Scottish Parliament, 3 November 2005

419 contributions from 84 members. The official report.

Official Report 3 November 2005

Children with Special Needs

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S2M-3490, in the name of Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, on children with special needs.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

A debate such as today's should be approached with considerable humility, because we are dealing with some of the most disadvantaged children in Scotland. The matter should be considered sympathetically.

Special schools have made an invaluable contribution to the social and academic development of many children with the most complex additional support needs. It follows that the Executive should continue to resource adequately schools such as the Craighalbert Centre in Cumbernauld for children with motor impairments, which combines conductive education with the Scottish curriculum; Daldorch House School in Ayrshire, which caters for children with autistic spectrum disorder; and the Royal Blind School in Edinburgh, which has a purpose-built educational and residential facility for children and young adults up to the age of 19 with multiple disabilities in addition to their visual impairments. All those schools perform an invaluable role and bring benefit, happiness and fulfilment to their pupils.

In a recent written answer to me, the Minister for Education and Young People said that 33 special schools have closed since 1997. Others have opened, but a net loss of 15 has occurred. Many of those closures were extremely controversial. There are many other outstanding special schools throughout Scotland, including Carronhill School in Stonehaven. Consultation continues on proposals to close that school and reallocate provision to a unit that is attached to a mainstream school.

Camphill community at Newton Dee on the outskirts of Aberdeen is a unique community that caters for all forms of learning disability. The school at Camphill is under threat from the proposed construction of the western peripheral route. My colleague David Davidson held a members' business debate last year in which he argued for flexibility in the route of the proposed bypass.

St Andrew's School in Inverurie is yet another excellent special school. Parents reacted strongly against proposals to close that school and move additional support needs provision to support bases that are attached to mainstream schools. My colleagues have actively supported the campaign that parents have successfully fought for new-build, stand-alone accommodation for the special school.

No less a person than Jack Barnett, who is the Educational Institute of Scotland's president, said:

"To suppose that all children should be included within a system that is not designed to meet their needs is inviting failure. And we are of the view that alternative provision in a special school or special unit setting on either a full time or part time basis may be more appropriate than mainstream education for some pupils."

A real danger is that the Executive's policy of a presumption towards mainstream education, as set out in section 15 of the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000, will mean that some children with more complex additional support needs will not have the same level of resources allocated to them to allow their developmental and learning needs to be met. Simply put, not all children will receive as good a deal in a mainstream setting. That is why a large element of parental choice is highly desirable and, in some cases, essential.

As Lorraine Dilworth of Independent Special Education Advice Scotland said,

"there must be choice in provision for all children if they are to reach their full potential, whether this be in a mainstream school, a base attached to a mainstream school or a stand alone special school. This choice is a statutory right which should be enjoyed by parents under the 1980 Education Act. Each child must be treated as an individual and must be supported according to his or her needs, not according to the resources available."

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I am concerned that the argument that Lord James Douglas-Hamilton advances may allow the Government to move away from the commitment that it gave to Parliament during the passage of what became the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 that whatever resources an individual child required had to be delivered under that act's system. His argument suggests that the Government could get away from the most appropriate situation for young people in a mainstream school by suggesting that alternative provision was better. The Government could therefore wriggle away from the commitments that it gave to Parliament during the passage of the act.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

I agree with John Swinney that sufficient resources must be available. I will give just one example. If a child with hearing impairment is sent to mainstream education but no teacher can sign and the child cannot hear, social inclusion will not mean the same as it does for the other children. Each case must be considered sensitively on its merits.

One of the best speeches that I have heard in the Parliament was made by Karen Gillon, who argued that a range of provision is required to meet each child's needs appropriately. She stressed that children with autistic spectrum disorder could be taught in a range of settings, which could be a specialist unit, a mainstream school with appropriate support or a residential establishment. She said:

"The move to mainstream has faced many challenges ... We need to do more to ensure that resources are available at the front line."—[Official Report, 6 September 2005; c 18866.]

That echoes what John Swinney said.

That is why I believe that no presumption should be made in favour of or against mainstreaming. Parents should be able to make a genuine informed choice between mainstream schools and special school provision, so that they can decide on the educational provision that best suits the child's needs. To achieve that, a moratorium on the closure of special schools should be put in place until the assumptions behind the mainstreaming policy are reviewed.

We lodged the motion on behalf of some of the most disadvantaged children in Scotland and we hope that the minister will approach the matter sympathetically, because it deserves nothing less.

I move,

That the Parliament recognises that many children with additional support needs draw educational and social benefit from being educated in a mainstream setting; acknowledges, however, that in order for such children to flourish, appropriate resources and support must be available; further believes that the educational and social development of some children with multiple and complex needs can best be promoted through the concentrated support provided in special schools; notes with concern that 33 special schools have been closed since 1997; believes that there should be no presumption, statutory or otherwise, in favour of or against mainstreaming and that parents should be able to make a genuine informed choice between mainstream schools and special school provision, so that they can decide on the educational provision that is best suited to the needs of their child, and calls on the Scottish Executive to put in place a moratorium on the closure of special schools until the series of assumptions behind the mainstreaming policy is reviewed.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I thank Lord James Douglas-Hamilton for lodging the motion. Next Monday, I will cut the ribbon at the opening of the new Braidburn special school building on the Firrhill High School campus in Edinburgh, which replaces two special schools that are merging.

That might equally well have been one of the 57 other new publicly funded special schools and stand-alone units that have opened since 1997. Some are on their own sites and some are self-contained units that are attached to mainstream schools.

As we said in answer to a parliamentary question in June, since 1997, 29 special schools have closed. That makes a net addition of 28 new special schools or stand-alone units. I have difficulty with Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's proposition that special schools and provision in mainstream schools are in opposition. Both aspects are needed in our system and both are being provided.

I promised to mention the super teachers and children in Milton School in Glasgow, which I visited earlier this week. That is one of many special schools that do a splendid job for their young people.

About 7,500 young people are educated in special schools. From 1998 to 2004, the proportion of children who are educated in special schools dropped by 0.07 per cent, which is hardly an overwhelming figure. The greater part of the change took place before the mainstreaming duty in the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000 came into force on 1 August 2003. The Executive will review that mainstreaming duty in due course, in line with the undertaking that it gave.

The figures are not, in themselves, all that important. Like special schools, mainstream schools are opening and closing all over the place in response to declining school rolls, renewal of the school estate, the changing geographical distribution of the population and other matters. To put it politely to the Conservatives, it is a little simplistic—or, to put it more accurately, it is a total distortion of logic, common sense and educational philosophy—to suggest that some trend in special school provision justifies the moratorium on closures for which the Conservative motion calls.

I will make the Scottish Executive's philosophy very clear. First, the fundamental duty under the 2000 act is that on local authorities

"to secure that the education is directed to the development of the personality, talents and mental and physical abilities of the child or young person to their fullest potential."

I hope that all members share that aspiration, which, rather than the mainstreaming presumption, it is our fundamental duty to achieve in respect of the education of all our children and young people. The aspiration is contained at the beginning of that act—in section 2—and there is an associated duty in section 3 to improve the quality of, and raise the standard of, education.

Secondly, we are committed to a better deal for children with additional support needs. We are totally committed to doing whatever is necessary to ensure that all children with additional support needs receive the help that they need when and where they need it. The Executive is not, as has been suggested, obsessed with pushing every child into mainstream education. On the contrary, the first concern in considering the best placement for a child should be the environment that is best suited to meeting that child's individual needs. The goal is to fit the provision to the child and not to fit the child to the provision.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

On the commitment to additional support provision for children with special needs, particularly in a mainstream setting, is the minister absolutely confident that the Government will be able to deliver effectively the provisions of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 and that every local authority in Scotland will be able to deliver its part of the bargain?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I was about to say that the provision that is made must be properly resourced and supported, which is why we are investing £95 million this year alone in initiatives that are aimed at addressing additional support needs.

It has always been made clear in legislation, guidance, debates and discussions that the mainstreaming presumption is simply a presumption—it is not an inflexible rule. The right balance must be struck between children's rights to be educated in a mainstream environment, which can bring the educational and social benefits that Lord James Douglas-Hamilton acknowledged, and the need to respond sensitively in the cases of children who require a form of specialist provision. I am sure that Lord James Douglas-Hamilton will acknowledge that the provisions of subparagraph 2(1) of schedule 2 to the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004—he and I helped the bill to pass through the Parliament last year—also provide for parental choice of school for children with additional support needs.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

rose—

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I am sorry; I cannot take an intervention because I have only a short time to speak.

Subparagraph 2(1) of schedule 2 to the 2004 act states:

"Where the parent of a child having additional support needs makes a request to an education authority to place the child in the school specified in the request, being a school under their management, it is the duty of the authority, subject to paragraph 3, to place the child accordingly."

Indeed, it is even the authority's duty to place the child in a private special school and to pay the fees, subject to qualifications.

I finish by giving flavour to what I have said and considering the situation of children with learning difficulties, children who are wheelchair bound or children with autistic spectrum disorder. Such children could be members' children or my children. It is certainly true that the severity of the condition of some of those children, their previous experiences in school or other considerations may make it appropriate for them to have the support of specialist provision at a special school or unit, but surely it is better, other things being equal, if they can go to their local school at the centre of their local community with their friends in the street.

I move amendment S2M-3490.3, to leave out from "acknowledges" to end and insert:

"and that, prior to the enactment of the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc. Act 2000, many children were denied access to such benefits; acknowledges that meeting the needs of the individual child is of paramount importance and that a range of mainstream, specialist and mixed provision will always be necessary; notes that there has been a net increase of 28 special schools and units since 1997, which demonstrates the continuing commitment of local authorities and the Scottish Executive to specialist provision where appropriate, and believes that, following the Parliament's recent approval, the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 will, when it comes into force on 14 November 2005, strengthen the rights of children and their parents to ensure that their additional support needs are met fully, whatever the school setting."

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Members of the Scottish National Party have sympathy with many criticisms about how inclusion has been pursued in the Scottish education system since the introduction of the presumption of mainstreaming, but we emphatically do not accept that the statutory presumption of mainstreaming should be abolished. As Children in Scotland pointed out in its briefing for the debate, that would be a retrograde step that would be at odds with an international consensus that inclusive mainstream schools are

"the most effective means of combating discriminatory attitudes, creating welcoming communities, building an inclusive society and achieving education for all."

Those words are part of the Salamanca statement.

It is important to recognise that a presumption of mainstreaming does not mean, and should never mean, that specialist provision in special schools should not be available to meet the needs of children for whom mainstream schools cannot provide. Without such a presumption, there is always a danger of our going back to the bad old days in which disabled pupils were often deliberately segregated into so-called special schools. Such schools might have been special in name, but they were not necessarily special in nature.

Figures that have been provided by the Disability Rights Commission indicate that disabled people have not been well served in our education system. Even nowadays, 24 per cent of disabled people between the ages of 16 and 24 have no educational qualifications. That percentage is nearly double the percentage for non-disabled people in the same age range. We know that a lifetime of exclusion and few—if any—opportunities beckon for people without such qualifications.

That said, a lot of evidence suggests that placement in mainstream classrooms is not meeting the learning needs of every child with additional support needs—far from it. The Audit Scotland report on the subject indicated as much. There is no doubt that disabled children can be effectively excluded and ill served in mainstream settings when adequate support and resources are not made available. A child is included only when they learn in an environment that they feel they belong in and which is geared to their needs.

In her most recent contribution to the debate, Baroness Warnock highlighted the fact that, given the great differences in the range and severity of disabilities, a one-size-fits-all approach will not work. I do not agree with all her conclusions, but she made a reasonable point when she suggested that most children with special educational needs require skilled specialist teachers. Dyslexic children, for example, can make remarkable progress with a few hours of specialist teaching. Depending on classroom assistants alone to keep children up to pace with the work of a mainstream class is not good enough.

In an amendment that was not selected for debate, Rosemary Byrne highlighted the need to cut class sizes and to employ additional trained and qualified staff to meet additional support needs. I agree with her. More use should also be made of specialist units in mainstream schools to give children with additional support needs the extra time that they require to understand things in order to cope better in their mainstream class in the long run.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Does Adam Ingram agree that that is exactly what the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 tries to do? Resources and extra teachers are being made available. What exactly does the SNP suggest should be done over and above what the Executive is doing to progress matters at the moment?

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I am sorry to say that what the minister says is happening is not coming across on the ground. A great deal of feedback from parents suggests that local authorities are not applying the resources that Robert Brown says are there, and the local authorities say that resources are not available. That is the nub of the problem.

Inclusion should mean that every child receives the required attention that they need to access the curriculum. Joint placements are another mechanism to achieve the same objective. Currently, in too many schools, far too much onus is being placed on ordinary classroom teachers to fulfil the inclusion agenda. The worst of all worlds is being created, with teacher morale and pupil motivation being reduced.

Those who support the motion are right to highlight the deficiencies in how the Executive's inclusion policy is operating, but their prescription is to throw the baby out with the bath water. We should concentrate on implementing the policy properly by applying appropriate resources, but the Administration has failed to do that.

I move amendment S2M-3490.2, to leave out from "recognises" to end and insert:

"supports the fundamental principle of inclusion that was introduced into our education system with the presumption of mainstreaming; recognises the widespread concerns that the resources made available to implement the policy have been inadequate, and calls, therefore, for a review of the operation of the policy to establish what additional means are required to ensure that every pupil with additional support needs has the opportunity to fulfil his or her potential, either within the mainstream setting or in a special school depending on their individual circumstances."

George Reid (None, Ochil)

I call Dr Elaine Murray.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

How long do I have, Presiding Officer? Do I have four minutes?

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Yes. I am sorry, but the time for the debate is tight.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

Okay.

I agree whole-heartedly with what the Deputy Minister for Education and Young People said. Nobody denies that some children with special needs will thrive better in a special school, while others will benefit from inclusive education, provided that adequate and suitable resources are in place to offer the necessary support.

It is a little hypocritical to make the comments that have been made about the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004, which is not yet fully in force. The whole principle of the act and the associated investment to underpin its measures is to ensure that adequate and suitable resources are in place to support young people and children with special needs who go to mainstream schools. There is a fundamental difference between a child being thrown into a mainstream classroom for the entire school day and not being able to cope and a child being placed in a mainstream school that has suitable support bases and caters for the needs of children with significant difficulties. Many fears that parents have arise from situations in which children have not been adequately supported. Councils that are considering mainstreaming need to reassure parents of their determination to provide proper facilities, and the key to doing that is genuine and participative consultation with parents.

Exclusion is not necessary or beneficial for the majority of children and young people with additional support needs. They live in their community when they are not at school and after having left school, and they are entitled to be educated in their community.

When I was on South Ayrshire Council, I was involved in the provision of mainstream facilities for children who were previously boxed into three different categories of special needs and on whom the door was closed. At first, the parents of those children were concerned about mainstreaming; they were worried about what would happen to their children. However, we undertook a long and detailed consultation in which we listened to the children about their fears and, over the piece, the parents came on board with the council and saw the situation as better. In fact, one parent said, "I'm really pleased because my son will have the same uniform as the rest of the kids and he won't be marked out as attending the daft school." Later, I had the honour of being asked to give out prizes at an awards ceremony, and I was proud to see children with special needs wearing the same school uniform as the other children in their community, receiving their awards on the same basis as everybody else.

I am proud of mainstreaming and proud of the fact that we have an inclusive policy. That does not mean that other children who cannot benefit under those circumstances should be forced into it; however, the principle of mainstreaming should be established. As Children in Scotland pointed out, the removal of the presumption of mainstreaming that the Conservative party proposes would contravene article 2 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. We must not confuse the presumption of mainstreaming with not providing alternatives when mainstreaming is not suitable for certain children.

Margaret Ewing (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Will the member give way?

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

I am sorry, but I have only a minute left.

I was a bit surprised by Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's figures. Children in Scotland says that, although 33 special needs schools have closed since 1997, many others have opened. The Conservatives' proposal for a moratorium on closures would mean that unsuitable special schools would have to remain open and we would not be able to develop more suitable special schools, such as that which the Deputy Minister for Education and Young People will open in the near future. There are now 34 special schools in Scotland, compared with 33 in 1997, according to the figures from Children in Scotland.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

rose—

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

Sorry, but I have only 10 seconds left.

We must recognise that additional support needs are often related to disadvantage and deprivation, although they may also have a genetic component. Therefore, tackling the needs of young people with special support needs often means tackling the needs of those communities, and we will not do that by removing those young people from their communities.

Rosemary Byrne (SSP, South of Scotland)

I welcome the debate, which is a time to scrutinise how inclusion is working in mainstream schools. I would oppose vehemently the removal of the statutory presumption of mainstreaming, in spite of the fact that many children are being let down by the system and the fact that, in many areas, parents feel that they are left without choice. I acknowledge, however, that the minister has made it clear—as does the legislation—that parental choice is a key part of this.

Section 15 of the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000 introduced a presumption of mainstreaming for children and young people with special educational needs. That means that, where possible, they should be educated in mainstream schools. The act also states:

"it shall be the duty of the authority to secure that the education is directed to the development of the personality, talents and mental and physical abilities of the child or young person to their fullest potential."

Removal of the statutory presumption of mainstreaming would contravene article 2 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which gives children the right not to be discriminated against. It would also be at odds with the conclusions of the influential conference on special educational needs education that took place in Salamanca in 1994, to which Adam Ingram referred. The conference agreed that inclusive mainstream education in schools is the most effective means of combating discriminatory attitudes.

However, if we do not resource our schools adequately and if it takes far too long to make adaptations—in some cases, a child can leave school before the home economics department has managed to get the adaptations made—we will have a real problem. That happens—there is a reality here about children not accessing the whole school building and not accessing the curriculum because of the length of time that it takes for adaptations to be made. We should be looking at the good practice that exists, and that is why I agree that a review is very much required. All pupils must be able to access the curriculum; if they cannot, we are failing.

If all school staff are not adequately trained, again we have failed. It is not good enough for a local authority to withdraw classroom assistants at the end of a term because it does not want to give them a full-time contract and would rather put strangers into a class of children who have got to know their SEN assistants. That needs to be looked at. It is all very well for the minister to say that that is a local authority issue; it is an issue about the inclusion of young people in education, and that is why we require a review.

It is vital that the review of how mainstreaming is working is undertaken. We know that teachers are struggling. A recent National Autistic Society survey showed problems with diagnosis and insufficient resources. The survey also showed that 33 per cent of schools felt that inclusion was not working and that 10 per cent felt that it worked only where adequate support and resources were available. Only 30 per cent of classroom assistants who are working in schools with pupils with autistic spectrum disorder have received training in autism.

If we are to make inclusion work for all, we require choice and smaller class sizes. Classes should contain no more than 20 children, and composite classes should contain no more than 15 children. We need well-trained specialist teachers and classroom assistants, as well as specialist training for classroom practitioners and senior managers. It is all very well to open up units in mainstream schools, but if the head teachers and senior management teams do not understand the special needs that are being dealt with, things go wrong. I have seen that and I am prepared to talk to the minister about those issues.

We need an integrated community school setting that is well resourced and adapted to meet the needs of all. Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's example of a hearing-impaired pupil rang a bell with me. I am sympathetic to such situations. My casework is loaded with young people who are being taught at home because they are on the autistic spectrum and the education provision in their area is inadequate. Let us have the review and let us look into this, but let us make it work.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

It is a privilege to take part in a debate about children and young people with additional support needs. However, I am disappointed by the spin that the Conservatives have put on the subject by highlighting school closures. Their motion and approach seem to undermine the principle of inclusion. I have an interest in the subject as someone who believes strongly in an inclusive education system and as the aunt of a young boy who has significant physical and communication difficulties.

When the principles of inclusion were introduced in Scotland, some parents were concerned. Some people chose to engage in scaremongering, telling us that it was the end of the special schools and that all children would be required to be educated in mainstream schools. We knew then that that would not be the case and we know that, in the future, there will always be a need for schools that specialise in dealing with children with complex support needs. In my constituency, there are special schools such as the Craighalbert Centre, Glencryan School and Redburn School, as well as special units attached to high schools and primary schools, all of which deal with children with special support needs. We also have many children who are now integrated into the mainstream education system with help and support.

The helpful briefing that was provided by Children in Scotland points out that there were 34 special schools in 2004, compared with 33 in 1997. However, the debate should not be about numbers; it should be about giving children and young people the opportunity to reach their full potential regardless of their needs. It should be about allowing children to reach as far as they possibly can along the academic spectrum. For all children, being at school is about more than education; it is about being involved and accepted as part of a community. Inclusion and socialisation play an important part in someone's decision to have their child educated in their local mainstream school. An inclusive approach to education allows the child with support needs to be with their peers, to make friends and to socialise with other children out of school. Every child has different needs, but the benefits of educating children together are there to be seen.

We are now teaching inclusion from an early age: we are showing children and young people that, although all of us are made in a similar mould, there are differences that must be accepted as part of normal life. Through educating our children together, we are changing people's views about disability. We should all take a lesson from the way in which our children have accepted and embraced that change. All across the country there are children who are disadvantaged, but the fact that a child has a disability does not mean that they are disadvantaged or that they should be treated as if that was the case. A child with a disability has an equal right to be educated along with their peers.

I am sure that the minister knows that everything is not perfect; he knows that we have a long way to go if we are to meet all the challenges.

In many ways, children with additional support needs who are now being educated in mainstream schools are at the forefront of the changes that the Executive is making. We need to look carefully at the progress that is being made and, where necessary, to adapt our practices to meet the challenges. From the outset, we need to look at teacher training to see how much time is allocated in the coursework to teaching children with support needs. We also need to ask whether we are putting enough skilled additional support into schools to provide real inclusion.

I welcome the minister's review. Rome was not built in a day. As I said, the young people who are presently being educated in an inclusive way are at the forefront of the changes that the Executive is making. We have to support them and learn from their experience. Elaine Murray mentioned that just to have the same uniform as everybody else made a difference to a child with special needs. The day that my nephew Connor Meecham started school, he was the happiest boy in the school, because he was wearing the same uniform as his friends. Please, minister, resource the special needs facilities in mainstream schools.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I apologise for missing the opening speech. I did not appraise myself of the security arrangements that were put in place this morning.

I speak not only as a member of the Conservative group but as a member who served on the then Education, Culture and Sport Committee, which scrutinised the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Bill. I note that Mary Mulligan, who was convener of the committee at the time, is also in the chamber.

As a member of that committee, I have some important admissions to make. They stem from my recollection that the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Bill was the first bill that came before the Education, Culture and Sport Committee. I admit that we could have handled it better—not so much because we did not treat it with seriousness but because it was the first bill that we scrutinised.

To a degree, we were open to persuasion by lobbying from outside groups, which meant that we were willing to accept in good faith some of the evidence without questioning it hard enough. It was not that the evidence was necessarily wrong, but that we did not explore the issues sufficiently, or press our questioning further with witnesses. [Interruption.] Mary Mulligan may have a different view, but that is fair enough.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Will the member take an intervention?

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Certainly, but first let me make my point.

When I look back at the papers, I can see that committee members, across the parties, had a number of doubts and concerns. I do not want to make a party-political point, but to explain that because the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Bill was the first bill that we approached, we did not press questions and get right down to the detail.

For example, Kenneth Macintosh had concerns. His record in taking up the case of special educational needs is honourable. At committee, he asked whether

"the parents could keep the child in mainstream education despite the fact that that might not be in the child's best interests".—[Official Report, Education, Culture and Sport Committee, 1 March 2000; c 678.]

Shona Robison too voiced her concern that "unless the child is properly resourced—and that might mean their having someone with them at all times—the child might fail in mainstream education."—Official Report, Education, Culture and Sport Committee, 1 March 2000; c 678.]

Many members were concerned, as, indeed, was I. I raised the issue of the costs that would be required to make the policy work only to get a very woolly answer, which has been commented on since that time by Audit Scotland.

The committee took it in good faith that the costs would be met and that some of the concerns that we had raised would be addressed. The evidence now suggests that we should have pressed harder and got firm commitments from the Executive at the time.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I wonder whether Mr Monteith has departed from the statement that he made during the stage 3 debate on the bill that

"the opt-outs in the bill are too wide-ranging"

and that

"We should be moving away from the idea that considerable cost should have a bearing on decisions about mainstream placement."—[Official Report, 7 June 2000; c42.]

Those are interesting comments.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The minister confuses two arguments—[ Interruption. ] Labour and Liberal party members may laugh, but their laughter is as empty as the policies that they promote.

The point that I am making is clear: the criterion for the decision to place a child should not be cost. Nowhere have I argued that a school placement should be determined by a council saying, "We cannot afford to send the child to that school because we don't have the money." The minister knows that at that point in the stage 3 debate the context of my remarks was that of sending children to the independent schools that were maintained by Executive funding. I raised the issue because, outside of the bill provisions, the Executive was seeking to make those schools fully independent of grant support. That would have forced more parents to pay more to send their children to those schools, thereby making those schools more exclusive. It would have meant that many children would have ended up in state schools on the presumption of mainstreaming and that would have been entirely inappropriate for them. The understanding that schools like Craighalbert ensure that children can be included in mainstream education is a proper one—we need a variety of choice.

The SNP as a party has also expressed concerns. I am aware of the motion that Fiona Hyslop lodged with the support of Adam Ingram at the SNP conference in September this year. It was a pity that that motion was not supported. The issue is of concern to all parties; it must be addressed.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I welcome the opportunity that the Conservative party has provided for members to discuss this important issue.

When Sam Galbraith introduced the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Bill, he made the remarkable statement that the bill was the first piece of legislation on education that was child-centred and which put the child at the centre of educational provision.

At the time, the remark struck as me as somewhat bizarre, but what it now says to me is that the important starting point for the debate is that the child should be at the absolute core of the provision of education in our society. The statement that I am about to make may sound like a terribly expensive one, but I suggest that every child must be able to access the educational support that is appropriate for that child. In establishing that principle, we must look to how we can apply it to the circumstances of every single child in our society.

That principle places a responsibility on the Government, the Parliament and our local authorities in particular to ensure that educational provision is sufficiently wide, varied and appropriate to meet the individual needs of every child in our society. That is not to say that every school has to tailor its provision to the needs of every child, but that every child, on entering whichever school they are to go to, is properly supported and assisted.

There is a fantastic school for children with special needs in my constituency. I am referring to the New School in Butterstone, which has been the subject of debate in the Parliament. I welcome the work that the school does and the support that it provides in terms of opening horizons for young people. Having looked closely at the issue, however, I remain absolutely committed to the important principle of the presumption of mainstreaming in the education system. Mainstream education offers the best opportunity of ensuring that the maximum number of children in our society who have special needs can be supported, encouraged and motivated in their schooling.

None of that means that children who require to go to special needs schools should not go there, or that that provision should not be put in place. It simply means that when we as a society say that it is appropriate for a child to go into a mainstream educational setting, we must be absolutely certain that the educational opportunities that the child needs will be delivered in that situation.

The reason why I intervened on the minister and was so pleased by the comments that my colleague Adam Ingram made about the implementation of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004, to which Elaine Murray seemed to take exception, is that I am getting increasingly alarmed by what I hear when I talk to parents about what is in place on the ground in mainstream schools to support young people. That is not a partisan remark; it is simply a reflection of what my constituency case load is telling me.

The minister cannot just say that £95 million-worth of resources are being put in to address the issue. Of course I welcome that, but there are questions about training and attitude. I know that some head teachers are almost ignorant of the particular techniques that are required to support children who have special needs in a mainstream situation. I will put a tremendous amount of energy into holding the Government to account on the commitments that it made in the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 to ensure that there would be appropriate provision to meet the needs of every child and that the necessary support would be provided because those commitments are vital to young people with special needs. The Government must be able to deliver on that on the ground. I am deeply concerned that such provision is not in place for the implementation of the act.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

rose—

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I see that Lord James Douglas-Hamilton wishes to intervene; unfortunately I will not be able to give way.

I close with a simple remark. One of the reasons why I am such a strong supporter of the presumption in favour of mainstreaming is that I have seen the tremendous benefits that can accrue to young people with special educational needs—especially young people with autism—when they go into mainstream schools, in spite of the many challenges that they face. The principal challenge is not their academic ability, but their ability to interact socially. Mainstream schooling has an extremely beneficial effect on expanding the horizons of those young people and leads to the blossoming of their character. We must defend the important principle of mainstreaming.

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I am grateful for the opportunity to make a brief contribution to the debate. Like many members, I somewhat regret the terms of the Conservative motion, much of which is misplaced and ill-judged.

When I was the Deputy Minister for Education and Young People, I lost count of the number of times that Peter Peacock and I made plain that education policy in Scotland is child centred, which is precisely the point that John Swinney made. Indeed, Robert Brown read out the appropriate part of the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000 that makes that manifest. What is in the best interests of the individual child must prevail—incidentally, that is very much the culture in Scotland's courts, too. Section 15 of the 2000 act is applied in that context. There is a presumption in favour of mainstreaming, when that is in the child's best interests and when the interests of all the other children in the mainstream setting into which that child goes are not compromised.

I believe that a measured and welcome change has been taking place in that some children are now in mainstream settings permanently or for part of their school day—that is important—who might otherwise not have had that opportunity and everything that it brings with it. The figures show that and confirm that, contrary to the impression that has been created in some quarters, there has been no mass closure of special schools. In my view, special schools will remain for many years to come, as it is clear that the best interests of a significant number of children are served by the dedication of the staff in those schools.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

Just for the record, does the member agree that the information that there has been a net loss of 15 special schools since 1997 is contained in a parliamentary answer that was given by Mr Peter Peacock, which was dated 13 September 2005? The information is not our information; it is the information of the senior minister for education and it is there on the record.

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

The figure depends on the period that is chosen. For example, in 1996 there were 158 special schools, but as of 2000 there were 190 special schools.

The point that I am trying to get across is that it is necessary for a child to be in a special school setting when that is in the best interests of the child. As Robert Brown mentioned, to ensure that the policies are being properly implemented, the Scottish centre for research in education will conduct a review of mainstreaming at the end of this year. That is welcome because there is no doubt that there are lessons to be learned and that the work to ensure that mainstreaming takes place will be at different stages of development in different places—obstacles will exist in some places that do not exist in others. I hope that the review will bring out where we need to do more.

I have a brief point to make on the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004, to which the same argument applies. It will take time for that act to become well understood. An immense amount of preparatory work has been undertaken and I pay tribute to the Education Department for the scale of the consultation that it conducted and the amount of effort that it has put into the implementation phase. Local authorities have been provided with significant resources to ensure that the transition to the new regime that takes place in a few days' time, on 14 November, will be smooth and successful.

Margaret Ewing (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Will the review to which the member has referred place an emphasis on the diagnosis of special needs? One of the difficulties that many teachers face is the lack of accurate diagnosis. We cannot simply tie labels saying "autism" or "epilepsy" round young people's necks; we need to ensure that there is delivery of specific packages for individual pupils. The diagnosis of special needs takes time and resources, and requires a lot of hard work.

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I am sure that the Executive will do as Mrs Ewing says and consider the analysis of needs. Autism, for example, is a spectrum disorder. One individual who has autism will be on a different part of the spectrum from another such individual. The point that Mrs Ewing makes is important and I have every confidence that the Scottish centre for research in education will take it on board; the minister has heard it.

In conclusion, I regret the terms of the motion. I suggest to the Conservative party—which, as I recall, voted against the 2004 act—that, in future, it should base its policies on analysis rather than on anecdote, which I fear that it is doing at the moment.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I am amazed at some of the comments that have been made in this morning's debate. Any parent who has a special needs child must be worried sick.

The coalition partners throw out statistics, but only eventually do they get round to the fact that children are different. Each child has a different set of needs. Margaret Ewing was right to say that those needs must be assessed. That is a continuing process. A single diagnosis at a particular stage of a child's life is not sufficient ground for deciding to slot the child into a mainstream situation in which they will get a wee bit of support.

I invite the minister to do what I invited his predecessor to do—to come up to Aberdeenshire to listen to the desperate parents who are told one thing by the education authority, but who hear different things from the ministers. Those parents do not want a special needs school on every street corner; they know that that is impossible. St Andrew's School in Inverurie runs a fantastic operation. Parents in south Aberdeenshire—with the help of the local authority—make the effort to send their children there because it is the right place for them.

Carronhill School in Stonehaven teaches teachers and trains them to work in the bases, so it is a key resource. There are bases in many schools for those children who can cope with an element of mainstreaming. I spent a day in Laurencekirk School, which has such a base. A young chap came and went at different times of the day and was constantly escorted by an assistant who knew what his needs were. The whole process was centred on him. That is what parents are looking for. In time, he will hopefully get into mainstream education.

We have got to stop the nonsense of, "We've got a piece of legislation, we've allocated a sum of money and that's it. Tick. What are we going to do now? Let's move on to farming." The minister is saying that mainstreaming must be the norm "unless." I can tell him about a number of cases in which mainstreaming has not worked. At Camphill it is not just children who are affected by the forthcoming western peripheral route. I have worked with the engineers to see whether there can be mitigation to save the Rudolf Steiner school at Camphill, and it cannot be done. Those are major issues, and people are becoming angry that the needs of this whole range of young people—and older people—are not being dealt with.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I am getting quite angry with Mr Davidson's comments, some of which make exactly the same point about mainstreaming that others have made. Beyond that, however, I wonder whether he has actually read the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004, and whether he knows about the information strategy, the training arrangements, the money that is being put in, the organisation, the implementation offices at local level and the preparations to make a success of an act that has, after all, not yet come into force.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Aberdeenshire Council says that it does not have the resources to rebuild the schools and that it is doing its best to get people into mainstreaming. That education authority is saying, "We haven't got the money." Parent consultation? We did all that at Carronhill and we are back where we started, with a school success story in which the local academy brings in teaching staff so that children get the chance for education in appropriate surroundings. It all comes down to the individual; putting the child at the centre is right, but we must also consider the needs of parents and be pragmatic about resources. Quite frankly, what I have heard today is not guidance but business as usual. "There will be no change but we will have another consultation." That is not good enough.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

I was puzzled about why the Tories are so hung up about the issue so I listened to the debate, but I am not sure whether David Davidson has been listening to the same debate. The education of children with special needs is important for us all, but I wonder whether the Tories are hiding behind the issue because they have nothing else to say on education.

Brian Monteith and others have referred to the early days of the Parliament. One of the first pieces of legislation that the Parliament passed was the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000. During the evidence sessions for the bill, we heard many views of how unsatisfactory the education system was for children and young people with special needs. To suggest that the committee did not press sufficiently for change at that time does not correlate with my memory of what happened. I would challenge anyone here to imagine the likes of Karen Gillon, Nicola Sturgeon and even Brian Monteith not pursuing an issue to its nth degree. However, there was a great deal of pressure to follow the example of other countries—such as Italy—and close all special schools. Many committee members visited special schools throughout Scotland and we saw for ourselves the excellent education that they provide. I managed to visit all seven national schools.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I hear what the former convener of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee says, but she is confusing the committee dealing with the legislation with the subsequent committee report on special schools, which was produced separately. The committee's mood changed after that investigation.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

It did not change; we always recognised the need for the comprehensive system that has allowed for special schools and mainstreaming.

As I said, I visited the seven national schools. I am pleased that Donaldson's College will soon be moving to Linlithgow in my constituency. The committee resisted the pressure to close all special schools, but we introduced the presumption of mainstreaming, which was further fleshed out in last year's Education (Additional support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004. The Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000 was a way forward that provided choice for children and their families. It put the child at the centre of provision, and allowed the appropriate choice for each individual child. Progress has been made in medical care and in adaptations for those with physical disabilities and there is no reason why the majority of children with special needs should not be educated in our local schools. It would be a retrograde step to remove the presumption of mainstreaming.

I wonder why the motion is before us, when it starts out by acknowledging the educational and social benefits of mainstreaming. The motion seeks appropriate resources and support for mainstreaming and I support that. Maybe the Tories thought that we would follow their example, when they introduced care in the community and tried to do it on the cheap. However, that is not the case. The Executive has set aside additional moneys. The motion suggests—as many have said—that 33 special schools have closed. If those schools were not fit for purpose, that was the right thing to do. Rather than dwelling in the past we must provide schools that respond to the needs of the children in our communities now. The Conservatives are grasping at straws. What the Parliament is doing is the correct way to move forward. The fact that the Conservatives are whipping up concern among families of children with special needs is particularly despicable.

Margaret Ewing (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I welcome the debate. It is important that the issue of special needs is always before the Parliament. We must not lose track of it and think that because we have passed legislation everything will be fine. We all know from constituency casework and from the information that we have received from many of the voluntary organisations that work hard on behalf of the families of children with special needs that that is not the situation. Mainstreaming is a desirable objective.

We all wish to avoid segregation, but what has not really been touched upon here is that the children in mainstream schools who do not have special needs learn a great deal about their colleagues. I hope that that will help to build a more tolerant society and bring back community spirit. I also hope that that will avoid what sometimes happens, which is the bullying of children with special needs, who feel excluded from what is happening in the school. It is important that we recognise that all children benefit from having children with special needs in the mainstream schools of Scotland. It is important to bring back the concept of family and community support that Elaine Murray touched on. We must always remember that many people are less fortunate than ourselves and that we should be doing everything possible for them. However, that is not always resolved by legislation.

In my intervention on Euan Robson I spoke about diagnosis, and the preparation and delivery of individual learning packages for children with special needs. To that I wish to add parental involvement, about which parents are greatly concerned. We probably all heard the interviews this morning on "Good Morning Scotland" with parents who are deeply involved in building up support for children with special needs. We must ensure that parents are involved in every decision that is taken. Professional guidance and support must be given to everyone. That brings me back to training and resourcing, which was mentioned by Rosemary Byrne. Like me, she has a background in special needs education. Training is vital. Forty per cent of schools with pupils with ASD have no teachers with autism-specific training. The situation improves slightly in special schools, but even there only 50 per cent of teachers have specific training in autism. That is one example of the problems. There are others that I could go into, many of which I have learned about in my years in politics, such as the training of teachers and the time that is needed to enable teachers to sit with a child, their parents and the professionals to try to ensure direction in what happens to that youngster in our schools.

We have concentrated on special schools today. I have never doubted that there is a need for them, and I hope that they will be supported. However, the presumption should be in favour of mainstreaming.

We should think more about the transition from school to work for youngsters with special needs. We had the pleasure of having a young autistic gentleman work with us in our parliamentary office in Moray for three months. It was interesting to see that young man's confidence grow through working in a busy office and having to talk to people. At the moment he comes in every so often, which is excellent. We can do a lot to help with that transition. However, let us not just leave it to the local authorities; let us as parliamentarians look at our role and at how we can ensure that the transition happens.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I am disappointed with the Conservative motion, which completely misses the point about children's special educational and additional support needs. The Conservatives think that the presumption of mainstreaming is the key principle underlining Executive policy and policy in Scotland, when clearly it is not. The fundamental principle is the needs of the individual child. That is made clear in the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004, which requires education authorities to make adequate and efficient provision for each child or young person with additional support needs for whose education they are responsible. That—not mainstreaming—is the underlying principle of Scotland's education system and of the policies that are being pursued by the Liberal Democrat-Labour Executive.

However, I support the presumption in favour of mainstreaming, because it means that people should be treated as equals and that they should, wherever possible, play a full part in the society in which they live. It also puts a requirement on education authorities to do everything that they can to try to meet the needs of individual children within a mainstream setting. However, in some cases, that will not be possible. Nobody believes that it is possible to make adequate provision to meet the needs of every single child in a mainstream setting. Therefore, there will be a continuing need for special schools and special units attached to schools. That is a fundamental point.

The Conservatives have completely missed the key point in this tawdry debate that there are now more special schools and stand-alone special units than when they were in government. Since 1997, 57 special schools and special units have opened and only 33 have closed. I do not agree with the definition of some of those establishments as special schools—Scott Barrie may pick up on that point later.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

Does the member accept that Peter Peacock's written parliamentary answer on 13 September 2005 is clear and unequivocal, in that there has been a net loss of 15 schools? In that answer he lists year by year the number of special schools opened and the number closed, and there has been a net loss of 15 of those schools.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

The Conservatives miss the point that stand-alone special units, which are not defined as special schools, have been opened. Most closures actually happened in 1995, when 11 schools were closed. I do not think that the Liberal Democrat-Labour Executive was in control in 1995. Many of the schools that were closed were not fit for purpose and did not serve the children whom they were meant to serve.

I had the privilege last year, as a member of committee D of the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body, to take part in an examination of autism. The committee examined different types of provision throughout the British isles—in Ireland, Northern Ireland and England—and found that there is a continuing need for special schools. However, there is also a need to examine training. In its briefing for today's debate, the National Autistic Society makes clear that only 50 per cent of teachers in special schools—never mind teachers in mainstream schools—have training on autism. We need to examine training facilities. The problem exists throughout the British isles, not just in Scotland. There is also a shortage of speech and language therapists throughout the British isles, which must be addressed.

I was particularly disappointed by David Davidson's tawdry little speech, which did not merit a place in this important debate on the requirements of children with special needs. I make no further comment.

I commend the Executive amendment to the chamber.

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

I am glad to be closing the debate for the Labour Party, not only because it gives me an opportunity to talk about special schools in my constituency, but because it allows me to take on some of the points that have been made.

The Conservative motion refers to the closure of 33 special schools. We now hear that other schools have been opened, which the motion does not mention. I am pleased that some of those schools—particularly Ovenstone School, Linwood Hall School and Melville House School in my local authority area of Fife—have been closed. My only regret is that it took until the late 1990s before they were closed. They were not fit for purpose and they did not do what they should have done. More important, they did not even qualify for the term "special school" as understood by most members who use the term in this debate, because they were former list D and list G schools and schools for children with educational, social and behavioural difficulties. They were not the schools that most of us have been talking about—schools for supporting children with additional learning needs. When we have such debates, we must be careful about what we are talking about.

The Tories have either misunderstood or deliberately misrepresented the inclusion agenda. Apart from the Conservatives, there is unanimous support in the chamber for the inclusion agenda, but not for inclusion exclusively. We accept that some young people require to be educated in special schools and we should celebrate and support those schools. If someone can attend a mainstream school with additional support, they should be in that mainstream school. However, if they cannot attend a mainstream school because that best for the young person, they should be at the appropriate special school, which should be adequately resourced.

Only this month, Robert Henryson School in my constituency received an outstanding report from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education. Every single category was listed as very good, except accommodation and facilities, which was judged to be good. The one category that is probably outwith the remit of the staff in the school is the only category that did not get a rating of very good. I am pleased to be visiting that school tomorrow morning to congratulate the head teacher and her staff on the invaluable work that they have done. Such work goes on throughout Scotland in lots of different settings, because our special schools are delivering for young people. If the motion before us recognised that fact, we would have been a lot happier and would have had a much better debate.

Apart from the Conservative members who have spoken, all the speakers have talked about the needs of young people and some of the difficulties that we have yet to overcome. That is where we should be going; we should not reinvent an argument from the past about whether every single young person will have to go to a mainstream school. That never was the policy and is not the policy now, and it is untrue to represent the position otherwise.

I am deeply disappointed that Lord James Douglas-Hamilton allowed a factually incorrect motion to go forward in his name. I would not have expected that of him, knowing what he is usually like. He admitted in his opening speech that the debate is not about 33 school closures. Tying up special educational needs with a debate on school closures does no credit to those who brought forward the debate or to those who try to justify the motion.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I offer my apologies to Lord James for missing his speech, but I had transport problems coming into Edinburgh this morning.

It is important that we debate special needs education. I thank the Tories for bringing the motion to the chamber. Unfortunately, like many members across the chamber, I regret the terms of the motion. We see that the Tories want to look backwards, whereas the rest of the chamber recognises the progress that has been made. We accept that great progress has been made and we want to take stock, consider the reality and the experience and then consider where we go from here.

An element of debate has arisen about whether there is a mismatch between experience and intention. The intentions behind the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000 and the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 are correct. I do not dispute the deputy minister's motivation, but he should reflect on the fact that a whole section was added to the 2004 act at the request of the Education Committee to ensure the child-centred approach that John Swinney and others have talked about. The committee recognised that a child does not need to have a co-ordinated support plan to be justifiably in receipt of additional support for learning and that that should be in statute.

We must consider the reality. Time and again, I have come across desperately anxious parents and teachers who support mainstreaming and want it to work but who do not have support on the ground. They worry that they are letting down children. Margaret Ewing and Rosemary Byrne, among others, mentioned teacher training, which lasts for only a short period. The recent report on initial teacher training shows that one anxiety of young teachers is about their lack of experience of, or training on, additional support needs. Those perceptions are carried into schools, where we hear unfortunate comments such as, "I didn't realise I would have to deal with children like these." That is by no means the situation throughout Scotland, but it happens. Unless we face up to the challenges, we will not make progress.

We must reflect on the May 2003 HMIE report "Moving to mainstream: The inclusion of pupils with special educational needs in mainstream schools", in which senior educational managers in each of the local authorities state that they expect a 39 per cent reduction in special school rolls. That does not fit with what we have been told about the provision so far. We must recognise that the issue is not necessarily about special schools that have closed; some special schools are under threat. For example, Richard Lochhead has lodged a motion about the Raeden centre. I agree with Scott Barrie that we should not confuse school closures with the special needs mainstreaming agenda, but I ask the minister to reflect on the fact that some areas, particularly Aberdeenshire, have carried out a whole-authority analysis of the school estate with the special schools thrown in. We must ensure that the future of special schools is treated in an analysis that is separate from the school estate management process.

The Netherlands introduced mainstreaming legislation in the 1990s—the policy was called going to school together. However, a programme called going to school together: the next phase was also introduced, which dealt with a variety of issues that we must consider, such as personal budgeting. At the end of the day, the issue is about resources. The deputy minister says that £95 million will be provided but, only last week, when we asked Peter Peacock in the Education Committee about the resources that are going to front-line services for the 2004 act, he could not tell us but said that he would come back to us. We know that the additional support for learning budget of £14 million is for administrative purposes.

There is a consensus among the parties, except the Conservatives, that we need to make progress. The presumption of mainstreaming should be supported, but we need to consider the next phase. The reality and the bottom line are that we must ensure that sufficient resources are put in on the ground. For all the wonderful words about children being at the centre of the process, they will not be at the centre unless sufficient resources are supplied. That is the agenda that we should focus on next.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I have listened with considerable interest to the points that have been made. I thank the Conservatives for initiating the debate, but I have a sense that the motion that we are debating does not stand up to the slightest examination: it poses a dilemma that does not exist and which is based on an untrue assertion about a declining number of special schools; and it raises an option that is unnecessary and which suggests a crisis that does not exist.

I pay tribute to John Swinney, who gave a classic definition of what we, with the exception of the Conservatives, all believe in the debate on the inclusion programme and mainstreaming. That was echoed by Euan Robson, who talked about the importance of the child-centred nature of the policies that we are putting in place. However, as Cathie Craigie commented, that is not to say that there are no situations in which the provision for an individual child with additional support needs falls short of what it should be or that children do not fall through the net and fail to have their problems identified. I point out to Margaret Ewing that considerable attention is given to the issues of assessment and identification in the Education (Additional Support for Learning) Scotland Act 2004, which comes into force this month.

The Scottish education system, as reformed by the 2000 and 2004 acts, provides a framework for improvement that is increasingly offering children better opportunities. It provides real and effective choices for parents and children, supports those choices better and empowers, and best meets the needs of, the most important people in the debate: the children and young people who need additional support to learn. The framework also benefits their peers with whom they learn, who gain considerable benefit from the experience, which is another point on which Margaret Ewing and others touched.

In the correspondence that has come across my desk since I became minister, I have not seen a great flood of letters on the matter. Perhaps the letters are going to local authorities or elsewhere, but I have had only one on the subject. Issues are not being raised with ministers.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

On that point, the minister makes a fair comment about the framework that is in place—I have no issue with it. However, we are writing to local authorities and encountering parents who are frustrated because they have many stresses in their domestic life through supporting their children but, when they deal with the local authority, the stress is 50 times worse. The challenge is how we break that obstacle in the system. I hope that he will give us some comfort that work on that is under way.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I entirely accept Mr Swinney's point, which was considered and elaborated on in detail during the passage of the 2004 act. That is why it includes measures on mediation, dealing with issues early, the tribunal failsafe and the ethos that is required. I am well aware, from my legal involvement in such cases before my election, just how much some people in such situations batter their heads against brick walls. I have great sympathy with people who are in the situation that John Swinney mentions. However, we must talk about what we are doing through the parliamentary process, the Executive's influence and the framework that is being put in place under the 2004 act to ensure that the situation continues to improve.

Teachers, parents and children tell me repeatedly that the experience of interrelating with children with disablements helps other children to develop the tolerance, understanding and respect for others that are part of what we desire for young people. We have guaranteed the funding of national special schools and supported local authorities in improving special facilities for young people who need them. It is a big challenge for the teachers and other professionals who make a vital contribution, such as therapists, social workers, carers and psychologists, to put all the measures into practice, which is why investment is going in. That investment is not just the £14 million directly to support the 2004 act that Fiona Hyslop mentioned, but investment in a wider range of initiatives on training and other support, which should, I hope, make a big difference. We now have 400 educational psychologists in Scotland for the first time; a 5 per cent rise in speech and language therapists; an increase in social workers of 35 per cent; and teacher targets. Any suggestion that mainstreaming is cheap or simple is misplaced. We are putting in resources.

I remember the dark days when the Conservatives ran Scotland. That was not a halcyon time when children with special needs were carefully supported, as Scott Barrie made clear in summing up for the Labour Party. On the contrary, it was a time when large numbers of parents battered their heads against brick walls, desperate to get the resources that they needed to support their children's special needs. In the 18 years in which the Conservatives were in power, teacher numbers fell by a staggering 6,000. In the final year of the Conservative Government, £30 million was taken out of education resources in Scotland.

We are nearing the date for implementation of the 2004 act. We have an unparalleled opportunity to ensure that every child in Scotland receives the support that they need to achieve their full potential. The new system will address many of the difficulties that members have mentioned. We must focus on that, not on unproductive arguments about the pros and cons of mainstreaming. The Conservative motion looks not forward, but back and seeks a return to a system that many parents, professionals and children fought to change just a short time ago. We have a great generation of young people whom we need to support to the fullest of our ability—that is what the debate is about.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I will start by disagreeing with Robert Brown: this has been a very productive debate with good contributions from all sides of the chamber.

There is one point that no one has raised. The minister mentioned parents battering their heads against brick walls, but—although I am aware only of the situation in Highland—I can tell him that many children are actually excluded from all schools, be they mainstream or specialist, because of disruptive behaviour. Why are children excluded for being disruptive? Because, as Margaret Ewing said, their parents are trying to get a diagnosis but cannot—

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Will the member take an intervention?

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

One second please; this is an important point that has not been raised. Parents cannot get the diagnosis, so the children are at home. In some cases they not only exhibit violent behaviour but enter into a life of crime after falling in with other children who have excluded themselves from school.

Serious issues arise. We are not just talking about mainstreaming and about specialist schools; we also have to consider children who are excluded. They are promised six hours of specialised teaching a week but they certainly do not get that. I agree with points that have been made on all sides that the Parliament must continue to look into education for children with special needs.

Scott Barrie made points about the motion in the name of my colleague Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, but I want to remind the chamber of the actual wording. The motion acknowledges that

"many children with additional support needs draw educational and social benefit from being educated in a mainstream setting".

It also acknowledges that

"appropriate resources and support must be available"

and that the development of

"some children with multiple and complex needs can best be promoted through the concentrated support provided in special schools".

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

Will the member take an intervention?

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

No. I am sorry.

I would argue that the motion is a plea to look ahead rather than back. Children with special needs should be placed in the most appropriate setting for their development, be that in mainstream or special schools.

There is another point in Lord James's motion that others, including John Swinney, have raised—to their credit. Parents must have a say in the process and must be able to make a genuine and informed choice.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Will the member take an intervention?

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

No. I am too short of time and have too many points to respond to.

Fiona Hyslop mentioned a 39 per cent reduction in special school rolls. That reduction is a cause for concern. However, as Lord James said, each child must be treated as an individual and supported according to their needs.

Many members, such as Rosemary Byrne and Margaret Ewing, have spoken about their professional life before coming to the Parliament. Before coming here, I lectured in economics in further and higher education for 20 years. Many students fell through the net throughout their whole educational career; they were diagnosed with dyslexia or other conditions only when they reached higher education. We hope that that will not happen in future and that children will be given support in primary and secondary school.

Today's debate takes place in the month of the implementation of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004. It is a time of change in our education system. Like Brian Monteith, I remember that many Labour back benchers had serious concerns about the bill. We will have to keep the implementation of the act under constant review.

I was pleased to hear the minister say that both special and mainstream schools are required. We would all agree with that. However, will he go a step further? Will he place a moratorium on the closure of special schools until the assumptions behind the mainstreaming policy are reviewed?

As others have said, at present parents have to battle within the system to get accurate diagnoses—whether for dyslexia, dyspraxia, ASD or any other conditions. Once parents have achieved a diagnosis, they have a further battle to get the support that is appropriate to the child's needs. It is one thing to pass legislation in this Parliament but quite another to look into the practical implementation of measures and the support that is offered by educational authorities throughout the country.

As Brian Monteith said, a child's needs should not be determined by cost or resources. He also spoke of the need for a variety of choices.

John Swinney and others said that we should not simply establish the principle of support—with which we all agree—but that we should work on the practical delivery too. That is what people constantly come to see us about. We would be failing in our duty as parliamentarians if we did not raise the issue of the support that is required by children with special educational needs.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Will the member take an intervention?

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

All right, given that Mr Rumbles has not spoken in the debate.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I thank the member.

David Davidson spoke earlier about the closure of Carronhill School in Stonehaven in my constituency. There has been a lot of misinformation. We should be talking about important things such as the local council's plans to rebuild Carronhill School and many other schools like it, and the £200 million refurbishment and renewal programme that is under way.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I thank Mr Rumbles for raising that point, but we should be discussing not the bricks and mortar but the actual support that children are given, whether in mainstream or special schools.

I am in my last minute so I will move quickly on to the point that Adam Ingram made about disabled people not being well served in the current system. Just a few hours of specialised teaching for children with dyslexia can bring enormous benefits. I know of children in primary 7 whose parents have to pay privately to get a diagnosis; however, because it is a private diagnosis, it is not accepted by the education authority and the parents and children have to wait and wait.

I commend Rosemary Byrne for her contribution. Because of her background and her commitment to her profession, she always makes sound contributions to these debates. She and others said that reviews of mainstreaming and of problems with diagnosis and insufficient resources are required. A review is also required into the training of classroom assistants. Such training is lacking.

I ask members throughout the chamber to support the motion in the name of my colleague Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.

Manufacturing

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Our next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-3497, in the name of Murdo Fraser, on the decline of Scottish manufacturing.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Scottish manufacturing is in crisis. Since 1997, we have lost nearly 100,000 jobs in the sector. According to the Scottish Council for Development and Industry, exports have fallen below £15 billion in value for the first time in a decade. The Scottish Executive must stop sitting on its hands and start taking action to address the decline in our manufacturing base.

Let us start by separating reality from mythology. It is part of the mythology of Scottish politics that manufacturing declined under the Conservative Government. In fact, the opposite is the case. According to figures produced by the SCDI, the value of manufacturing exports rose year on year from 1979 to 1997. In 1979, at today's prices, the figure was £3.5 billion; in 1997, it was £19 billion. Those are the facts, despite the nonsense that is put about by our political opponents about the decline in our manufacturing base during that period.

Particularly during the 1990s, Scottish manufacturing saw growth at high levels. The value as a percentage of Scottish gross value added rose year on year between 1992 and 1997. The percentage has fallen substantially in each year since. There was a net gain of more than 5,000 manufacturing jobs in Scotland during the last year of the Conservative Government, whereas the most recent figures show a catastrophic loss of nearly 20,000 jobs in a year. Yes, there has been a dramatic decline in manufacturing, but not on the watch of the Conservatives. It has come on the watch of the Executive and it is the Executive that must be held accountable. If the current rate of decline continues, Scottish manufacturing may well disappear altogether within 10 years.

It is depressing, but not surprising, to see that the Executive's amendment contains no recognition of the sector's problems, such as job losses, competitive pressures and the fall in exports.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

Will the member take an intervention?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The Executive does not have the first idea how to deal with those problems, but perhaps a reluctant ex-member of the Executive will give us an idea.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

If the Conservatives are so concerned about manufacturing, why did the word "manufacturing" not appear in their general election manifesto in 2005, their European election manifesto in 2004, their Scottish Parliament election manifesto in 2003 or their general election manifesto in 2001?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Wendy Alexander clearly has far too much time on her hands if she spends her waking hours reading our old manifestos. We are committed, as we have always been, to growth in the Scottish economy and Scottish businesses. We do not need to spell that out in detail in relation to every sector in order to make the point.

We believe that Scotland requires a strong manufacturing base and that the decline in manufacturing is driven by a lack of competitiveness on the part of the Scottish economy.

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

Is it Conservative party policy that Scotland should have fiscal autonomy in order to redress that lack of competitiveness?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I have a sense of déjà vu. As Mr Ewing knows, we have debated the point endlessly. My party and I accept that there is a case for looking at the powers of the Scottish Parliament. At the moment, we are not convinced that fiscal autonomy is the right option, but there is a debate to be had on the matter and we will be happy to engage in that debate in the months ahead.

We accept that Scotland cannot compete in terms of price with countries such as India and China, but we are hampered by the unduly high cost base in Scottish manufacturing. The 2005 United Kingdom competitiveness index, which has been produced by the University of Sheffield, shows that Scotland has fallen four places since 1997, from fourth to eighth out of twelve regions of the UK. That can only be a direct result of the Executive's decisions.

The SCDI states that manufacturing exports peaked in 2000. That is the year in which the Executive increased business rates. As we have heard many times in the chamber, Scottish businesses have paid an extra £838 million since Jack McConnell abolished the uniform business rate and increased business rates to a higher level than applies down south. I am pleased that a cut in business rates has been announced, but it is disappointing that the cut is to be staggered. The Executive should bring the entire cut forward to April 2006 so that business rates in Scotland match those in England. That would deliver a real boost to the competitiveness of Scottish manufacturing.

Scottish manufacturing companies also suffer from higher water bills than those paid by their counterparts down south. BP at Grangemouth pays nearly twice as much as would an equivalent plant south of the border. It is time to move Scottish Water into the private sector, to make it more competitive and to reduce the costs to Scottish businesses.

We have to tackle regulation. People in business regularly complain that they are hampered by red tape. Our new Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning says that he understands the position, but it is time for him to deliver. We need an enterprise minister who really believes in slashing red tape and allowing businesses to compete more freely.

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

The member talked about the impact of regulation and what the Executive is doing about that. Does he agree that the World Bank and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development regard the UK's regulatory regime as one of the lightest in Europe?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

We know that the European economy as a whole has not performed particularly well, so perhaps Europe should not be our model. It is disappointing that the Executive rejected many of the Subordinate Legislation Committee's recommendations on the regulatory burden.

We need to examine the size of the public sector in Scotland, which stifles private sector activity. We are familiar with the comments of the chairman of Scottish Enterprise on the matter and there is a growing consensus that the way to grow the private sector is to start reducing the burden of the public sector.

Under the Executive, the decimation of Scottish manufacturing continues apace. Unlike the happy years of Conservative Government, when Scottish manufacturing went from strength to strength, all we have seen during the past six years is a sad story of decline. It is time for the Executive to stand up for Scottish manufacturing and take the necessary steps to turn the situation round.

I move,

That the Parliament notes with concern that the value of the manufacturing sector fell every year between 1997 and 2002, having previously risen year-on-year between 1992 and 1997, and that nearly 100,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost since 1997; further notes with concern the recent findings of the Scottish Council for Development and Industry that exports have fallen below £15 billion in value for the first time in a decade; believes that Scotland can benefit from a solid manufacturing base as part of a diverse and modern economy, and therefore calls on the Scottish Executive to take the action required to increase the competitiveness of the sector by taking measures such as reducing red tape and the size of the public sector, privatising Scottish Water, encouraging greater participation in vocational training at further education colleges and bringing forward the promised business rates cut to April 2006.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

We are always pleased to have an opportunity to talk about manufacturing in Scotland, no matter how incongruous the source of the debate. Unlike the Conservatives, we regard manufacturing as important. We mention it in "A Partnership for a Better Scotland".

Murdo Fraser talked about the Conservatives' record but, contrary to what he said, manufacturing output measured as a percentage of gross value added fell between 1988 and 1997 from about 24 per cent to 22 per cent. Murdo Fraser did not mention employment but, during the same period, the number of jobs fell by 155,000. That figure is significant because of the difference in unemployment under the Conservative and Labour Administrations; since the creation of the Scottish Parliament, we have created more than 155,000 new jobs—that is, more than the number of jobs that were destroyed by the Conservatives during their tenure.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

We are talking about manufacturing. Even if it is the case that we lost 155,000 jobs during the 18 years of Conservative Government, is the minister proud of the fact that the Executive has managed to lose 100,000 jobs during the past six years?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

When we talk about manufacturing, it is important to put the matter in context. I do not disagree that manufacturing's contribution to the economy has declined since 1998 but, during the same period, Scotland's economy has grown by nearly 14 per cent in real terms. That rate of growth is not matched by many of our competitors. Manufacturing productivity remains 25 per cent higher than productivity in the rest of the economy, which reflects the fact that the sector is at the forefront of adopting innovative business practices to eliminate waste. There are still significant gains to be achieved in that area.

Manufacturing accounts for 15 per cent of Scotland's gross domestic product and employs approximately 250,000 people. Those are impressive statistics, but many commentators—people such as me and Wendy Alexander—believe that traditional measures no longer accurately capture the complexity of manufacturing in advanced economies in the 21st century. Understanding manufacturing is much more complex than simply talking about production, as Murdo Fraser does.

In our advanced global economy, successful manufacturing companies engage in various parts of the manufacturing process, such as research and development, product design and development, marketing and aftercare. They specialise in complex systems integration and systems management across a global supply chain as well as, or in place of, production.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Will the minister explain why, if everything is so rosy, his figures show that manufacturing declined from 22 per cent of GDP in 1995 to 16 per cent in 2002? The trajectory suggests that the figure is now about 12 per cent. How can that be considered a success story?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I am trying to explain that measuring manufacturing production simply by GDP does not take account of the whole manufacturing process.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

You have one minute.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

One minute?

Manufacturing sectors have necessarily undergone a period of transition. That is not in dispute. They have had to adapt, innovate and transform to meet the challenges of globalisation and competition from low-wage economies such as those of Asia and eastern Europe, and they continue to do so. Jim Mather and Murdo Fraser talk about decline, but in a modern and innovative economy it is misleading—and it does manufacturing industry a disservice—to refer to job losses in production and pretend that that tells the whole story. It does not.

I have a whole lot of things that I would like to say about what we are doing in the Scottish economy to assist manufacturing, but I will keep that for summing up. Suffice it to say that there is no use pretending that Scotland's economy can be immune from the global economic trends to which I have referred. We should concentrate on creating the right conditions for manufacturing and business. We have done that and it is set out in "The Framework for Economic Development in Scotland" and "A Smart, Successful Scotland". Manufacturing must continue to focus on productivity. Our success will be evidenced by the fact that our economy continues to grow at a rate in excess of that of the rest of the United Kingdom, and our employment figures continue to rise. Many of our key competitors dearly wish to be able to say the same thing.

I move amendment S2M-3497.3, to leave out from the first "with concern" to end and insert:

"the important role that manufacturing plays in creating a diverse and growing Scottish economy and supports Scottish manufacturers adopting innovative and modern approaches to face the challenge of global competition; supports the move to higher value and quality products, and further notes the range of measures brought forward by the Scottish Executive to support manufacturing: investing in transport infrastructure and the skills of our people, creating the right environment by reducing business poundage rates and establishing a Scottish Manufacturing Advisory Service to support and encourage Scottish manufacturing industry to adapt to the global competitive environment."

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I rise to engage in a debate that I am not sure is entirely serious. It seems to me that this might be more of a Tory attempt to clear the decks and mark the arrival of a new leader, and to have previous convictions taken into account. The Proclaimers should be here today to sing "Letter from America":

"Methil no more Irvine no more. Bathgate no more Linwood no more".

I could go on to talk about Corpach, Ravenscraig and so on. We are essentially reflecting on a 20-year Tory era in which 240,000 jobs were lost in Scotland between 1979 and 1997.

Although the Executive amendment is worthy, it is also pretty complacent. In my intervention on the minister, I said that the Executive is even marking down manufacturing in the way that it calculates GDP. Manufacturing is being materially de-emphasised. To the Scottish National Party it is ironic that the decline happened between 1973 and 2005, the era in which we have been denied the chance to implement Scotland's wealth and have been unable to exercise our right over the oil, to move ahead and to have the economy that we should have.

There is a pattern of behaviour in which the distortions that were made in the past are continuing. The minister commented that Scotland is outperforming the rest of the UK in terms of our GDP—what rubbish! We have indexed our 2000 and 2001 GDP figures and done the same with the UK economy figures. If we had indexed the Koh-i-noor diamond and my SNP badge each to equal 100 at 2002, then monitored their progress, the lines would converge at that time and diverge very little thereafter. Such indices give no reflection of value and it is a major fault of the Government that it continues to twaddle data that are so distorted.

Our economic failure and the contraction in manufacturing are due to the simple failure to create the conditions for growth. That is why we have lost manufacturing muscle, ownership, and research and development and the potential spin-offs. We have lost potential clusters and, time after time, the reports show that competitiveness has been eroded.

There has been a consolidation of UK ownership, as happens in a branch economy. There has also been a failure in the Tories' artificial temporary boost of foreign direct inward investment policies which, through loans and low-cost premises, brought inward investment that did not stay here in the long term.

The hierarchy of responsibility can be clearly seen by anyone who studies the likes of W Edwards Deming, the guy who turned round manufacturing and industry in Japan. Deming is particularly interesting because he discovered that responsibility lies with management. Management dictates recruitment, the definition of processes, the raw materials and the suppliers. If that is true for the management of a factory, it is also true for the management of a country. This country has failed in its operation because our branch economy leaks into other economies and does not allow us to grow and build our base.

We should examine the current outlook. The Confederation of British Industry forecasts contraction. In business rates and Scottish Environment Protection Agency and water charges, our businesses face higher fixed charges than do businesses elsewhere. The net effect is a massive series of conversions. Lord Vallance, the former chairman of Scottish Enterprise is coming round to our opinion that we must have the economic powers to move forward.

Where would we have been if we had been able to start that process in 1973? If we had matched Norway's growth, we would have £46 billion extra flowing through our economy and 815,000 additional people living and working in Scotland. Each man, woman and child would be £5,300 per annum better off.

The focus now should be on creating a new magnetic north called Scotland that attracts business and wealth. The only way of doing that is for the Parliament to step up and grab the same powers as the Latvians, Estonians, Irish and Czechs have. Anything else—

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

No, you must finish now.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Anything else is flawed and we will continue to see the flow of flawed data.

I move amendment S2M-3497.1, to leave out from "having previously" to end and insert:

"considers that this was partly the result of the failure of earlier policies which attracted many foreign direct inward investors who did very little research and development in Scotland and which on their own were neither sufficient nor a substitute for real economic power and the full ability to compete, and therefore calls on the Scottish Executive to recognise this fact and the evidence that makes the status quo untenable and damaging to Scotland."

Andrew Arbuckle (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Until now, I never believed P G Wodehouse's comment to the effect that it was never difficult to tell the difference between a Scotsman and a ray of sunlight, but I now realise that he must have been describing Murdo Fraser and Jim Mather.

Mr Fraser's motion on the current state of the Scottish manufacturing industry neatly tries to deflect from the Tories the blame for the damage that they did to that sector and to the economy as a whole from 1979 until they were belatedly ousted from power. He might have been too young to see the damage that was done by the Tories to industry in the 1980s or to feel its consequences, but the manufacturing decline was triggered by the last Tory Government. Perhaps Mr Fraser can say why investment in manufacturing was lower when the Tories left office than it was when they entered it?

Rather than concentrate on that, I will concentrate on the good news for the future of Scottish manufacturing. The decline that was brought about by extensive restructuring in the sector has bottomed out and the sector is expected to grow again as of next year, as it started to do this year.

The Fraser of Allander Institute commentary on manufacturing for the first half of this year found an increase in business confidence; a rising trend in orders, in the level of work and in investment; and a crucial strengthening of employment in the sector. It is on that basis that the institute expects the situation to turn round by next year.

I am sorry that there was no Tory representation at this morning's launch of Scottish Enterprise Fife's annual report. Those that attended heard the chairman, Fred Bowden, state:

"There is a real sense of optimism in industry."

The Scottish Executive consulted manufacturing to find ways to support restructuring and development of the industry and those efforts have been welcome and successful. The lean manufacturing initiative that was launched last year by Jim Wallace helps to strip out costs from businesses and aids their competitiveness.

"Efforts to encourage manufacturers to participate in 'Lean Management' have yielded significant benefits for those involved. The Initiative supported by Scottish Enterprise is now being rolled out across the country and will provide excellent opportunities."

That is not my comment but that of the chief executive of Scottish Engineering, Peter Hughes. He also welcomed the opportunities that exist via the Executive's green jobs strategy, which links our concern for the environment with the rise in new markets in sustainable industries. It is a unique strategy that will give Scottish manufacturers a cutting edge in that emerging field, particularly in renewable energy.

Interestingly, in the same publication that carried the comments of Mr Hughes, the Conservatives' former leader pledged that they would stop

"spending tax payers' money in pursuit of never ending 'strategies' and 'launches'".

The Executive has been listening to business; the Tories have not.

We should never forget that Scotland has a better record of innovation and invention than any other similar-sized country in the world. That has been true for more than two hundred years and the Executive is creating opportunities for invention to flourish in the marketplace.

On a final point, I would like to combat the gloom that we have heard this morning by referring to a report of the Small Business Research Trust. That report stated categorically that small businesses in Scotland were outperforming those in the rest of the UK, including London, when it came to investment, sales and creating employment. The report, which was the second-largest ever commissioned in the UK, pointed out that in the second quarter of this year, 30 per cent of Scottish businesses were increasing the number of jobs and, in addition, 36 per cent were investing more in their businesses than were businesses south of the border. The news gets better—or worse for Tory and SNP members—because more than half of Scottish businesses in that category reported a rise in their sales.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

You must finish now.

Andrew Arbuckle (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

In fact, predictions based on results so far suggest that we will see an end this year to the decline of manufacturing. The long-term future is bright.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

We move now to the open debate, but I will not be able to call everyone. There will be a strict four minutes for speeches. That means four minutes maximum.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

I will focus on my constituency's manufacturing sector, which in many ways faces in microcosm pressures that are felt in the industry in Scotland as a whole.

In Ayrshire, more than one in five workers is employed in the manufacturing sector and some 34 per cent of the area's turnover—compared with a Scottish average of just 21 per cent—comes from manufacturing. One need only look in and around the area that I represent to see evidence of Scottish manufacturing's decline. We have seen many closures: the Ailsa-Troon shipyard; the Volvo factory in Irvine; the Compaq computers factory; and the Ayr stamp works. The list goes on. According to Scottish Enterprise Ayrshire, no fewer than 85 manufacturing companies in Ayrshire have closed over the past four years, with the loss of almost 7,500 jobs.

There are many reasons why Ayrshire's manufacturing sector is suffering, some of which are beyond the Scottish Executive's control. For example, there has been an increase in competition from the far east, the Indian sub-continent and eastern Europe, where the labour costs of the well-educated and appropriately skilled workforce are cheaper. However, other issues that affect Scottish manufacturing industry's competitiveness lie very much within the influence of Government at UK and devolved level. As I argued in the chamber a few weeks ago—and as others have mentioned—the minister's stated intention of reducing business rates in Scotland to the levels that are enjoyed by firms south of the border is welcome, but the reduction cannot come soon enough for businesses in my constituency. We could do with lower business rates now rather than in 2007-08.

In addition, recent studies have shown that an underdeveloped transport infrastructure and high transport costs are a major stumbling block to business expansion. In recent years, many local companies have raised with me the issue of spiralling utility costs such as water bills, which for a number of firms have been hiked by Scottish Water by 300 per cent and more. Clearly, such costs have a major impact on the ability of the manufacturing firms to compete and to invest.

It is extremely worrying that the Fraser of Allander Institute's most recent survey on behalf of the Scottish Chambers of Commerce indicates that Scottish investment in research and development and in developing new markets and products continues to decline. To survive and compete in an increasingly competitive global marketplace, Scottish manufacturing must play to its strengths and innovate. Sadly, firms face such a fight to keep their heads above water because of the high business costs that are levied by the Scottish Executive and Scottish Water that they are required to sacrifice future investment for present survival. Who can blame them for doing so?

Of equal concern is the worrying lack of new business start-ups in Ayrshire. The only way to boost start-ups is to create an environment that is conducive to the spirit of entrepreneurship, which has long been part of the Scottish character.

However, the news from Ayrshire is by no means all bad. Larger businesses such as Goodrich Ltd, GE Caledonian Ltd and BAE

Systems aerostructures division in Prestwick have demonstrated that there is still a place for high-tech, high-skilled precision engineering jobs in Scotland.

My hope is that the minister will reflect on the warning signs that are evident in our manufacturing sector. He must act now to ensure that many more firms in Ayrshire and throughout Scotland are set free to invest, compete and succeed.

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

I welcome the opportunity that the debate provides to discuss aspects of Scotland's manufacturing future that members of other parties might inadvertently overlook, such as sustainability and social justice.

All parties share common ground in recognising that Scottish manufacturing has declined in recent years and that the value of Scottish exports continues to fall. Every manufacturing job that is lost is a devastating blow for the individuals concerned and for their families. The parallel growth of Scotland's service sector is scant comfort for those who have spent a lifetime in manufacturing.

Although we share many of the concerns of Murdo Fraser and his colleagues, we disagree with their preferred solution to the problem. We do not agree that improving Scottish competitiveness requires the dismantling of the public sector and the watering down of business regulation. In the annual league tables that are published by the World Economic Forum, three of the four most competitive countries on the planet are—as Murdo Fraser will be aware—Scandinavian states. By our standards, those are high-tax economies, but the citizens of Finland, Sweden and Denmark enjoy a comprehensive welfare state and public services of which the rest of the human race can only dream. Clearly, a strong public sector and a competitive economy are not mutually incompatible, in spite of what the Tory motion implies. We would go as far as to suggest that only high levels of social justice among the workforce can deliver high levels of productivity and efficiency.

In addition to maintaining Scotland's traditionally high levels of Government expenditure, the Scottish Executive should use its powers to develop the manufacturing potential of new sustainable industries. The zero-waste sector has enormous job-creation potential, which would be good for the environment and for the economy. Not only is redesigning waste out of our society possible—make no mistake about that—but it will create employment and improve our competitive advantage. Likewise, the radical improvements in energy efficiency that we so badly need could provide spin-off benefits in employment opportunities for workers.

As has been pointed out in the chamber many times, Scotland is ideally placed to develop a world-beating renewables industry. The manufacturing jobs that previously supported the offshore oil industry are readily transferable to the fabrication of the renewable energy devices that will power Scotland's future. Those industries would be good for the environment because they would help to tackle climate change. They would also be good for social justice because they would provide jobs in some of our most deprived rural areas and help to build a sustainable economy.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

I am sorry, but it is a short debate.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

You have one minute.

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

It is strange that the Tories seem to have such a negative reaction to the renewables industry, especially the onshore wind sector. How can Murdo Fraser's lament for Scotland's manufacturing industries be reconciled with his knee-jerk opposition to an industry that offers so much promise? If the onshore wind industry falters, the prospects for offshore renewables will be gravely diminished.

We must grasp the opportunities and fulfil all the potential that a sustainable Scotland presents. We can do that without pulling the rug from beneath the vulnerable by undermining the welfare state and watering down effective business regulation.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

Today's motion is fascinating because, for the first time in a decade, the Tories have had the courage to offer their previous economic record for debate. For the past decade, the only thing to be heard from a Tory about the two recessions, the double-digit inflation, the record unemployment, the 15 per cent interest rates and the doubling of the national debt was, "It wisnae me."

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

I am sorry—I am pushed for time.

Today, we have two new Tory leaders on show. In the south, the two Davids—David Cameron and David Davis—both claim "It wisnae me" when they are asked about the Tories' economic record. However, in Scotland, the Tories' new top team are rather different. Annabel Goldie, who was deputy leader of the Scottish Tories throughout the 1990s, made not a whisper of dissent during that time. Murdo Fraser was then the full-time right-hand man to Michael Forsyth and was previously chairman of the young Conservatives. He was a Thatcherite true believer throughout. Neither of the Scottish Tory twosome can credibly claim, "It wisnae me." Therefore, it is all the more interesting that, in its first debates, the new Tory team wants to laud the Tories' record. In fairness, that record leaves little to choose from. If they rake around the statistical residue of their 20 years, they cannot choose growth, employment, inflation or wealth so they have alighted on the decline of manufacturing.

For the record, one statistic that Murdo Fraser omitted to mention is that manufacturing's share of the Scottish economy fell more during the years of Tory rule than it has under the stewardship of the Scottish Executive and Scottish Parliament. Instead he offered one statistical gem from his hero Michael Forsyth's halcyon reign. What accounts for it? Was it Tory policy? Was there an upturn in manufacturing all over Britain? No—it was limited to Scotland. Of course, that upturn was due to Locate in Scotland successfully attracting major electronics companies. Although the Tories hastened the losses of Ravenscraig, Linwood, Corpach, Caterpillar, Bathgate and so many others about which we have heard from members of other parties, Locate in Scotland did a job for this country. So why is there no mention in the motion of Locate in Scotland or its successors? That is no accident. The reason is that the only budget in the entire £25 billion that the Executive spends that the Tories want to halve is that of Scottish Enterprise and Locate in Scotland's successors.

As the 1980s and 1990s wore on, Locate in Scotland privately begged the then Scottish Office under Michael Forsyth for a change in strategy. Ask George Matthewson, who went on to build the Royal Bank of Scotland into the giant that it is today. However, Michael Forsyth was increasingly determined to buy jobs at any price. We saw less and less of the strategic investment that allowed Locate in Scotland to bring in Compaq but we saw more and more companies like Chunghwa Picture Tubes. In the Tories' dying days, £30 million was cynically offered to a questionable company peddling outdated technology—the classic screwdriver plant—that was always likely to go as quickly as it came. However, Michael Forsyth's Scottish Office was intent on financing any scheme in the futile hope that it could hold back the tidal wave of demand for devolution. Against advice, the Tories gambled with taxpayers' money and lost.

For 10 years, the Tories have had the humility to hang their heads in shame. They gave up trying to sell a strategy of low skill, low tech and low wages to the Scots. Let us hope that the rise of Murdo Fraser, Michael Forsyth's mate, does not herald a return to the same sorry short-termism that so scarred Scotland's economy in the past. The new—

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Ms Alexander, I said that you had a strict four minutes. We must move on. After Kenny MacAskill has spoken, there may be a brief moment for Christine May.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I welcome the debate. However, as other members—especially Ms Alexander—have commented, it is ironic that it has been initiated by the Tories. Scottish manufacturing did not just haemorrhage under the Conservatives—it was crucified. That carried not just an economic cost, but a social cost for many of our communities; when the Conservatives look at the statistics, they forget that whole communities were fundamentally damaged. Some changes that occurred may have been inevitable, but the Conservatives made them with cruelty and without taking cognisance of the social costs. In many communities, whole generations—not just young men, but old men who could not adapt to the new service sector—were left to wither on the vine. The Conservatives created a vacuum that allowed long-term unemployment and heroin to enter the veins of many communities. Today we face the social consequences of their economic policies.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member give way?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Not at the moment. I have far too short a time and the member has had an opportunity to speak.

There are points that must be made. Of course our service sector is doing well. However, it is not old fashioned to say that manufacturing matters. A few years back, it was perceived as almost de rigueur to say that manufacturing did not matter and that it was all about the service economy and tourism. However, the two sectors are not mutually irreconcilable and should not be placed in opposition to each other. Of course we should be proud of our financial services and of the Royal Bank of Scotland, which has become the biggest business in Scottish history. We welcome that, but manufacturing and services are not in conflict. Tourism, our biggest industry, is important, but we also need a manufacturing base.

There has been globalisation, and some industries were always going to suffer because of competition from south-east Asia, the Indian subcontinent and, in more recent years, eastern Europe. However, there is still a place here for manufacturing. We must address our current position. It is not just a matter of bandying about statistics on who did what in the 1970s, 1980s or 1990s—fundamentally, the question is about where we will go from here.

I take issue with Mr Arbuckle, who talked about the event involving Scottish Enterprise Fife. I was not there, because to some extent I have no locus in such matters. However, I hope that Superfast Ferries was mentioned, because that is part and parcel of what is happening in our manufacturing base. Superfast has seen growth both in its figures for tourists visiting Scotland and in freight, so why has it reduced its service? It has done so because it cannot make the same profit margin on the North sea route between Rosyth and Flanders as it can between Germany and Finland. That is the case because the Finnish economy is fundamentally booming, whereas the Scottish economy, if not flatlining, is staggering along. Why does Finland, which stands on a more northerly latitude than Scotland—the latitude of Tampere, where Nokia is based, is akin to that of Orkney—manage to compete, in many case in manufacturing, when we do not? We must learn lessons from that.

New opportunities are arising for us in photonics. Recently I met someone who told me that we may have missed out in silicon glen, as compared to silicon valley, but we have an opportunity in photonics. No sooner had he told me that than I opened the Saturday morning business pages of The Herald to see that a new research and development company based in Scotland, with indigenous talent, had gone into liquidation. Manufacturing matters. We must stop looking backwards and establish a position.

I say to Murdo Fraser that fiscal autonomy is fundamental. At the end of the day, what matters for a manufacturing base is a competitive economy; the Superfast Ferries situation testifies to that. We need to have the powers and the imagination to move forward. I am conscious of the time, Presiding Officer, so I will stop there.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I am obliged to the member, but I am afraid that I cannot call Christine May. I offer my regrets to her and to Frances Curran.

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

This has been a most interesting debate. I take the opportunity at the start of my speech to congratulate Murdo Fraser on his elevation to the position of deputy leader of the Scottish Conservative party.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Not yet.

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

We assume that it is a done deal.

It has been an interesting debate, but I am afraid that it has essentially been backwards looking. As has been pointed out, if we try to take a single snapshot of the Scottish economy using just one series of statistics, we will not get an absolutely accurate picture. I would rather look at where we are today compared with where we were when I started my working life back in the 1970s.

In the Highlands, one reason why the downturn in work at the Nigg yard has not hit the economy of Easter Ross and east Sutherland as we feared it would is that the economy is fairly buoyant and new jobs have been created. That is a tribute to Highlands and Islands Enterprise. I am not in the business of gratuitously knocking Scottish Enterprise, which seems to be the fashion in the newspapers these days. That is an easy call for journalists. HIE has been doing well and the jobs are there. As some members have pointed out, the debate is not just about manufacturing; rather, it is about taking an holistic view of the economy, including tourism—in which there have been two successful years—and the service sector.

Recently Digby Jones appeared on "Question Time", on which he provided a brilliant snapshot of the global economy and what this country should be doing in it. The global economy affects everything that we try to do. I recommend that members download and read his contribution, because it is very interesting.

Andrew Arbuckle was right to refer to renewable energy. Shiona Baird, in a good speech, also mentioned it. It would be a major mistake for us not to pick up that ball and run with it. Opportunistic people who object to onshore wind power for the sake of it are not very clever. The Enterprise and Culture Committee, of which I am a member, conducted a full inquiry into renewable energy, and I commend its report to members.

We are talking about the enterprise culture. I am sorry that Christine May did not get an opportunity to speak, because as members of the Enterprise and Culture Committee both of us visited Sweden and Finland. Kenny MacAskill and others referred to the Finnish economy, but that economy has some fundamental problems. It would be very much in Jim Mather's interest for him to take note of that. First, Finland has a built-in high rate of unemployment, but it cannot fill jobs in certain sectors. In those areas, it is looking to countries such as Estonia and Lithuania. Secondly, we were told repeatedly in both Sweden and Finland that the level of income tax is crippling and is reckoned by industry to be having a fundamental effect. The same is true of Norway. Let us not deny that. The Scottish National Party extols the virtues of Finland and Norway, but the challenge is for it to respond on the issue of income tax. Perhaps Jim Mather or Fergus Ewing will return to that point.

John Scott was right to refer to the importance of transport infrastructure. We have great cause to be pleased with what has been invested in rail and road in the Highlands. I hope that the same will happen in John Scott's Ayr constituency and I appreciate what he said.

In a characteristically strident attack, Wendy Alexander had a go at Murdo Fraser, but surely the point of view from all parties is that we are not doing so badly and we should look forwards instead of backwards. We can go on about the oil in the 1970s, but it does not mean a damn to my children and grandchildren.

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

Perhaps inevitably, the debate has tended to focus on the past rather than on the present or the future. I will address what the Scottish National Party thinks we should do for the present and the future. It is undoubtedly the case that Scotland is part of the global economy, which has introduced changes that we can ignore no more than Canute could ignore the tide.

However, there are clear and present dangers for the Scottish manufacturing sector. The first is the cost of haulage, which is higher in Scotland than in the rest of the UK, and substantially higher in the UK than in the rest of Europe. That has been given effect because our Scottish Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, gives the advantage to hauliers from the continent.

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

Will the member give way?

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

Of course not.

Those continental hauliers travel through Dover taking advantage of the fact that every litre of fuel they buy costs 20p less. It is a form of fiscal sadism whereby a UK chancellor gives an advantage to Germans, French and other Europeans to come over here with lorries and tanks that can carry 1,360 litres, drive 2,400 miles, rarely get stopped by the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency and undercut haulage here. All manufacturing industry relies on haulage. The situation I describe is an outrage.

The previous answer to the problem was lorry road-user charging, but that was abandoned by new Labour because of the horrendous cost that was predicted correctly by Professor Alan McKinnon of Heriot-Watt University. However, the new Labour Government admitted that there was a problem and that the lorry road-user charging was a solution to that problem. Now that it has abandoned LRUC, what does new Labour say about the advantage that Gordon Brown gives to foreign haulage and, by definition, foreign manufacturing companies? Not one word.

I was privileged to listen to Jeanette Anderson, the managing director of First Engineering, deliver a compelling and cogent address in this chamber four or five weeks ago. Her point was that whatever the Scottish Executive cannot do, what it should do is to focus on delivery. However, that is what it has not done. If we look at the delay in the M74, the dithering in the various rail projects and the seemingly endless statements and press announcements, we do not see much action. If the Scottish Executive were a firm of solicitors, it would be called Dither, Swither and Blether. What the Executive should do is listen to the Civil Engineering Contractors Association and the Institution of Civil Engineers. They say that it should create a preparation pool of work so that if a contract such as the M74 is delayed, others can be brought into its place. The Executive should sort out the quagmire of quangos that are supposed to be responsible for delivering transport projects.

As I am in my last minute, it would be churlish of me not to congratulate Murdo Fraser on his elevation to deputy leader of his party; I wish him well. However, I find it a bit disappointing that his former robust espousal of the cause of fiscal autonomy is today no more. Instead of that strong Murdo Fraser who we used to know, who was not afraid to speak out and voice his views, what did we get today? We got equivocation on fiscal autonomy and uncertainty so that we do not know whether he is for it or not. Sadly, the Murdo Fraser who we used to know has sputtered and stuttered like a car that has run out of fuel.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I am indebted to my colleague Wendy Alexander for reminding us of the Tories' record in Scottish manufacturing and, indeed, of Murdo Fraser's record. It is sometimes difficult to keep up as the Tories try to position themselves as the friends of manufacturing and Murdo Fraser tries to reinvent himself as the junior half of the dream-on ticket, as we might call it.

The motion is wrong, as is the amendment that does not seek to amend the statistics in the motion. Manufacturing GVA has not been in continuous decline since 1998 as was suggested. Between 1998 and 2000, GVA rose by almost 5 per cent. It is only post-2000, following the slump in electronics to which Kenny MacAskill and others referred, that manufacturing's contribution to the economy declined.

It is important to acknowledge global change and not to let it cloud our view of the vibrant manufacturing sector that exists in Scotland today.

I agree with Fergus Ewing that the debate has focused unfortunately on the past and has not looked to the future or the present. Against that backdrop, I tell members that we have seen strong growth in other areas of industry between 1998 and 2004. For example, refined petroleum products and nuclear fuel grew by almost 20 per cent, chemicals and man-made fibres grew by 8.5 per cent, and the food and drink and tobacco industries grew by 5 per cent. That shows that restructuring can make a positive and important impact on key manufacturing sub-sectors in Scotland.

John Swinburne (SSCUP, Central Scotland)

I remind Parliament that before Wendy Alexander was born, manufacturing in Scotland started to go into decline—it has not just happened in the past 10 or 20 years. I used to work in engineering; despite the occasional buck in the industry, it has been in a state of terminal decline since the 1960s.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Thanks very much. That was a self-inflicted injury, minister, which comes out of your speaking time.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

It is self-evident that I do not agree with John Swinburne. I tried to make my point by exemplifying sectors of the manufacturing economy that have grown because they have restructured, developed and adapted to the global economy to show positive results.

The same applies to exports. The contribution to the economy by the general decline in manufacturing exports that Murdo Fraser referred to, like the result of global restructuring in electronics, masks a significant variation in the industry. Chemicals, coke, refined petroleum products and nuclear fuel grew by 10 per cent between 1998 and 2004, as did exports of transport equipment. Over the same period, exports of food and tobacco increased by 23 per cent. Therefore, to talk about a general decline in exports masks the fact that certain sectors of our manufacturing economy are doing well, thank you very much, because of the successful business environment that we have created and our investment in skills and infrastructure.

I want to concentrate on those areas in my remaining couple of minutes. We give support to the manufacturing sector and I suspect that that is what people are more interested in out there in the real world. We give that support through a range of measures: through the biggest investment in infrastructure in decades; by creating the right business environment, as I mentioned; and by freezing non-domestic rates in real terms and aligning them with the UK to give us a domestic advantage.

We are also making a massive investment in skills and learning. We are offering direct investment aids to help transform business, such as regional selective assistance, the SMART, or small firms merit award for research and technology, and SPUR, or support for products under research, programmes and the Scottish co-investment fund. We engage directly with Scottish business to help to minimise the regulatory burden, not just on our legislation, but more important, at European Union and UK level. We will support the first national conference on manufacturing later this month. We are committed to introducing a Scottish manufacturing advisory service to assist manufacturers, as we did south of the border where the service gave £100,000 of add-on value to all contributors.

That is how we intend to support the manufacturing sector and that is what the manufacturers want to hear from us in Government. We intend to deliver that agenda.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Phil Gallie will close the debate for the Conservatives. I can give you only six minutes, Mr Gallie.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

I listened to Allan Wilson and heard him try to bring in positive aspects at the back end of his speech. He had a chance to address such issues in his amendment, but as far as I am concerned his amendment simply went on the defensive and refers to matters that are irrelevant in many ways. It refers to

"higher value and quality products",

but if we are to achieve those we must ensure that companies in our traditional industries, such as small engineering, processing and production companies, are kept in business.

Earlier in the debate, John Scott gave us a list of problems that such industries have faced. Many of the problems do not just come from the global economy but from Government-imposed legislation and regulation. Allan Wilson said that decline had occurred only since 2000 and that there had been an upturn between 1998 and 2000. I suggest that that was perhaps a carry-over from the previous Government. However, the one point that no one can dispute is that since 2000 it has been the Scottish Executive's responsibility to address the problems. If Allan Wilson is correct in saying that there was a decline between 2000 and 2004 or 2005, he should look again at who is responsible for that.

I am somewhat disappointed by the debate overall, but I congratulate Fergus Ewing on his closing remarks, with the exception of his comments on fiscal autonomy, and Jamie Stone on his speech. Unlike other speakers, they were at least positive and did what the debate has been all about, which was to try to address the issues that we must address if Scotland is to go forward for the future.

Wendy Alexander totally disillusioned me. I have the greatest respect for her and her knowledge of the economy, but what we got from her was a diatribe of negatives, looking back over the past eight years. That is not what we wanted in this debate.

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

Will the member take an intervention?

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I will let Christine May intervene in a minute. I appreciated very much her earlier intervention in which she pointed out that the UK's position in Europe is relatively good. However, if she looks at the UK's position on a global scale, she will find that its position is pretty bad. To my mind, that demonstrates the drag that the EU is on Scotland's economy and other aspects.

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

I thank Phil Gallie for giving way. On the list of achievements, why did none of the Tory speakers refer, for example, to the uplift of 8 per cent in electronics manufacturing? Why did nobody talk about businesses that are succeeding—for example, Diageo, Babcock and Raytheon Systems—because of the Scottish Executive's policies?

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Christine May is not only blinded by Europe, but deafened by it. If she had listened carefully to John Scott's speech, she would have heard many positive points being made. Perhaps she will read them in the Official Report tomorrow.

Shiona Baird presented the best case for socialism that I have heard in Parliament since it started. She should perhaps think about her roots and about where she will go in the future. She talked about energy efficiency, which is an important topic. I had a 28-year involvement in industry, which ended about 15 years ago, and I can tell members that during that time management and industry across the board were concerned about energy efficiency. They were concerned not just for the good of the planet, but for the good of the companies, which needed to make savings and get an advantage. On energy for the manufacturing, production and processing sectors, I go along with Christine May's view on the Lisbon agreement. There is a need to ensure that our industry has cheap and sustainable energy resources. What we are doing at present—for example with the wind generation agenda—adds to the costs for industry and individuals and threatens the security of supply.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

rose—

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I do not have time, Mr Ruskell.

John Scott spoke about Ayrshire. We in Ayrshire, and people in East Lothian and Dumfries and Galloway, played a wonderful role in securing stable energy supplies over the years at Hunterston, Torness and Chapelcross. I point out to members that, if they look at the world economy, they will find that the growing economies—for example, China and India—are beginning to expand their nuclear programmes. It is sad to me that we have lost great engineering companies such as Foster Wheeler, John Brown, Weirs and, to some extent—it is still here—Howdens. They would have had the potential to get involved in the nuclear industries in various countries, but we have lost that advantage. Scotland and the UK were world leaders in nuclear engineering, but where are we now? We are inward looking and we threaten the future, from an energy supply viewpoint, of all small and large manufacturing and engineering companies.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — General Questions

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will provide an update on how it is tackling areas of multiple deprivation. (S2O-7954)

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Through the Cabinet delivery group on closing the opportunity gap, which I chair, I am working with my ministerial colleagues across all portfolios to ensure that effective and targeted action is taken to deliver better opportunities and outcomes for Scotland's most deprived neighbourhoods.

In the communities portfolio, we have set a specific closing the opportunity gap target to regenerate the most deprived neighbourhoods. We are delivering on that with £318 million over the next three years through the community regeneration fund, which is targeted at the most deprived 15 per cent of communities.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

The city of Glasgow is ranked number one on the index of multiple deprivation and recent research shows that poverty on such a large scale leads to a poverty of place. Given that the community regeneration fund is allocated by using the index of multiple deprivation and that current levels of funding can have only a limited effect, what plans are there to improve or redistribute funding according to the poverty indicators? Further, can the minister assure me that the Executive is on target in tackling poverty and that it recognises the poverty of place aspect?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I certainly fully recognise the challenges presented in Glasgow. We know that there has, in fact, been great progress there. There has been, I think, a 15 per cent increase in employment there over 10 years, which is much higher than in the rest of Scotland. However, we also know that a large number of people in Glasgow do not benefit from that employment rise. Therefore, I am pleased that employment opportunities are at the heart of the new regeneration outcome agreement, which I will launch in Glasgow on Monday.

On overall resources, there has been a significant increase for Glasgow if we compare the community regeneration fund with the two funds—the social inclusion partnership fund and the better neighbourhood services fund—that it replaces. Of course, Glasgow also benefits from many other funding streams—for example, the working for families fund. However, I certainly acknowledge the challenges of Glasgow and I am fully committed to working in partnership with Glasgow City Council and agencies there to deal with the problems. That is why I sit on the Glasgow community planning partnership. I recognise, of course, that more still needs to be done.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

Will the minister advise us of what significant improvements have been achieved in areas of multiple deprivation beyond Glasgow as a result of the current funding formulas, which recognise needs that are related to deprivation? Has he any plans to produce targets for additional funding beyond Glasgow?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Many parts of Scotland benefit not just from the community regeneration fund but from targeted expenditure. It is always interesting to hear from the Scottish National Party —the deputy leader has just walked into the chamber, and I am sure that she would have been interested to hear—comments such as the member's comment, which implied that we should move resources from Glasgow to Aberdeen. We all recognise the particular challenges of Glasgow, but Aberdeen and many other places also benefit from the community regeneration fund and many other funding streams. If Brian Adam is suggesting changes in the formula for that or for whatever other expenditure—I know that he used to make the same argument in relation to health—he must say which areas of Scotland he wants to see lose because of such changes.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

To ask the Scottish Executive how the implementation of the Kerr report will improve the lives of people with chronic conditions. (S2O-7951)

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

In the "Delivering for Health" report that was published last week, we undertook to promote more systematic, continuous and local care of people with long-term conditions. We expect that to result in fewer unplanned admissions to hospital, more appropriate and accessible local care services and greater support to enable patients, with their families and carers, to take a more active role in managing their conditions.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

I draw the minister's attention to the potential benefits to people with skin conditions of Professor Kerr's approach. The minister will be aware that much work has been done through the Parliament, through the efforts of my colleague Helen Eadie MSP, the Skin Care Campaign Scotland and the charity PSALV—Psoriasis Scotland Arthritis Link Volunteers—whose reception he was kind enough to attend last week, and through the recent members' business debate, to which his predecessor, Rhona Brankin, responded positively.

How will the minister build on his predecessor's response in addressing the issues that relate to skin disease, including better dermatology training for general practitioners and better education and training in dermatology and skin care for carers? As a start, will he agree to meet representatives of the Skin Care Campaign Scotland to discuss the issue?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Representatives of the British Association of Dermatologists and the Skin Care Campaign Scotland wrote to my colleague Andy Kerr recently to make those suggestions, which we will consider and respond to in the usual way.

The Kerr report and our response to it enable us better to deal with the conditions that Kenneth Macintosh mentions and with other chronic conditions that an increasing number of people in the community face. We will progress the commitments that were made during Mr Macintosh's debate on the subject a few months ago.

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

At what stage is the review of prescription charges for people with chronic conditions?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

We are conducting the review of prescription charges. As a member of the Health Committee, Mrs Milne will be aware that it is looking into the matter. I expect to report to the committee on 29 November, when I will bring her up to date on the position.

Irene Oldfather (Labour, Cunninghame South)

To ask the Scottish Executive what advice it is issuing to NHS boards to cope with winter pressures. (S2O-7960)

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

Winter always brings additional pressures. In response, the national health service ensures that it has plans in place to cope with the challenges that it will encounter. NHS boards are putting in place additional capacity through extra staff, more beds, increased critical care ability and additional nursing home places while maintaining the required continued, co-ordinated action on delayed discharge.

This year, I have asked NHS boards to prepare detailed plans for how local out-of-hours services will operate over winter and how they will link to NHS 24's role, to ensure that everyone who needs to access the health system can do so at an appropriate level.

Irene Oldfather (Labour, Cunninghame South)

Does the minister agree that elderly people who suffer from flu and flu-like illnesses tend to recover more quickly at home? Does he acknowledge that although that may release beds in the acute sector, it can place additional pressures on community services? Will he give an assurance that a joined-up approach to that aspect of winter pressures will be taken to ensure that our elderly citizens have the best possible care wherever they suffer from flu or a flu-like illness?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

I absolutely support the member's view. We have invested £18 million this year in our campaign for the flu vaccination programmes. I urge everybody who is considered to be in an at-risk group or who is in the elderly community to ensure that they are vaccinated.

As for the member's substantive point about joined-up working, the delayed discharge measures that the Executive took back in 2002 have reduced delayed discharge by 50 per cent overall and reduced longer delayed discharge by 60 per cent. Our investment in joined-up services has the effect that the member desires. People recover better at home and we are investing more in community care services to allow that to happen.

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

To ask the Scottish Executive what progress has been made in implementing the recommendations of the recently published Social Work Inspection Agency report into child abuse in Stornoway. (S2O-7956)

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The report was published on 7 October, and many of the recommendations were already in hand. Where that was not the case, officials are now working to take forward recommendations.

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

Has the minister established why, following the Orkney inquiry in 1991, one of Lord Clyde's recommendations, to create a multi-agency national resource for those who work with complex child protection cases, was not implemented? Lord Clyde simply wanted an agency that any local authority in Scotland could call on to help to cope with the pressures of distressing and complex abuse cases. Does the minister agree that it is regrettable that Lord Clyde's key recommendation was not implemented 13 years ago? Will he assure me that measures will be taken to put in place what Lord Clyde sought and what the Social Work Inspection Agency recommended a month ago following its inquiry into the Western Isles child abuse case?

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Alasdair Morrison raises an important issue. In the light of the Western Isles case, it has obviously been further recognised—bearing in mind what Lord Clyde said—that such a resource is required. I have looked into the circumstances following Lord Clyde's recommendation and it is not entirely clear from the records why progress was not made, although there were major practical considerations at the time and disagreements between agencies about what was appropriate.

That said, I am committed to ensuring that such a resource is available at a Scottish level. The nature and complexity of modern child abuse cases and, in particular, the interaction with potential prosecutions are hugely important issues for us, and we must ensure that the highest levels of expertise are available to all parts of Scotland where such expertise is not currently locally available. I have made that clear to officials, who are working on proposals for me. They have already made suggestions to our child protection steering group, which brings together all the key interests in Scotland, and I will keep the Parliament informed about our progress.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The issue is serious, the recommendations are stark and there is frustration—which has been acknowledged—that previous recommendations are being implemented slowly. Will the minister give an assurance that implementation of the recommendations will address people's concern that, although there must be care, protection and support for children, the ability to pursue prosecutions in future must not be affected?

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

As I have said, the Western Isles case—which is horrifying—is another chapter in the continuing and unfolding story of child abuse in Scotland. We learn more on every occasion and are absolutely committed to ensuring that we learn the lessons from all cases and apply them in the health service, local authority social work and education services, the police service, the voluntary sector and wherever we must make an impact. A major child protection reform programme is under way and we are making radical changes to the existing procedures. We will continue to learn and to apply what we have learned to ensure that we push to the margins the possibility of child abuse and, when abuse occurs, are able to pursue the perpetrators of such abuse as successfully as possible.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether, in light of the designation of Luce bay as a Natura 2000 site, it will consider whether further restrictions on activities such as scallop dredging are necessary. (S2O-7893)

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

The Scottish Executive is currently taking advice from Scottish Natural Heritage on whether any further management measures are required for Luce bay special area of conservation.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I understand that there might be quite a long timescale for Scottish Natural Heritage making its assessment. As the time that SNH takes proceeds, there is a danger that not only the sea bed, but fish stocks will be depleted, in particular fish stocks on which the booming sea-angling tourism industry depends. Indeed, there are already indications that that industry is suffering. It will certainly be too late to act if restrictions are imposed after fish stocks have been eliminated, perhaps for several decades. Will the minister reconsider the issue without waiting for the SNH report?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I fully understand the concerns that Alasdair Morgan has outlined, but there is a difficulty. It is clear that Scottish Natural Heritage has recognised the potential dangers, in particular from scallop dredging, that might give rise to difficulties in the Luce bay area, but it is always safer to advance on a positive evidential base. SNH recognises the dangers, but it is not absolutely clear about what precise measures would be the most effective. I would certainly be happy to have discussions with SNH on whether the process can be accelerated, but I hope that the member agrees that it would be better to have the benefit of the assessment before decisions are taken to implement any specific measures.

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

The minister will recall the extensive correspondence between his department and me in 2003 on the need for measures to protect the local livelihoods that are provided by the sustainable fisheries in Luce bay. Is he aware that evidence from two incoming vessels in the past few weeks strongly suggests that the so-called "super-crabber" raids in 2003 damaged the stocks to such a degree that a viable stock of scallops in the bay no longer exists? Will he concede that the measures that his department put in place in 2003 simply have not worked and should be strengthened and extended as a matter of urgency?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I am not able to confirm the precise nature of the damage, but the existence of those vessels in Luce bay gives me, as well as the member, great concern about the damage that they might be doing there. As I indicated in my answer to Alasdair Morgan, I am happy to have further discussions with Scottish Natural Heritage to see whether the combination of the information—

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Minister, please address the microphone.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

My apologies to you again, Presiding Officer. I am happy to discuss with SNH the issues that Alasdair Morgan has raised and the information that Alex Fergusson has brought, to see whether the process can be accelerated.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Executive what its response is to the announcement that the United Kingdom Government is minded to approve ship-to-ship transfers of heavy crude oil in the Firth of Forth. (S2O-7966)

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

The UK Government has made no such announcement.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank the minister for that brief answer. I ask her to focus on the recent European Union ruling on the habitats directive. On the basis of that ruling, I have three questions for her. First, will she speak to Alistair Darling and impress upon him the point that if the Maritime and Coastguard Agency approves the current oil contingency plan, there is a risk that the Executive could be breaking the law again? Secondly, will she assess that risk by asking SNH to provide an assessment of the potential impact on our protected habitats of ship-to-ship oil transfers in the Forth? Thirdly, will she agree to meet me, local authorities around the Firth of Forth that are concerned about the matter and other concerned MSPs, such as Christine May and Bruce Crawford, who have raised the issue in the chamber before?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I am aware of the ruling of the European Court of Justice of 20 October on the UK's transposition of the habitats directive. The Scottish Executive is considering the implications of the ECJ ruling and my officials are today meeting officials from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to discuss how to implement the ruling. The Scottish Executive is also fully committed to implementing the habitats directive, and SNH is advising on appropriate assessment of the proposal for ship-to-ship transfer of oil in the Firth of Forth. Further discussions will take place with the UK Government, if appropriate, in respect of our devolved responsibility for environmental protection. I advise the member that I have already agreed to meet Christine May and that I am happy to meet any other members who have an interest in the issue.

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

The minister is aware of the fact that the anchorages that are proposed for the project lie off Methil, in my constituency. However, the implications for all members with Firth of Forth constituencies are considerable. We now have the welcome ruling from the European Court of Justice on the application of the habitats directive, which I understand may mean the reopening of some of the consultation processes. Will she assure me that, if it does so, the consultation process on environmental matters will be open and will include consideration of alternative sites? I welcome her agreement to meet me, which has answered my final question.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I will take advice, having had a discussion with officials following the meeting with DEFRA. I will also continue to take advice from SNH about the implications of the recent ruling of the European Court of Justice on the habitats directive.

Marilyn Livingstone (Labour, Kirkcaldy)

I am pleased that the minister has offered a meeting; I was going to ask her about that. Now that we have the welcome judgment from the ECJ, and in the light of the grave concerns that are being expressed by my constituents and constituents around the Firth of Forth, will she hold urgent discussions with the UK Government to consider reviewing the current legislation, which is obviously inadequate to protect our local communities?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I reassure all members who have an interest in the proposal, and other members, that I am well aware of the recent judgment of the European Court of Justice and the concerns that SNH has stated in the past about the habitats directive.

I will continue to liaise closely with SNH, DEFRA and ministers on the issue. As I said, I am more than happy to meet members and, indeed, the local authorities that have an interest in the issue.

First Minister's Question Time

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Before we commence First Minister's question time, members will wish to welcome His Excellency Dr Bingu wa Mutharika, President of the Republic of Malawi. [ Applause. ]

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I know that we all wish this weekend's conference well and pledge our continued solidarity with the people of Malawi.

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-1888)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.

I am genuinely pleased that Ms Sturgeon has taken the position that she has taken this week on the conference and the partnership. I hope that the co-operation agreement that we signed this morning will be supported by all parties in the chamber. We will be far more effective if we stand together and united on the matter instead of being divided on it on political grounds.

On a warmer note, I congratulate all those who have been announced as members of Scotland's team for the Commonwealth games in Melbourne next year. They deserve the support of us all and they will get it.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I wish the Commonwealth games team the very best of luck next year.

What proportion of the people who are convicted of possessing an offensive weapon are tried on indictment, which is the most serious form of prosecution?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I suspect that Ms Sturgeon is about to tell me. I look forward to hearing it.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I can tell the First Minister that less than 2 per cent of the people who are convicted of possessing a knife or other offensive weapon are tried on indictment. In 2003, the figure amounted to just 42 people out of 2,800. Is he aware that, under the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, his flagship policy, the new four-year maximum sentence, which he has said repeatedly will apply to anyone who is convicted of the possession of a knife, will apply only to those who are tried in the higher courts? In other words, the sentence will apply to less than 2 per cent of the people who risk lives by carrying knives. In the light of that, does he accept that his presentation of the policy has been extremely misleading, to say the least?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

No. I think that that presentation of the policy is extremely misleading. Not only are we doubling sentences for knife crime, but we are increasing the sentences that are available for summary convictions. If Ms Sturgeon were to look at the whole package, she would see that all our courts will have the option of increased sentences. As outlined in our plans, we will also have the new targeted actions, which are aimed at ensuring that the police take more action against those who might commit knife crimes—I am referring to the new power to stop and search people who may be carrying weapons, although I could mention other examples. That comprehensive package of action is designed alongside our efforts to change the culture of knife crime and violence in Glasgow and other parts of Scotland; it is designed to ensure that we not only reduce the number of knife crimes, but penalise more severely all those who are convicted.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I support the Executive's efforts to tackle knife crime. The First Minister neatly dodged the question, however. I draw his attention to the pile of Executive policy documents that I have in my hand, many of which were issued in his name. All of them say without any qualification that the new maximum sentence for the possession of knives will be four years. I challenge him to produce any statement that he has made that makes it clear that the maximum sentence for the 98 per cent of people who are tried under summary procedure will be not the four years that he is talking about, but just one year. If he cannot produce such a statement, can he say why none of his policy statements makes that position clear? Is he simply trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the public?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

In the past, Ms Sturgeon has referred in the chamber to her legal training. If she had paid more attention during that training, she might have realised that the new one-year maximum for summary convictions is a doubling of the sentences that are currently available in our summary courts. Of course, all the maximum sentences are being doubled, but it is for the Crown Office to decide which convictions should be pursued in any given case. It is not for politicians to pick and choose to which court offenders are referred in individual cases; it is our job to protect people in Scotland and to ensure that, whatever court an offender is referred to, the maximum sentence is increased, that more people face that sentence because more people are caught and that we tackle the booze culture that for far too long has led to much of the knife crime in the first place.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

The summary sentence may be being doubled, but not to the four years to which all the Executive's documents exclusively refer. I know that the First Minister prefers to rant than to answer questions, but I ask him to make an effort to answer what is a simple question. If it is the case that the overwhelming majority of people who are convicted of carrying a knife—98 per cent of them—will face not a four-year maximum sentence, but a one-year maximum sentence, would it not be more honest for him to present his policy in those terms, instead of exaggerating its impact?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Ms Sturgeon and the Scottish National Party might be obsessed with presentation, but we are interested in substance. We want to do something about the problem rather than to present our solution to it in ways of which Ms Sturgeon approves.

The reality is that we are doubling the maximum sentences and that those who are convicted of the most serious crimes will face the highest sentences. Any trained lawyer should know that that is the way in which our justice system operates and I am disappointed that Ms Sturgeon does not. As well as having higher maximum sentences, we will catch and convict more people, thanks to the other powers that we are bringing in to tackle knife crime. Alongside that, we will ensure that the booze culture that leads to knife crime in the first place is tackled through a comprehensive programme that addresses the violence that is the choice of far too many young men and ensures that our city centres and other areas are safer as a result.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Question 2 is withdrawn, but I will allow supplementaries from Annabel Goldie. [ Applause. ]

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Thank you, Presiding Officer. My question follows on neatly from Ms Sturgeon's line of inquiry and relates to what happens to prisoners when sentences are imposed. Is the First Minister committed, in principle, to ending the now totally discredited system of automatic early release of prisoners from our jails?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I welcome Annabel Goldie to her new seat. I hope that it is not too presumptuous of me to say that I suspect that she will be there for more than one week, beyond the close of nominations for the Tory leadership. If that is the case, we would warmly congratulate her on her new position.

I confirm for Annabel Goldie, as I did for her immediate predecessor, that I will be delighted to end automatic early release. The law that the Tories imposed on this country in the 1990s will be ended by this devolved Government and we will ensure both that we have a better system of rehabilitation in our prisons and that prison sentences offer more of a deterrent than has been the case.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

That is an unexpectedly encouraging response. During this afternoon's consideration of the Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Bill, my party will give the Executive the opportunity to end the scandalous system of automatic early release not retrospectively, but in a timescale that would be totally under the control of the Executive, because the change can be implemented only by an Executive statutory instrument. Will the First Minister let us all rejoice by confirming that he will agree to our amendment?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

No, because I think that politicians should practise what they preach. For the past two years, we have said consistently that the Sentencing Commission for Scotland should give us a clear recommendation on how to implement the objective in question. When we have received that recommendation—we will have it by the end of the year—we will ensure that it or an improvement on it is implemented by the Parliament. We are determined to end the Tory policy of automatic early release. We will ensure that the system in Scotland is improved as a result, but we will do so following due consideration with our judicial colleagues and others and once we have ensured that the policy that is established can be implemented effectively.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

That response is deeply depressing because, by failing to agree to our amendment, the First Minister will be enforcing a system that will let convicted prisoners out of jail even earlier than they are getting out now. I suspect that that will represent the major difference between my attitude to the concerns of Scotland and the First Minister's. I am listening to those concerns and I will try to address them this afternoon, whereas the First Minister is content to sit here and prate parrot-wise a meaningless mantra of false hope. If the current approach does not end this afternoon, when will it end?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

We will introduce legislation as soon as we have that recommendation; as I said, we should have it by the end of this year. If the recommendation is not sufficient for us, we will improve on it and ensure that the policy that we implement is effective. However, we will also pursue other measures—not only in the bill that is being discussed this afternoon but in the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill—to rectify some of the wrongs of the Conservative years. Such measures include increased sentences and new, tougher powers to help our police and local authorities to tackle not just antisocial behaviour, but knife crime and other serious concerns of the people of Scotland. We will continue the fundamental modernisation and reform of the criminal justice system in Scotland from top to bottom on which we have been embarked for the past two years. That approach is effective and will be even more effective as our bills reach the statute book.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

The First Minister will be aware of yesterday's determination in the fatal accident inquiry into the death of a baby who was born at Inverclyde royal hospital's maternity unit shortly after it became a midwife-led unit. Sheriff Herald found that that tragic death could not have been avoided, but his wider comments—that expectant mothers in my constituency receive a second-class service—has naturally caused serious concern and makes it increasingly difficult for the health board to maintain that the reorganisation of maternity services was carried out in the interests of patient safety. Does the First Minister agree that restoring public confidence in that midwife-led unit is vital? Will he and the Minister for Health and Community Care ensure that the specific weaknesses in the wider provision identified by the inquiry are addressed by the health board and others?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Although it is very important that we take the outcome of the inquiry seriously—and the Minister for Health and Community Care will ensure that the health board addresses all the recommendations that arise from the inquiry report—it is also important that we deal with facts rather than the opinions of those who are not directly involved in the service. The reality is that midwife-led care in maternity services in Scotland should, as far as is humanly possible, be the norm. It should be encouraged in every location, not just in Inverclyde. Of course there should be proper technical and emergency services for those who need them in appropriate locations throughout Scotland. We will continue to monitor the developments in Inverclyde and ensure that the recommendations are properly carried through. However, we also want to ensure that Scotland's health service lives up to the achievement of being recognised by the national birth and motherhood survey 2005 as having the best services in the United Kingdom.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

The First Minister should be aware that a recent survey suggests that 320 acres of public green space is currently proposed for development or is already being built on as a result of school public-private partnership projects in Scotland. The Executive—

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Mr Harper, you are one question ahead of us. You should ask the question in the Business Bulletin before we come to that one.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

I beg your pardon—I am too keen to get to the point. The First Minister knows what I am about to say.

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland and what issues he intends to discuss. (S2F-1902)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I thought that Mr Harper was going to ask where we were going to meet and whether it would be on the green fields of Scotland. I do not have any formal meetings planned with the secretary of state, but I discuss a lot of matters with him regularly.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Back to where we were, Mr Harper.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

I will cut to the chase. The Executive is not protecting open space in Scotland. The planning system is failing, the statutory consultation process is failing and the Executive is failing in respect of green space. Does the First Minister agree that all those projects that are still on the drawing board should be halted until we have a clear picture of what is going on and until the Executive and the councils are given the chance to arrest what is a most unwelcome trend?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

No, I do not agree. I believe that development should be appropriate. The fantastic countryside and landscape that we enjoy in Scotland should be preserved, but where development is needed and is appropriately planned, it should take place to ensure that future generations can enjoy Scotland even more. We need to make a balanced judgment in all cases. That is primarily the responsibility of local authorities, acting under our guidance, which is why we are bringing forward the most comprehensive set of modernisation plans for our planning system that Scotland has ever seen. When we bring forward those plans, we will ensure that the planning system achieves the twin goals of proper sustainable development in the interest of local communities and fast, efficient and effective implementation by local authorities. Those are our objectives, which our plans will meet.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

Up and down Scotland, from north to south, parents and local communities are up in arms about the fact that parkland, playing fields, recreation grounds, amenity space and informal green space are being lost for ever to housing through public-private partnerships. That does not need to happen. I have a list of 20 councils that do not even know what is happening and cannot respond to questions about how much green space is being lost. Surely the First Minister agrees that that parlous situation is a matter of considerable concern and that something must be done. Will he please call in all projects that infringe on our community green space?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

It is important that local authorities take issues about green space and playing fields on board before making final decisions on new school buildings and other plans. However, I say to Mr Harper that, all across Scotland, parents, members of the community and youngsters are using the arms that he mentions to punch the air with joy, because they are getting new school buildings and better facilities are being provided for them and those who will come after them.

Let us get a bit of perspective. Throughout Scotland, we need modern school buildings that are fit for the 21st century. We need indoor and outdoor facilities that allow our youngsters to realise their potential. We need a planning system that makes that happen and accountable local authorities that make the decisions. If councillors get the balance wrong, local people know what to do—deal with them at election time.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

To ask the First Minister what measures will be taken to ensure that Glasgow Housing Association housing stock is retained under the control of community ownership. (S2F-1899)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

We have already invested £202 million since the Glasgow transfer and more than 32,000 tenants have seen investment in their homes in almost all areas of the city. Malcolm Chisholm met the Glasgow Housing Association board on Monday, when he made it clear that community control through second-stage transfer to local housing organisations remains a top priority. We will work with the housing association to bring that forward as quickly as possible.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

I welcome the First Minister's commitment to community ownership, but I raise with him the concern that European procurement rules could put community ownership at risk. Will he meet the European authorities to remind them of the need for tenant rule, not European rule?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Our advice, which may be contrary to the perception in the GHA when it made its decision last week, is that European Union procurement rules do not affect the delivery of investment or the second-stage transfer. That advice was explained clearly to the GHA by the Minister for Communities on Monday. We intend to work with the GHA to ensure that it makes the right decisions as quickly as possible to ensure that local people in Glasgow have the control that they were promised and that they see in their homes the investment that they require.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am grateful to the First Minister for confirming that there is legal advice that EU procurement rules do not necessitate the GHA clawing back local management. He must be aware that a condition of GHA registration with Communities Scotland was that local management agreements were in place—local management was part of the commitment that was given to Glasgow tenants at the time of the stock transfer ballot. What will be the effect on GHA registration if local management agreements are set aside? Is he prepared to take action to ensure that second-stage transfers take place?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

We have a difference of approach. We can look at the matter either negatively or positively. We have made clear to the GHA our legal advice and our expectation. The GHA had a positive discussion on Monday with the Minister for Communities, who intends to see through the issue and to ensure that the association implements the obligations that it took on board. I hope that, in achieving that, the minister will have the backing of those who previously opposed the transfer, were against community ownership for people in Glasgow and did not want them to have investment in their houses and all the other improvements that are coming. I welcome the Scottish National Party's conversion to the cause.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

Does the First Minister agree with me—an enthusiastic proponent of community ownership in Glasgow—that if we are to build on the success of the housing association movement it is essential that the undertaking that he has given today be clarified to a greater extent and that we set a timetable for the GHA to ensure that the secondary transfer is begun early next year and completed in the shortest possible period?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Let me be clear that we did not encourage the establishment of the Glasgow Housing Association, support enthusiastically the transfer of ownership and put so much money into the venture simply to see one large organisation replaced by another to manage the tenanted homes in Glasgow. We want local housing organisations to own and manage houses and have responsibility for them so that people have maximum control over their local environment and the house or flat in which they live. We want to ensure that that happens as quickly as possible, which is why we want the investment to be tied clearly to that condition and why we will continue to work to secure that objective. We believe that the GHA remains committed to the objective, too.

Charlie Gordon (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

Does the First Minister share my view that recent press reports about difficulties with local management of service contracts on behalf of the GHA have concluded inaccurately and unnecessarily that there is a doubt over the commitment on the part of the GHA, the Parliament and the Labour-led Executive to community ownership? Does he agree that, frankly, the press have got their conclusion wrong?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The important point is that, this week, through our actions and words, we must clarify the position—as I have done today—and ensure that we press ahead with the work to secure improvements as quickly as possible for the people of Glasgow. I know that the new member for Glasgow Cathcart was centrally involved in that achievement for the people of Glasgow and that he will welcome the investment as it transpires. We want the investment to be democratic and to involve people in their future. We are sure that that will take place.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

To ask the First Minister what recent discussions the Scottish Executive has had with the Commission for Racial Equality in Scotland regarding the fresh talent initiative. (S2F-1900)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Fresh talent is our initiative to retain Scottish talent and to attract hard-working, skilled people from around the world to live in Scotland. It is supported by integration programmes that have been praised by others. I had a positive meeting with the Commission for Racial Equality last year, at which it indicated that it sees Scotland as a leading example in Europe in relation to the initiative. We agreed that fresh talent is a showcase to demonstrate how a small nation can be welcoming and meet Europe's biggest challenge.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

The First Minister will be aware of the concerns that the CRE has expressed about the initiative and about the integration and retention of immigrants in Scotland. Is he aware of an integration strategy and, if so, where is it, who has been consulted on it and will it cover the fresh talent initiative? Will the CRE be consulted and, if not, why not?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I do not recognise the picture that Sandra White continually tries to portray of integration in Scotland and the actions and strategies not just of the Executive but, as important, of Glasgow City Council, Strathclyde police and a host of other agencies. In Scotland, particularly in Glasgow, we see some of the best examples of integration, not just in the United Kingdom, but in the whole of western Europe. Tragic circumstances in Sighthill in Glasgow a few years ago led to the death of an asylum seeker, but the community as well as the agencies responded positively. The strategies that are being implemented are effective, which is one reason why Scotland is now recognised as one of the most welcoming places for people to come to.

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

Everyone acknowledges that we need integrated and cross-cutting support strategies for people who come to live and work in Scotland. However, we should not forget that many people will want to live and work in rural areas, so we should pay attention to how we deliver support in those areas. That is much more difficult, but it is very necessary.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I welcome Nora Radcliffe's important, sensible and constructive point. I can assure her that, as recently as last week, I had extensive discussions with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in Canada, where the Government is facing exactly the same challenge. The vast majority of recent immigrants to Canada have tended to move to Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. However, the provinces in Canada—especially the large rural provinces—are increasingly encouraging more people to move into their areas and are facing exactly those challenges of integration. We have something to learn from them and we intend to maintain close contact with them as their programmes develop.