusions from schools have been causing problems. There is a tension around inclusion and exclusion, which needs to be addressed. We could have used the time spent on this bill to address that tension and the discipline problems around it instead. We could also have used the time to address the difficulty surrounding the 30 per cent of pupils—and rising—who leave school with little or no qualifications. Instead, we have before us a modest and, in my view, extremely unnecessary measure.

The language in the bill is wrong. The legislation is about trying to lay blame for failures in education; it is also about a failing education agenda. I am very disappointed that we have ended up using parliamentary time on the bill. There has been no clamour for the legislation from anyone other than the ministers. I am not aware that Johann Lamont, for example, has been saying to the Executive from the back benches that there is a weakness in its legislation that needs to be dealt with. The only people who have said that are ministers—but who was responsible for that legislation? The ministers were—not the present ministers, Peter Peacock and Euan Robson, but their predecessors, who steered through the previous bill. However, no one else is saying that the bill before us is required.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I have heard those arguments from Brian Adam before and I know that he makes them sincerely. We have heard of several examples of poor inspection reports of schools. I can think of one secondary school that was judged to be good or very good in no category. It was mostly unsatisfactory in its performance and only occasionally fair.

What would the Scottish National Party do if appropriate measures to bring about the necessary change in the performance of such schools were not being taken? It seems that Brian Adam is seeking to ensure that ministers have no power to act in those circumstances. What would the SNP do if improvement was not taking place?

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

Mr Peacock is trying the same line that he used in the stage 1 debate. [ Interruption. ] I will address the point, if the minister is capable of remaining in his seat long enough. The minister cites one example. We believe that the required powers already exist. We do not believe that people are not acting on inspection reports. The minister has still not presented any evidence to suggest that he does not already have the necessary power. He has presented no evidence to suggest that when reports say that schools are not of an appropriate standard, action is not being taken—either by the schools themselves or by education authorities—in support of schools that are not delivering for our young people as they should. This miserable little piece of legislation is just part of a—

Rosemary Byrne (SSP, South of Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

How am I doing for time, Presiding Officer?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

You are actually well over time for your speech, but we are still slightly ahead of the timetable. If you wish to take a further intervention and respond to it, I will allow that.

Rosemary Byrne (SSP, South of Scotland)

Does the member agree that a school that has not had its follow-up inspection should not be cited? I think that the minister was referring to a school that has had an initial inspection, but not a follow-up inspection. We would have to base any evidence of a school not carrying out recommendations on a follow-up inspection, not on an initial inspection.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

I take Rosemary Byrne's point. This miserable little bill would not address that situation, because a succession of failures is required before ministers will act under the new power.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

You have one minute left.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

In fact, I think I will conclude my remarks at that point.

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I have listened to this morning's debate with considerable interest and thank members for taking part. I am surprised at some of the exaggerated language that has been used. Further, I suggest that the theory that the Tories are the champions of local democracy is about as plausible as the theory that Caligula's horse improved oratory in the Roman Senate.

Clearly, Robin Harper was not listening to or did not understand the point that I made during the discussion of the second group of amendments. There is a great range of qualificatory powers. If, between now and decision time, he wants me to take him through them, I will be happy to do so. We do not want an unfettered power. We are addressing a particular issue that we need to address and believe that we have done so in a proportionate way.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

Why was no specific qualification on varying built into the bill?

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

A series of procedures must be gone through and there is a series of qualifications in the bill. I will explain them to the member later, if he so wishes.

It is clear that members of the Opposition parties do not know what they would do if, in the circumstances that the bill seeks to address, HMIE's recommendations had not been followed. In those rare circumstances, the Opposition parties would leave the Executive with no powers, because they misunderstand the fact that at present there is no power for ministers to intervene in those circumstances. That is the important point that Robert Brown emphasised. I agree that the bill makes a small change, but it is significant.

I thank the Education Committee for its comments and for the concerted way in which it approached the bill in its stage 1 report. We have taken account of many of the committee's recommendations and have accepted some of the convener's amendments and fully debated others. I appreciate the committee's detailed consideration at stage 2 and the amendments that were lodged.

At stage 2, we took the opportunity to clarify the fact that the trigger for the HMIE to refer a school or an authority to ministers would be used in circumstances only in which HMIE felt that the matter was of sufficient seriousness to be addressed. We also accepted that it should be made clear that a referral from HMIE to ministers should include the recommended actions that HMIE suggests, but should also specify the failure that the actions seek to address.

I should explain to Lord James Douglas-Hamilton that Disclosure Scotland has improved its performance in recent months. There was a period in which there were some difficulties and unacceptable delays, but ministers have taken careful account of that and I am pleased to say that those delays have been reduced. Further, the outstanding number of referrals to Disclosure Scotland has dropped significantly. If Lord James Douglas-Hamilton wishes, I can give him details of that later.

There was discussion at stage 2 about the "proper person" test that is to be applied to teachers and proprietors under part 2 of the bill. I want to reiterate what I said at that time. We are all keen to ensure that only people who are suitable to work with children work in our schools, whether they be teachers, janitors or catering staff. In that respect, the Protection of Children (Scotland) Act 2003 applies equally to the independent sector and the public sector and provides safeguards to prevent persons who are unsuitable to work with children being able to do so.

The "proper person" standard referred to in part 2, which relates to the independent sector, is for much wider purposes than the standard of being suitable to work with children. It relates to whether people are proper people to be teachers or proprietors. The standard already exists, but we propose to take the additional power to specify in regulations the classes of people that are not considered proper to be teachers or proprietors. It is appropriate to examine the propriety of teachers in the private sector as, unlike those in the state sector, not all will have had their propriety checked by the General Teaching Council for Scotland. Similarly, the state sector has no proprietors, so it is appropriate to have a test for them that takes into account factors beyond child welfare.

The Executive also intends to issue guidance for independent schools that will set out how their obligations under the bill relate to their obligations under other legislation, such as the Protection of Children (Scotland) Act 2003. It is important to emphasise those points and I welcome Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's remarks about that.

Concern has been expressed about whether powers to set conditions may be used unreasonably. We have taken those powers to allow ministers to act reasonably. They have been taken not to place additional burdens on new schools, but to assist in the registration process and with on-going regulation.

I reiterate my thanks to the Education Committee for its input and I thank the various organisations and individuals who played a part in shaping the bill. The bill gives us an opportunity to close a gap whereby authorities have no clear obligation to take on board HMIE's recommendations after an inspection. It gives ministers powers to direct education authorities to take action in response to HMIE's recommendations and it brings the legislation that covers independent schools up to date. The measure is worth commending to the Parliament.

I recommend that the Parliament supports the bill and I hope that the motion will be passed at decision time.

Public Telephone Boxes (Closures)

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The next item of business is a members' business debate on motion S2M-1706, in the name of Bruce Crawford, on the closure of public telephone boxes by BT. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament recognises the value of public telephone boxes as an important public service throughout Scotland in terms of social need and access to emergency services; is concerned about the plans by British Telecom (BT) to close 165 call boxes in towns and villages throughout mid-Scotland and Fife and around 1,000 around Scotland; supports the many community councils who have expressed grave concern at the planned closure of public call boxes in their communities; considers the consultation process conducted by BT to be inadequate, and therefore believes that BT should consult directly with the communities affected and reconsider its plans.

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

In the 20 th century, the red public call-box established itself as a much-cherished and valued part of our street scene. Call-boxes provide a service that is valued by the many people who still have no land-line or access to a mobile phone. The service is valued by those who happen to live in an area that mobile-phone network operators do not serve and by those who choose for health reasons not to have a mobile phone. The service is valued by tourists, by those who might find themselves in an emergency and by the elderly in particular. All those reasons have been submitted to me by various community councils that want the public call-boxes in their communities to be retained.

However, as we enter the 21st century, a huge increase in mobile phone ownership has led to a culture change in the communication world and means that far fewer people use public call-boxes. A review of the number of call-boxes was as inevitable as the fact that night follows day. However, people have the right to expect any review process to be robust and any consultation process to reach the communities that are to be affected.

We have been told that in the past three years alone, the number of calls that are made from BT's public call-boxes has almost halved and that revenue has plummeted by about 41 per cent. Scotland has 6,113 boxes, of which a stubborn 3,800 are not in a position to pay their way. It is therefore clear that BT has a difficult balancing act to perform. It is understandable that, as a public limited company, it wants to ensure that its shareholders' interests are upheld but, at the same time, it is required to discharge its universal service obligations as laid down by the regulator.

In Scotland, 1,030 non-profit-making call-boxes that attract less than £200 per annum have been targeted for removal, and 165 of them are in Mid Scotland and Fife. By far the majority of the call-boxes that are targeted for removal are in rural areas; the cities and larger conurbations fare much less badly.

There is a real danger of the process leading to discrimination against rural communities. To be fair, BT has told us that if a community objects to the removal of a call-box it will not proceed, but the reality is that the Office of Communications regulations do not allow BT to proceed with removal if it has received a simple written representation with reasons for objection. That shows that the Ofcom regulations are very weak; they place no requirement on BT or the other providers to construct a reasonable, criteria-based solution by which call-boxes can be removed.

To be fair to BT again, it has said that it is intent on retaining 850 call-boxes on the ground of social need. However, there is a fatal flaw in BT's procedures. If one does not establish clear and objective criteria for removing a public call-box where there has been no objection because the community or persons affected have been unaware, it is inevitable that unsafe decisions to remove call-boxes will be arrived at. That is one of the main reasons why the motion states that BT should "reconsider its plans".

In addition to the lack of clear criteria, BT's consultation process has not been as robust as it should have been. I say that because, in July 2003, Ofcom issued a new direction that clearly laid down the requirements that BT must follow if a proposal to remove a call-box is being considered. BT is required to give community councils notice of a proposal to remove a call-box and, when all reasonable efforts to do that have failed, BT can ask the local planning authority to give such notice. BT has chosen to use the route of consulting Scotland's community councils through the planning authority—I presume that it has done so on the basis that it thinks that it has made reasonable efforts directly to consult community councils. If that is its argument, I would dispute whether all reasonable efforts have indeed been made. I simply do not believe for one moment that an organisation of the scale and with the resources available to BT cannot make direct contact with the community councils that will be affected by the potential removal of call-boxes. If I, as an MSP with limited resources at my disposal, can get to a large chunk of Mid Scotland and Fife community councils, surely BT can manage to consult directly community councils in Scotland.

Some people might ask why the local authority is not relied on to do that job for BT. No matter how much we love oor cooncils, we all know that some are good at consultation, but that some are quite dreadful. In such circumstances, BT should surely make much greater attempts to consult community councils directly.

I would like members to hear the words of a couple of community councils that responded to BT. One community council said:

"We are ... deeply concerned that your version of 'consultation' appears to have been no more than a Notice displayed on the kiosk. In all previous exercises by yourselves of this description, we have been consulted as a COMMUNITY COUNCIL (even where the kiosks were not within our area). We suggest that your inadequate consultative procedure, should lead you to re-launch this current exercise."

Another community council said:

"We again have to raise our concerns over BT's very poor local consultation procedures ... BT are obliged to contact local authorities down to Parish or Community Council level. Why has this not happened? ... Why is the first intimation ... beyond reports of notices in the boxes, via an MSP?"

In considering the motion that is before the Parliament, I ask the minister to take on board the points that I have made, to support my motion and to ask BT to reconsider its plans and to start the consultation process again so that we can get directly to all the communities that are affected and so that no unsafe decisions are taken.

I thank the 29 MSPs who signed my motion.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The debate is heavily subscribed. I will try to get in as many members as possible.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I am grateful to Bruce Crawford for the opportunity to debate this matter. Although his motion mentions plans to close 165 call boxes in Mid Scotland and Fife, I remind him that, of the 1,300 call-boxes under threat, 257 of them are in the Highlands, which is probably one of the most remote areas in Scotland.

Bruce Crawford criticised the consultation period, but I am sure that he is aware that it has been extended by a further three weeks.

Last week, along with many other MSPs, I attended a meeting arranged by my colleague David Mundell with the director of BT pay-phones. I attended that meeting precisely because of my concerns and because people had written to me about theirs. It comes as little surprise to any of us that, in an age when the popularity and use of mobile phones is ubiquitous among people of all ages, the revenue produced by pay-phones is reduced. Likewise, it is understandable that BT, as a company with profit margins to keep, will try to make changes in those areas of business that perform less efficiently.

Some £1,500 per phone box is a substantial amount. Perhaps we should look at why BT has to subsidise the phone boxes as that might be another issue. However, there are concerns about public safety and communication. On the point that Bruce Crawford raised about community councils and people being made aware of the situation, I say to him that the matter is not that simple; many areas in the Highlands do not have a community council. My worry is that such areas will not be part of the consultation process.

My other worry, which was raised at the meeting, is that the objection response rate in Scotland is 26 per cent. That is not high, given the huge change that the proposed closures will impose.

Rosie Kane (SSP, Glasgow)

Does the member agree that, when BT wants to flog us something, it manages to get itself into every home in the country? Could it not apply that same logic and expense in the current situation?

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I am sure that BT is well aware of how to implement its ideas and that is important for it.

Pay-phones serve an emergency need for tourists whose cars have broken down, for example, but that is also why BT has to act sensitively when working with local communities. Bruce Crawford did not raise certain points that were made at the meeting so I will raise them. BT needs to ensure that all phones are in working order because it cannot complain that phones are underused if they are not in proper working order. BT has to rely on members of the public to report those phones and many people do not bother.

However, there are three other options to pursue and I hope that, rather than removing the telephone kiosks, we can use and advance those three options. I also hope that they will be available to community councils as part of the consultation process. One option is for kiosks to be used as tourist information points—I believe that that is being considered for a kiosk beside Loch Ness. That would cost around only £200 a year and I understand that local authorities are also looking at that option. There is also the option of modernising pay-phones to make them into multimedia terminals that would be accessible throughout many areas of the Highlands where broadband and internet access do not exist. The third option is to use the telephones to contact the emergency services. No cash would be used, but people would be able to telephone emergency numbers, dial 0800 numbers and to reverse the charges. Rather than looking at the threats, we should look at the opportunities.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and I begin by congratulating my colleague Bruce Crawford on securing this important debate on ensuring the protection of an important part of the public services of rural Scotland in particular.

Some 54 call-boxes in my North Tayside constituency are under threat of closure by BT. In addition to the fine efforts that Bruce Crawford has made in leading the debate, I have written to each of the community councils that cover the phone boxes concerned to encourage them to be part of the consultation process. It is essential that community councils raise their voices to protect this vital public service.

It is a pleasure at any time to visit any part of my constituency, but it is a particular pleasure when I go to Kinloch Rannoch, Glenisla or Glen Esk. Those are some of the very few parts of my constituency where my mobile phone does not receive a signal and I can escape from the travails of political life. "He's up in Kinloch Rannoch and uncontactable" is a great excuse for avoiding calls from the press, but the fact is that in many areas of my constituency—and particularly in a number of areas where BT proposes to remove the phone boxes—there is very poor or no mobile phone coverage. We cannot assume that because most people in our cities and across central Scotland are able to use mobile phones they are accessible to everyone in every part of the country.

We must also address individuals' access to public services. Some low income households might not have access to a mobile phone—indeed, they might not even have a land-line—and public telephone boxes are the only way that those people can access telecommunication services. In the interests of fairness and access to services, the network must be preserved.

Obviously, tourism forms a substantial element of my constituency's economy. As a result, we cannot assume that every visitor who gets into trouble in our area can put their hand in their pocket, pull out their mobile phone and make the required connection. We need a credible communications network that is available to everyone, no matter whether they are people in low income households or tourists. The obligation is on us to encourage the network's retention.

As I said at the start of my speech, I have encouraged community councils in the north Tayside area to make representations directly to BT. I want to reinforce that in this debate. Many of our parliamentary debates centre on the deterioration of general practitioner out-of-hours services, ambulance services and other public services in our rural areas. I really hope that we can make a powerful case to BT that it should rescind its decision, because removing these phone boxes will inevitably undermine the quality and range of public services that are available to people in rural Scotland. We must resist any such move if we are to protect the public interest.

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

I apologise to Bruce Crawford for not being in the chamber for the beginning of the debate. I did not realise that it had been brought forward by as much as it had been.

I welcome Bruce Crawford's motion and this debate. I certainly reinforced many of his points in my amendment, which dealt specifically with Stirling constituency. I should point out that my remarks concern both urban and rural areas, although I accept the point that the rural dimension is very important.

I first heard about BT's proposal in an e-mail from Ian Shanks of BT. My colleague Anne McGuire, the MP for Stirling, was informed about the matter in a letter from Tim O'Sullivan. I assume that that the same happened throughout Scotland. As the e-mail and letter made clear, the rationale for the decision is that the increase in mobile phone use has meant a fall in the use of pay-phones. Indeed, that rationale was elaborated on in the meeting last week that Mary Scanlon mentioned.

However, BT's e-mail and letter also acknowledged social need and stressed the new initiatives that it was introducing. Perhaps the picture is not all black, and I hope that in the few minutes available I will be constructive as well as outline some of the concerns that have been expressed.

BT intimated that in its consultation process it had written to councils to ensure that they would communicate with community councils. When I found that that had not happened in my constituency, my colleague Anne McGuire and I wrote to every community council to tell them exactly what was happening and to ask them to get involved in the consultation process. As Mary Scanlon has said, the deadline for the consultation has been extended from 10 October to 22 October, largely because of difficulties that have been experienced during the process.

The six replies that I have received so far from community councils have welcomed our intervention, which has at least allowed them to know what was happening. They were surprised that BT communicated with me by e-mail, feeling that that was possibly not the best way. They recognised some of BT's rationale, as outlined in that communication, and two of the community councils agreed that some phone boxes were not being used and should be removed. However, that was not one of the big issues that the community councils wanted to get over to me.

The main issue was that consideration of social need was paramount—especially in disadvantaged areas where access to a phone is not always available. The community councils also emphasised the emergency issue, and mentioned—just as John Swinney did—areas where a mobile cannot be used. That issue becomes even more important when we consider tourists coming to national parks.

It was very useful to meet Ian Shanks and Paul Hendron last week. They agreed that if community councils approached their councils and put forward a case—with information that would then be sent to BT—the phone box would not be removed. That is exactly what they said at that meeting.

I am confused about what has been said about Ofcom and I would like the minister to clarify. As I understand it, Ofcom will be consulting in November and considering pay-phones and cashless phones—which could include emergency pads, for example. It could be argued that some phone boxes should be replaced with new ones equipped with emergency facilities—for example, in national parks, to follow on from what John Swinney said. I wonder whether it might have been better to wait and have a consultation that considered all the issues together. Perhaps the minister will comment on that. There is great concern about these issues and I hope that the minister will address them.

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I congratulate Bruce Crawford on obtaining this short debate and I am grateful to the minister for allowing me to make a few constituency points.

Of the 136 pay-phones in my constituency, 56 are said to be profitable and 54 have been scheduled by BT for removal. BT says that it will retain 26 loss-making pay-phones

"to provide an essential community service."

Although one or two of the 54 that are scheduled for removal are redundant or duplicate existing provision, the majority of the 54, in my view, provide an essential community service, especially for emergencies.

As with John Swinney's constituency, it is possible in parts of my constituency to escape the mobile phone. In northern Berwickshire and around Newcastleton, for example, there is no mobile phone signal. It is therefore especially important that those areas should have a continuing pay-phone presence. We must also remember that mobile phones can run out—of battery or credit—so, again, it is important to have a network of emergency phones. In other constituencies, there are doubtless overwhelming social reasons for retaining certain pay-phones even if they collect little money. There are plenty such instances in my area.

I am particularly concerned about the maintenance of pay-phones. Recently I tried to use a pay-phone at Ellemford in north Berwickshire only to find that it was for 999 calls only. For some reason that pay-phone is included among the loss makers, but it is no wonder that it makes a loss when it is out of order and people cannot put any money in it.

If we regard the pay-phone network as providing an emergency service, we must ask Ofcom to look at the regulatory framework. It appears to me that BT is under some constraints, and I agree with Sylvia Jackson that it might have been far better for Ofcom to have conducted its review of emergency service provision before the present initiative was embarked on.

Like many other members, I would encourage community councils and individuals to make known the detailed implications of the removal of phone boxes in their localities. It was helpful to have the assurance from BT's pay-phone director and I appreciated the manner in which he approached the meeting. I urge all those concerned to approach BT with the relevant reasons, but BT must then respond, because it is no use its making commitments and then, in the fullness of time, not delivering on them.

I hope that the vast majority of the pay-phones in my constituency and beyond can be saved. If in due course there are opportunities for new technology and new development, so be it, but we should not deny the access that is vital to a number of people and in emergency situations before the alternatives are in place.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I congratulate my colleague Bruce Crawford on securing this important debate. Listening to John Swinney talk about Kinloch Rannoch and to Euan Robson, I thought for one moment that they were going to say that they held their surgeries in telephone boxes in some areas—although I am sure that they get many more people along than would fit into a telephone box. That helps to illustrate my next point, which came across at the meeting with BT. Telephone boxes in some areas are often used for purposes other than making telephone calls—I refer to the ones that are used as bus shelters and will take that line of argument no further.

Clearly their use qua phone boxes is minimal, because they are often used only in an emergency, whether by a passing motorist or a local inhabitant whose land-line has gone down. When the land-line is not available, there is a real emergency and there is no mobile phone coverage, there is a real problem.

I am not quite as critical of BT as Bruce Crawford's motion is, in respect of its not using community councils. There should be a seamless way in which local authorities can automatically pass down consultation to community councils. Local authorities should not have to think twice about that, but I suspect that that is not the case; I suspect that local authorities sometimes do not have up-to-date records of who the secretaries of community councils are. That is symptomatic of the way in which community councils are often treated in the local government structure—they are not seen as an important part, but in many areas they are the only representative true local voice.

If community councils have not been spoken to and the phone box in question is used only occasionally when there is a dire emergency, what on earth is the point in putting up a notice to say that it is going to be taken away? The reality is that someone who is likely to complain would have to go into the phone box during the consultation period; not everyone takes up their opportunities to make their voice heard and perhaps we should not be surprised that, in many cases, nobody has come forward to say, "That phone box could well be essential to me." BT should be congratulated on some of the innovative ways in which it is using phone boxes in certain places to try to make them more valuable and on co-operating with local authorities, which are using the phone boxes as ways of delivering local services that they might find uneconomic in other circumstances. That being more widespread presupposes that local authorities will have sufficient budgets, because somebody has to fund those phone boxes. I am a bit worried that local authorities, which would be the obvious bodies to do that, might find that there is so much pressure on their budgets as a result of successive settlements from the Parliament that they cannot go down the social routes that do not involve a legislative requirement. BT is a commercial firm whether we like it or not—some of us might not like it—and we cannot expect it to deliver every social service that we as legislators think should be delivered.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank Bruce Crawford for introducing this topic for debate. The issue concerns many communities in Mid Scotland and Fife and throughout Scotland.

In many ways, the debate is a microcosm for a lot of our debates about the provision of public services. What we are talking about is a form of centralisation and rationalisation of a public service. There is also an issue about the way in which major private and public bodies that supply the services on which we all rely consult members of the public. Additionally, it is about the balance that we strike between the facilities that private individuals have—in this case, mobile phones and land-lines—and the public facilities on which we all rely.

Rather than centralising, we should look to localise services where that is appropriate. However, that does not mean that those services should just stand still. A good example is the way in which the Royal Mail has enabled post offices to work with Clydesdale Bank, which has enabled new services to be brought into post offices to keep them viable as places that we can all use in our communities. We need to look at phone boxes in the same way and start to offer additional services in them. I am not talking about time travel; I am talking about enabling people to access the internet through phone boxes, especially in remote areas that do not have broadband coverage, so that they can shop and pay their bills. Walkers could gain access to information on weather and local walking routes, and tourists could access other forms of information. All those additional services could be provided through our phone boxes as part of our localising of the services that we all need.

It is clear that there have been flaws in the way in which British Telecom has conducted its consultation, and communities have often had to run campaigns to get proper dialogue with BT on the issue. For example, the community in Glen Lyon had to run a campaign to get BT to reconsider the closure of a phone box there. In the 21st century, we need to move away from that kind of dialogue between service providers and communities. We need a much less confrontational approach and a process of greater engagement to come from companies such as BT. I would like BT to go to communities to spell out why it feels that some of the phone boxes need to close and what the options are to make them viable in the future, including the building of additional services into the phone boxes.

As has been pointed out, not everyone owns or wants a mobile phone, just as not everyone owns or wants a private car, and lots of people do not even have access to a land-line. There are unanswered questions about the long-term safety of increased mobile phone usage, and many people want the choice not to use a mobile phone.

Phone boxes provide a valuable social service. In Perthshire, a lot of migrant fruit pickers come into the area over the summer to pick the fruit, and in one village every season there is a huge queue of fruit pickers who want to call home from a public phone box. That phone box is extremely well used and provides a valuable social service for those people, who do not have mobile phones or access to a land-line in their accommodation. The irony is that many of them make reverse-charge calls when they phone home. I wonder whether BT, as part of its economic rationalisation, is taking into consideration the fact that people are not always putting cash into the phones but are sometimes using them as a vital public service to make reverse-charge calls.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

As Murray Tosh said, the debate is oversubscribed. I therefore invite a member to move a motion without notice to extend the debate by 15 minutes.

Motion moved,

That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended by 15 minutes.—[Bruce Crawford.]

Motion agreed to.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

I, too, congratulate Bruce Crawford on securing the debate. Although he referred specifically to Mid Scotland and Fife, the issue concerns all MSPs who represent rural areas throughout Scotland.

I, too, attended the meeting that was organised last week by my rival, David Mundell. He is not here today—I presume that he is detained somewhere down south. The meeting, which was very interesting and useful, gave some of the background to the debate in Paul Hendron's exposition of the problems that BT faces in the delivery of the pay-phone service. Because of the increase in the use of mobile phones and the decrease in the use of pay-phones, BT cannot continue with the status quo and has to look at something else.

There is definitely an issue about the way in which information was sent out to elected members and local people. As Sylvia Jackson said, the information was sent to members by e-mail. I did not pick up my e-mails on that Friday night and the first that I knew about the whole thing was when I heard Alasdair Morgan's dulcet tones on the radio on Monday morning saying that people should get involved. I was ready to be insulted by the fact that BT had not consulted me, but found that it had, in fact, done so. I am not sure that e-mail is the best way of reaching people who might not have good telecommunications in their constituency offices.

More concerning is the way in which the situation was passed on to local authorities to deal with through community councils. As has been said, not every area has a community council; not every community council meets regularly; and not every local authority has the address of their local community council secretary. People can slip through the consultation net. Of course, everyone has a councillor and perhaps local authorities should consider the way in which they communicate through their councillors on such matters. Councillors should attend community council and tenants and residents association meetings when such organisations exist; that is part of their role in representing their community. Perhaps a bit more attention should have been paid by the local authorities to the way in which councillors could deal with some of the consultations.

We have examples of consultations from other private companies. For example, Scottish Power has been consulting on various wind farm proposals in my area. Other companies are going around with roadshows and inviting local people to come along and see what is being suggested. There are models available that BT might have considered.

I agree with Sylvia Jackson and Euan Robson that the consultation in November on the provision of cashless and emergency phones could have been better co-ordinated with what is going on now. If it were properly organised, that initiative could offer a solution to some of the problems that will arise in rural areas if the pay-phones are removed. As Paul Hendron told us, cashless phones are considerably cheaper because they do not have to be emptied and they do not need to be located in a kiosk, so people cannot use them as bus shelters or for any of the other nefarious purposes that pay-phones are sometimes used for. Hopefully, if such phones are vandal-proofed, they should be considerably cheaper to operate. They allow people to make 999 calls and reverse-charges calls. It was suggested that credit cards or phone cards could be used in them, and that would allow people to make normal communication from them.

It is important that the various people who run public services and the private companies that have an obligation to provide such information technology—including the new IT such as broadband and the multimedia centres to which Mary Scanlon referred—get together and speak to each other about the best way in which services can be provided. There are examples of good practice from other parts of the UK and Scotland, but I do not get the impression that people are working together and talking to each other. That is what needs to be done.

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

I thank Bruce Crawford for introducing the debate. The possible loss of phone boxes is an issue that is being discussed by people in communities the length and breadth of Scotland, including people in my constituency. I therefore welcome this opportunity to consider the matter in our own Scottish Parliament.

As members will appreciate, I come at the debate from a Highland perspective. I recognise that in towns today, mobile phone coverage is probably universal. Regrettably however, there is a major problem with vandalism and I therefore appreciate the problem that BT faces in maintaining its phone kiosk network. However, things are very different in rural areas, particularly in much of the area that I represent, where coverage is erratic at best or non-existent in some parts.

Maintaining access to a network of pay-phones is important and, in some circumstances, could be a matter of life and death. For example, motorway travellers are provided with emergency phones at regular intervals. I can assure members that the local road authority provides no such facilities on the A87 between Invergarry and Kyle of Lochalsh. Travellers in the north have no such luxury and must rely on pay-phones.

Our friends in the Tory party privatised BT and the company's board obviously has a duty to its shareholders. However, I argue that BT and all private companies still have a duty to the communities that they serve. That argument should apply to the provision of telephone boxes in rural areas of Scotland. Should some telephone boxes become unviable, BT should approach the Government and ask it to help maintain them because, in many cases, they are vital community assets.

Much of the impetus to remove boxes comes from a reduction in demand because of the prevalence of mobile telephones. We all know that most people today carry a mobile phone. However, as I mentioned, not everywhere in the north has mobile phone coverage, so it is vital that boxes are maintained in areas where there is no complete coverage by all the networks. More important, it must be remembered that not everyone has a mobile phone. It is possible that tourists will have no access to mobile telephones and they may well need a phone if they get lost or break down on their way to somewhere. In addition, those who do not own telephones are likely to be the most vulnerable in society, and to be poor and elderly. There is no doubt in my mind that BT phone boxes have an almost iconic position in the public's psyche and, for that reason, no one wants to see them go. However, there is a strong case for their being maintained in rural areas of Scotland on community and safety grounds.

Highland Council has recognised the problem and it suggested to BT that there should be no more than 5 miles between pay-phone kiosks in the rural network, except where there are large areas of uninhabited countryside. I support that proposal. BT should be encouraged to discuss the reduction in services with the various community councils in the most affected areas, so that a reasonable, practical and acceptable solution can continue to be available.

Rosemary Byrne (SSP, South of Scotland)

I thank Bruce Crawford for lodging the motion and securing the debate. We have heard about many issues regarding safety aspects and I will go over one or two of those. However, an important aspect that we have missed is the use by young people of the ChildLine helpline. Many young people who call ChildLine use a pay-phone rather than a phone in their house, if the situation concerns abuse problems within their household. There has been a huge increase in the number of young people who access ChildLine. I do not think that any research has been done to assess how many of them use pay-phones and how many do not, but if only one child gets help from using a pay-phone, it is worth having them.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Does the member agree that that issue is similar to the one that Mr Ballard raised, which is that BT gives us revenue figures for the telephone boxes, but of course an 0800 call to ChildLine does not generate any money at all?

Rosemary Byrne (SSP, South of Scotland)

That is correct; I was just coming to that point. There is no measurement of how many young people use pay-phones and what profits are made. Profit should not be part of the issue. What we are talking about should be a public service to which people have easy access for the kind of situations that we have described. We should point up strongly that that issue should be considered in much more detail.

Last year, more than 8,000 children in distress used a phone box to telephone ChildLine. Many youngsters, especially those who live in poverty, do not have a mobile. Even when they do, they may lack credit or a signal, or they may be uneasy about making a confidential call in public if they are unable to phone from home.

ChildLine's chief executive, Carole Easton, said:

"Public telephones are very important for children and young people in danger or distress, giving them direct and confidential access to ChildLine.

They are especially important as a means of emergency communication in remote and isolated, or rural, areas."

It is those remote and isolated areas that we have talked about today. I have been contacted by a number of people in the Borders who are concerned about the situation and who feel that issues such as the needs of young people and emergency situations have not been considered.

There are accident black spots at which there will be no access to phones in the area if the call boxes are taken away. There could be an emergency in which no one can make contact because they cannot get a signal from their mobile phone or because they do not have a mobile phone. We have to consider such situations. Phone boxes are marked on ordnance survey maps, which have been mentioned. If someone needs to get emergency help and is following an ordnance survey map, they might soon find that the phone box that they are looking for is not there.

The consultation process has been extremely poor—a lot of comments have been made about that—and BT needs to consider how it conducts consultations. Rosie Kane pointed out that BT is quick enough to phone us up to sell us stuff. If we are sitting at home having dinner at night and the phone rings, it is invariably BT. If BT can do that, I am quite sure that it can do a better consultation than it has done. I hope that everyone will support the motion, particularly with regard to ChildLine.

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

I begin by declaring a small shareholding in BT. Sadly, it is a modest one.

The constituency that I represent is the second largest in Scotland—and indeed in Britain—and includes rural communities from Ardnamurchan to Auldearn, from Drumochter to Dalcross and from Nairn to Knoydart via Loch Ness. If the proposal to remove pay-phones goes ahead, there will be about as many pay-phones on the shores of Loch Ness as there are annual sightings of the loch's most famous resident.

Broadly speaking, I endorse the arguments put by members of all parties who are representatives of rural constituencies. Rather than repeat arguments that have already been made, I shall ask the minister to address what seems to me to be a fundamental illogicality in the current process.

In order to stop the proposed removal of any public pay-phone, all that is required under the existing rules is that a written objection to the proposal is made providing reasons for the objection. The rules do not define what the reasons are. If there are any reasons at all, the mere intimation of an objection will bring the proposal to a halt. That seems to me to be bonkers, but that is the regulatory regime in which BT finds itself operating and in which we, as representatives of largely rural constituencies, are making the valid points that have been put in this debate.

In particular, we have been pointing out that nowadays, when 99 per cent of households have either a telephone or a mobile phone and only 1 per cent lack that access, the primary role of a pay-phone should be—for the reasons identified by Rosemary Byrne, John Swinney, John Farquhar Munro and Sylvia Jackson—as an emergency service for locals and tourists, in areas where there is no mobile coverage and for use to alert the emergency services. It is an emergency facility, but under the same rules as apply to objections—and perhaps the minister could address this point—there is no power for BT to replace pay-phones with emergency phones. That seems to me to be absurd.

Thirdly, we understand that, although BT has put forward these proposals, it is only following the procedure that was set out in Oftel's direction of last July, which says that BT must consult community councils. Mr Ruskell made the rather bizarre and onerous proposal that BT should consult every community in Scotland. Even if BT were to consult even every community in my constituency, I think that it would take several BT employees an entire year to do so. BT is only doing what it has to do. Will the minister confirm whether BT consulted the Scottish Executive on whether the consultation procedure should be enhanced? If so, what was the Executive's response?

Even more perverse is the fact that, at the same time as BT is proposing the closure of a great number of pay-phones throughout Scotland, Ofcom is undertaking a review of the universal service obligation for pay-phones that could change the criteria for the retention of pay-phones. Surely the cart has been put before the horse. Does that not illustrate amply the utter idiocy of operating under a regulatory regime of which Westminster is in charge? Would it not be preferable if our Minister for Transport—whom I am sure all members would wish to support as appropriate—had the power to introduce a regulatory regime that determined the rules before they were applied to a given situation? Living as we do in the real world, we have to recognise that the present situation needs to be addressed.

Does the minister agree that any savings in expenditure that BT achieves through the closure of pay-phones—most of which will be in rural Scotland—should be reinvested in Scotland? Has the Scottish Executive asked BT to make that investment in Scotland, for Scotland and, in particular, for rural Scotland?

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

I, too, thank Bruce Crawford for securing the debate; it has come at exactly the right time. I also thank him for giving us the opportunity to debate BT's proposals for a reduction in the number of public telephone boxes. It enables us to highlight the issues and to alert our constituents to the proposals so that they might be encouraged to write to BT. We need to put the arguments for the retention of our local phone boxes in places in which there is a real need for them to be retained.

BT proposes a reduction in the number of pay-phone kiosks across the county from 6,113 to 5,083. Of the kiosks that are earmarked for closure, 103 are in Aberdeenshire, of which 37 are in my constituency. In fairness, I note that 32 have been identified for retention on social-need grounds. Although I welcome those reprieves, if all the proposed closures were to go ahead, only 80 public telephone boxes would be left to serve my constituents in a large rural area that has a scattered but numerous population. No pay-phones will be left in any of the rural stretches of the A96 between Aberdeen and Inverness.

According to BT, 3,800 of the current 6,113 phone boxes lose money. The number of calls that are made from BT pay-phones has almost halved in the past three years. Overall revenue from phone boxes has dropped by 41 per cent in that time. [Interruption.] I have a feeling that the automatic ventilation is working overtime, Presiding Officer—perhaps it is having to deal with too much hot air.

A review of the network of provision is inevitable. Undoubtedly, part of the reason for the drop in usage and profitability is the expanding use of mobile phones. However, although two thirds of the population own a mobile phone, one third does not. It is also the case that mobile phones can be out of range, out of credit or out of order. Furthermore, 1 per cent of homes have access to neither a mobile nor a land-line phone. Those households are completely dependent on their access to a public phone box.

Phone boxes provide an important service for people who do not have a phone and also for tourists and people who work away from home. Many speakers today have made constructive and innovative suggestions about other ways in which the public telephone network could be used to provide a service.

In an emergency, access to a phone box can be crucial. Seven per cent of calls to the emergency services are made from pay-phones. I guess that many of those calls are made from phone boxes that have low usage in relatively remote sites, but of the few calls that are made, some could be vital in saving lives. At the Liberal Democrat conference in Glasgow on Saturday, we voted unanimously to ask BT to reconsider closing public pay-phones in isolated areas where they could provide a vital service, and we called for BT's provision of service guidelines to be revised to include provision for emergency situations and tourist areas.

However imperfectly, BT has invited members of the public and their elected representatives to tell them which pay-phone kiosk removals should be reconsidered and why. The period for making representations has been extended until 22 October. I hope that the responses that BT receives—some of them, perhaps, prompted by this debate—will make it think again in respect of those phone boxes for which a reasonable case can be made for retention, and particularly where a phone might be required in an emergency. It might also be enthused and motivated by the various suggestions that have been made today that could extend service provision through the phone box network in the 21st century.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

I, too, thank Bruce Crawford for raising this issue. There was a great deal of sense in his introductory speech.

The Executive fully recognises the points that have been made about the importance of public call-box provision. Call-boxes have a clear role to play in terms of social need and emergencies, particularly in remote and rural areas. I have noted members' concerns on the matter and assure everyone that those concerns will be reflected in the response that we will be making to Ofcom's imminent wider consultation on the universal service obligation, which will include its new proposals on public pay-phones.

It is important to emphasise that the regulation of call-boxes is a matter for the independent UK-wide body, Ofcom. Call-boxes have been, and remain, included in the concept of the universal service obligation, which is fundamental to the regulation of the telecoms industry in the UK. Under that obligation, basic telephone services should be available to everybody on reasonable request and at an affordable price. Ofcom set out a universal service condition that applies to BT in most of the United Kingdom, including in Scotland, which allows Ofcom to make a direction setting out the circumstances in which BT can remove a call-box. [Interruption.] Given the noise, I do not know whether one is being dug up outside at the moment. We will see whether the sound system holds out.

As has been said, BT cannot remove the last phone box from a site without a 42-day consultation period. In this case, the consultation period has been extended, and 22 October is now the key date. If a local planning authority or community council in Scotland objects in writing, for whatever reason, BT cannot remove the pay-phone. BT also has to place a notice in the phone box, as has been commented on today, but we should be clear that it is only if the local council or the community council objects to the proposal that it will be blocked. Somebody writing to BT after seeing the notice in the phone box would not, on its own, be enough to stop the removal.

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

Is the minister aware just how ridiculous the situation is? We were told by BT that a parish council in England objected to a telephone box being removed because light from the box shone on the parish signpost and therefore BT could not remove it. BT is obviously in a ridiculous regulatory situation.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

It is important to have a clear understanding of the closure safeguards, but I would not like to defend the nature of those safeguards or the mechanisms that have been put in place. It is important that communities and local people are clear about the current arrangements.

Another two weeks remain for the consultation process in Scotland and I strongly encourage people who object to their local call-box being removed to make known their objection, but I repeat that that objection should come from the community council or the local council, if they wish to block the proposal.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Will the minister say a little more about the Executive's view of how the public call-box network fits into the wider network of rural public services? Is the Executive giving any thought to integrating some of those facilities with wider public information services, such as tourist information facilities? That would strengthen the availability of such services in rural Scotland.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

We have considered that. I share many of the concerns that have been expressed today; I have already spoken of my concern about the removal of phone boxes, especially in areas in which mobile coverage is patchy, in rural areas and in the circumstances that many members have described, in which their local area or constituency is affected. There is no doubt that the provision of call-boxes takes on far greater significance in such areas, which are often, but not exclusively, rural. In remote areas, a call-box often stands some distance apart from the next one. Although such call-boxes might be used far less than those in urban areas, the nature of calls that are made from them can be very important. Calls to ChildLine have been mentioned. When motorists are involved in an accident or when walkers or climbers find themselves in an emergency, a mobile phone is not always available. Call-boxes remain an important part of the Scotland-wide telecommunications infrastructure and, in such circumstances, they are vital to communities.

We will emphasise concerns about accessibility and alternatives, especially in rural areas, to Ofcom in the forthcoming consultation. We will also support the examination of other approaches that could allow the provision of public call-box access in rural areas, some of which have been mentioned in the debate. Those include allowing BT to convert some of the less-used call-boxes into emergency phones. We should be clear that that is prohibited under the present Ofcom regulatory framework.

Rosemary Byrne (SSP, South of Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

It will have to be the last intervention that I take.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Quickly, please.

Rosemary Byrne (SSP, South of Scotland)

What is your interpretation of an emergency phone? Would such a phone allow an 0800 number, such as those for ChildLine and the Samaritans, to be dialled? Would it not be the case that children with a problem who used an emergency phone would be noticed? That might be a difficulty.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

It is important that all such issues are examined carefully. We would wish it to be the case that 0800 numbers could be dialled. Given the technological advances that have been made with modern phone systems, just about anything is possible. It may already be the case that that issue can be resolved. Mary Scanlon might have some information on that.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

As I indicated in my speech, BT said at its meeting last week that 0800 numbers would be free and that it would be possible to reverse the charges, so ChildLine and many other similar organisations could be contacted. I understand that that facility is available now.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

I am grateful to Mary Scanlon for that information. It is clear that we need to address such issues and to ensure that there is a sensible solution.

We have alerted Ofcom's Scottish representatives to the situation. The Executive argued successfully for the creation of statutory Scottish elements to Ofcom's structure, such as an office in Scotland, a Scottish advisory committee and the presence of a Scottish member on Ofcom's consumer panel. I have no doubt that MSPs will want to contact the people in those bodies. In addition, the Executive is determined to play a full and active role on the universal service obligation and on the future of public call-box provision.

Some members have asked whether loss-making call-boxes that are at risk could be turned into multimedia kiosks. Highland Council is looking into that idea for the Inverness area and I hope that other local authorities will do the same, because it is worth further investigation.

The debate has been important and worth while and I welcome members' views which, I assure them, will be fed into our discussion with Ofcom and our response to the consultation process. We need to encourage regulation that sufficiently safeguards pay-phones in the long term. In the meantime, I repeat my call to local councils and community councils to use the remaining time in the current process wisely and to think carefully about all the phone boxes that are threatened with closure in their local areas.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — Education and Young People, Tourism, Culture and Sport

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

To ask the Scottish Executive what consideration it has given to the establishment of a Scottish biennale to celebrate Scottish culture and architecture. (S2O-3533)

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

The Executive's major events strategy aims to establish in Scotland new events that will provide economic benefit and overseas profile. We will announce further details of the recent spending review implications for the strategy in due course.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

I thank the minister for her reply and wish her well in her new portfolio of tourism, culture and sport. Her predecessors have, for one reason or another, found it to be a springboard to the back benches, but I am sure that she will break that tradition.

On Saturday, the architecture of the new Parliament building will be the focus of attention throughout Scotland and well beyond. Does the minister agree that that interest should be used to promote the many examples of fine architecture in Scotland, not just in the capital city, but—as the minister well knows as a citizen of Glasgow—in our towns and cities up and down the country? Will she undertake to come back to Parliament at the earliest opportunity—she has not had much opportunity to think about the matter so far—to report on any developments that she thinks she can take forward?

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

I thank Elaine Murray for those kind comments. I reflected earlier that, as a minister, I have had only one question in the past three years, but I have five today. I do not know whether that is a good or a bad sign, but I will take it as a good sign.

Elaine Murray is absolutely right about the place that architecture has in Scottish arts and culture. The programme that is under way in Scotland has recently been expanded to an international level and new Scottish architecture has been showcased in a number of countries during the past year. For Elaine Murray's information, I point out that Scotland is, for the first time ever, currently being represented separately at the Venice biennale of architecture.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

On 18 December, I asked Frank McAveety, who was then the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport, whether he would support Richard Demarco's exciting concept for an equivalent to the Venice biennale in the visual arts. That idea has received support from the Scottish National Gallery of Modern Art and the Scottish Arts Council. Is the minister aware that Liverpool plans to spend £50 million on promoting itself as a culture centre? Does she agree that that will be a threat to Scotland if Scotland is not prepared to make further investment in the arts?

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

I am aware of the proposals for Liverpool and I will watch them with great interest. It is important to recognise that the arts in Scotland play an important role in what we do, as can be seen in the major investment that the Scottish Executive has made through the Scottish Arts Council. It is largely for the Scottish Arts Council to decide on priorities, but as time goes on I will come back to the Parliament with further proposals, as Elaine Murray prompted me to.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

To ask the Scottish Executive what action it is taking to ensure early recognition of dyslexia among school pupils. (S2O-3559)

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Early identification of dyslexia is a priority area. In 2004-05, the Executive is providing £8.4 million to local authorities for the training and development of staff who work with pupils with special educational needs, including dyslexia. In addition, for the period 2002 to 2005, voluntary organisations have been awarded £335,000 to produce dyslexia-specific training materials. Research into current local authority provision for dyslexia has recently been completed and a national conference to share the findings and good practice will be held early in 2005.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

It seems that resources are going in, but does the minister agree that undiagnosed dyslexia has a tremendous cost both in personal terms and to the economy as a whole? Does he also agree that a statutory assessment should be carried out on all schoolchildren at an early stage?

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I agree that undiagnosed dyslexia can have profound effects both for the individual and, as Mike Rumbles said, beyond that. I believe that the changes that will be brought about by the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 will help with assessment. On Mike Rumbles's specific proposal, if he cares to write to me with the details, I will be happy to consider whether, in the light of recent legislation, his suggestion would add anything to existing provision.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

Has the minister any plans to consider extending assessment and recognition of dyslexia to children at a younger age, perhaps when they are in nursery rather than in school? Will he join me in congratulating North Lanarkshire Council's Coatbridge network support team, which runs excellent workshops for parents of dyslexic children?

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I am happy to join Elaine Smith in congratulating North Lanarkshire Council on its interesting and innovative project. I agree that the earlier the diagnosis is achieved, the better can appropriate remedies be undertaken.

Rosemary Byrne (SSP, South of Scotland)

Is the minister aware that many local authorities do not recognise the condition of dyslexia? Does he agree that the Parliament and ministers must ensure that all local authorities recognise the condition and deal with it appropriately?

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

As I said, the research that has been undertaken into current local authority provision will be presented at a conference in early 2005. That will provide the opportunity to ensure that all local authorities have the advantage of hearing about best practice. If there are any shortcomings, I will expect local authorities to address those in the light of the research that has been undertaken for that conference.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

As the minister may be aware, Dyslexia Ayrshire is concerned at the lack of effective support in South Ayrshire for children with dyslexia. What guidance should councils adhere to in providing recognition, support and remediation of the condition?

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Guidance is provided in circular ED 4/96 "Children and Young Persons with Special Educational Needs—Assessment and Recording" and in "A Manual of Good Practice in Special Education Needs", which was published in 1999 and has been disseminated widely. Both those documents cover the general principles for dealing with children who have special educational needs. I am happy to confirm that those general principles encompass work on dyslexia. If the member wishes, I am happy to provide him with copies of those documents. In addition, local authorities issue their own guidance and policies on SEN, including dyslexia. As I said, the research and the conference will help to highlight best practice.

Margaret Jamieson (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

Does the minister agree that young people can sometimes be wrongly diagnosed as dyslexic? Does he agree that more must be done to ensure that conditions such as Meares-Irlen syndrome are recognised in the initial diagnosis, which is often for dyslexia?

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I heartily agree with Margaret Jamieson. As another member has pointed out, failure to diagnose early can have unfortunate consequences, but misdiagnosis can equally have unfortunate long-term effects for the individuals concerned.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what concerns it has regarding the provision of school playing fields. (S2O-3601)

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

It is vital that schools have appropriate provision of playing fields. As Scotland's schools are modified, it is important that the quality of such facilities keeps pace with improvements overall.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I refer the minister to Mr Frank McAveety's letter to me on the provision of a playing field at Moat park, which was to be levelled off for pupils of Drumlanrig St Cuthbert's Primary School in Hawick. Helpfully, the letter of the then Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport refers to the community facilities strand of the building for sport programme. It states:

"In the main, proposals will be led by local authorities, clubs, trusts and the like."

Will the minister advise whether individual schools can apply to the fund, as the website to which the letter refers is currently down?

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I do not have the specifics on that to advise the member, but I will write to her. Having visited Drumlanrig school recently, I understand all too well the importance of that project.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Executive what action it will take to secure the status of Gaelic. (S2O-3646)

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The Scottish Executive will seek to secure the status of Gaelic in Scotland through a wide range of measures. Last week, we fulfilled our partnership commitment to introduce a Gaelic language bill to promote the use of Gaelic and to confirm that Gaelic has official recognition in Scotland.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Labour members welcome the introduction of the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill. I am particularly pleased that the bill will have a strong focus on education. Does the minister have any plans to encourage Gaelic-speaking teachers to convert to Gaelic-medium education?

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Maureen Macmillan raises one of the key issues in securing the future of Gaelic. Regardless of what we put into law—and we can put many things into law—we must have teachers to teach through the medium of Gaelic to encourage more young people to get the language skills that we require. We have made it clear to the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council that the funding of places for the training of new teachers is important.

We have made new provisions on entitlement to Gaelic-medium education. I hope that those will encourage more people to decide to make Gaelic-medium teaching, rather than English-medium teaching, their career choice. There are also developments in secondary education to encourage that. Sabhal Mòr Ostaig is working to help to convert people who are Gaelic speakers into Gaelic-medium teachers for the future. In the Highlands and Islands, there is local training for teachers through the medium of Gaelic through Highland Council's linkage with the University of Aberdeen and UHI's linkage with the University of Strathclyde. I am awaiting recommendations that will allow us to do more to advertise and promote Gaelic-medium education as a career choice for teachers.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I thank the minister for the full answer that he has just given. Can he confirm that three of the four sixth-year secondary schools in the Western Isles are not teaching any subjects through the medium of Gaelic? Gaelic is taught as a subject, but only in the same manner as French. How will the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill provide all parents and pupils in the Western Isles—the heart of Gaelic Scotland—with the option of Gaelic-medium secondary education?

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Collectively in Scotland, we have made huge progress over recent years in increasing the amount of Gaelic-medium education that is available. It is one of the great success stories of Scottish education. However, what we have is still insufficient to meet the requirements to sustain the language into the future. That is why two or three weeks ago I issued guidance to local authorities, to which they must have regard, requiring them to make policy statements about Gaelic-medium education; to specify the circumstances in which they will give an entitlement to such education, on the basis of reasonable demand from parents; and to say what constitutes reasonable demand. Over the coming period, all those measures will come into the public domain and establish much more firmly the rights to Gaelic-medium education that we want. However, what we require more than anything is for more people to choose to teach through the medium of Gaelic as a career option. In that way, we can help to save the language for the future.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what action it is taking to promote Scottish art. (S2O-3553)

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

The Executive promotes Scottish arts principally through sponsorship of the Scottish Arts Council, which is the lead public body for the funding, development and advocacy of the arts in Scotland.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I welcome the minister to her new portfolio, although I am not too sure how much use she will be able to make of the free kilt jacket that I believe comes with the post.

I bring to the minister's attention a problem that has been encountered by some artists in Scotland who work and sell their art from home having converted a garage or spare room in their property. Some local authorities are enforcing the full rigours of the commercial planning regulations on those artists' properties, forcing them to provide extra parking and toilets for the public to use. Does the minister agree that enforcing the regulations in that fashion will undermine the commercial viability of such enterprises, many of which are in rural areas where there is already a problem of depopulation? Will the Executive do something to address the problem that I have highlighted?

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

As a fellow Partick Thistle supporter, I will ignore the beginning of Mr Matheson's comments in the interest of consensus across the chamber. He has identified a specific problem that has not been raised with me in the past 48 hours. I know that the Scottish Arts Council works hard to assist artists who wish to sell their produce. It is important that we ensure that artists have a market for the items that they wish to sell, if they wish to make that a full-time profession. I would be happy to investigate the matter on the member's behalf. Once I have had an opportunity to do that, I will write to him with further details. I suspect that I may have to consult my colleague the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform, who is responsible for local government, but I will get back to the member.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

To ask the Scottish Executive what its current plans are for reorganising area tourist boards. (S2O-3579)

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Our plans were announced in March, as I am sure Mr Swinney is aware, against the background of our ambition to grow tourism revenues by 50 per cent over the next decade. The project to integrate the area tourist boards is on track to deliver a tourism network to assist tourism businesses and other partners throughout Scotland in support of that ambition. We expect the network to be operational from April 2005.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Can the minister confirm whether two of the existing milestones in the reorganisation of the area tourist board network will be met? The first one is that the funding mechanism for and the roles and responsibilities of the hubs will be clarified by the end of the month and the second is that the staffing structures will be in place by the end of December to guarantee the delivery of the target date of early 2005.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Yes, we are determined that we will achieve the 2005 date; we are working closely with the organisations involved to ensure that we do so. The project team that has responsibility for defining the functions of the hub office is working to define the roles and structure of the integrated tourism network. That information will be available from the end of the month.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Tourism operators in my constituency have two major concerns about the changes that are being proposed. First, how will small bed-and-breakfast operators and hotel owners be able to influence the new tourism hubs, given that we are abolishing membership? Secondly, local marketing groups, which are important in promoting destinations throughout my constituency, are concerned about how the future funding arrangements will be implemented under the new tourism hubs. How much progress has been made by the working groups in addressing those issues, which are crucial to the small bed-and-breakfast operators in my constituency?

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Obviously, the bed-and-breakfast market is particularly important to the tourism sector and is increasingly being accessed by visitors from abroad and from the rest of the United Kingdom. We are working to ensure that the operators are supported by the changes that we are making. One example of that is the importance that we are placing, in the new tourism proposals, on the role of local authorities. Because local authorities know their local areas and know what is happening there, they can help to make decisions about what is provided locally to ensure that those small businesses can be supported.

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

I realise that the minister has just taken over the portfolio, so it might be difficult for her to comment on this. Killin and district tourist association, which operates in my area, wrote to the former Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport to outline the difficulties of advertising for 2005 without knowing what the structure will be then. Will the minister look into the issue and perhaps reply to me and to the association to indicate how it can be supported?

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

I have not yet seen that item of correspondence—it has not yet passed across my desk—but I am happy to look into the matter for Sylvia Jackson and to respond both to her and to the association.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The minister will know that the current structure is dependent on local authority funding. Can she say at this stage what indication she has of how much of that local authority funding will continue after April?

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

We certainly hope that local authority funding will be maintained under the partnership agreements that we are putting in place, because there will be a greater role for local authorities to be involved with the new set-up. Over the summer, officials have had a series of encouraging meetings with local authorities throughout Scotland. We have been able, through that mechanism, to dispel some of the anxieties that local authorities have expressed. We are certainly hopeful that such funding will continue. A number of local authorities have indicated their willingness to be part of the process and to be creative about the kind of financing that they can provide. I am certainly hopeful that that will be the case.

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

To ask the Scottish Executive what its assessment is of the benefits of private schools to the wider community. (S2O-3534)

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

The Scottish Executive makes no such assessment. Our principal interest is in the quality of the education provision that is offered to pupils within such schools. The monitoring and assessment of that quality is properly a matter for Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education.

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

Does the minister agree that any objective test of public benefit for the purposes of assessing charitable status would have to take account of the principles of public accessibility and social inclusion? He might be aware that I have relevant experience in the field. Will he take it from me that public schools are far from public and private education is by definition exclusive?

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

The short answer is yes. However, those matters will be extensively debated when the draft Charities and Trustees Investment (Scotland) Bill is introduced. Indeed, the bill will contain a new definition of charitable status and provide for a public benefit test. Organisations that are currently charities will need to satisfy the Scottish charity regulator of their fitness to continue and will need to pass the public benefit test.

Finance and Public Services and Communities

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

To ask the Scottish Executive what representations it has made to the Department for Work and Pensions on the rationalisation of civil service jobs. (S2O-3615)

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

With the Presiding Officer's indulgence, I will preface my reply by making it clear that I answer questions this afternoon as an existing minister of the Scottish Executive and as finance minister designate. The Parliament was good enough to endorse my appointment this morning, but important steps in the appointment process have yet to be carried out and it is important that we show no discourtesy.

The Scottish Executive has contact with the Department for Work and Pensions on matters that could impact on the Scottish economy.

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

Although the minister has yet to make his visit to the Court of Session, he will be aware of the Finance Committee's recent report on the relocation of public sector jobs, which commended the relocation of the Scottish Public Pensions Agency to Tweedbank in my constituency. There is evidence that those jobs are sustainable, of high quality and highly productive. Does the minister share the anger of many people in Galashiels over the proposed relocation of DWP Jobcentre Plus jobs from Galashiels, possibly to Bathgate? Will he make urgent representations to the DWP, stressing the benefits of those civil service jobs to the Borders and the benefits that they accrue to Government?

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

I think that all members were delighted that the Executive's relocation policy was able to bring benefit to Mr Purvis's constituents. Clearly, any threat to people's jobs in Scotland is a matter of extreme regret. I am aware of the sentiments that were expressed in the Finance Committee's report and I am happy to ensure that the Department for Work and Pensions is made aware of the report's contents.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

Is the minister aware that the rationalisation proposals would lead to the loss of more than 100 benefits-processing jobs in Dundee? That would undermine attempts to relocate civil service jobs to the city, which, as the minister will be aware, is under-represented in relation to civil service jobs. I have made representations to Alan Johnson, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. Will Mr McCabe do likewise, with specific reference to the proposed job losses in Dundee?

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

As I said, any loss of jobs in Scotland is a matter of extreme regret. As I also said, I am happy to make available the contents of the Finance Committee's report to the Department for Work and Pensions so that it can be made aware of the opinions that have been expressed by the Parliament. However, it is important to put the issue in perspective. Just a few days ago, my predecessor announced a substantial expansion of public expenditure in Scotland, which will be a driver of economic expansion. Through investments in physical and electronic infrastructure, we will allow enterprise to flourish in Scotland and produce a more robust and competitive economy, which will create employment opportunities for a great many people in Scotland.

Marilyn Livingstone (Labour, Kirkcaldy)

To ask the Scottish Executive what level of support will be made available from the domestic abuse service development fund in future. (S2O-3606)

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

The domestic abuse service development fund has been running since 2000 and will end on 31 March 2006. The Scottish Executive has allocated £9 million through the fund over that period. We are currently considering funding arrangements for that area of work post-2006.

Marilyn Livingstone (Labour, Kirkcaldy)

Will the minister join me in praising the vital work that is carried out in my constituency and Fife-wide by projects that are supported by the development fund? Will he reassure those projects and inform them what funding they can expect post-2006?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

It was made clear when the latest guidance went out that the current period is to be the final one for the funding, in the present form. However, the Scottish Executive is massively committed to such work and has expanded the areas that are covered. In the past year, the domestic abuse service development fund has been supplemented by a wider violence against women fund and a fund for rape crisis groups. I am pleased that the first official engagement in my new ministerial post will be the annual general meeting of the Central Scotland Rape Crisis and Sexual Abuse Centre in Stirling tonight. The Executive is massively committed to the issue—it has put £32 million into such work since 1999. Because I was involved in the issue as a minister in 1997, I know what massive progress has been made since the establishment of the Scottish Parliament.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

The minister will be aware that many victims of domestic abuse are elderly women, but is he aware that only one refuge exists in Scotland for elderly women who have suffered domestic abuse? Does he have any plans to create more refuges for those vulnerable women?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

One significant development in the past few years has been the expansion in the number of refuges. Part of the £32 million to which I referred was the £10 million refuge development fund. An expansion in the availability of places was badly needed. I am sure that people will take into account Sandra White's comments about the needs of older women who are in that terrible situation.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Question 3 has been withdrawn.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

To ask the Scottish Executive what progress it is making with the implementation of its environmentally sensitive procurement policy. (S2O-3644)

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

The Scottish Executive's procurement policy has already contributed positively to an environmentally sensitive and sustainable Scotland. The Executive has published a considerable amount of guidance and information for public purchasers and suppliers. The guidance, which is available on the Executive's website, requires purchasers to take full account of relevant sustainable development objectives and policies. Guidance to suppliers who wish to sell to the Executive underlines the point that, if they fail to comply with environmental legislation, they may be excluded from competition and that those who offer environmentally preferable goods and services are likely to have a competitive advantage.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

I welcome the minister's positive reply and the importance that is attached to the policy in "Building a Better Scotland: Spending Proposals 2005-2008: Enterprise, Opportunity, Fairness". What monitoring does he intend to carry out to ensure that the policy is driven forward? Will he set targets so that real efficiencies are encouraged throughout the public sector? Does he believe that the efficient use of resources and the procurement policy will raise standards in the private sector through companies that provide the Executive and other public bodies with services and goods?