Scottish Parliament, 1 December 2005

383 contributions from 76 members. The official report.

Official Report 1 December 2005

Schools

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S2M-3658, in the name of Peter Peacock, on "ambitious, excellent schools", one year on.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

As the title of the debate reveals, it is just over a year since I launched the document "ambitious, excellent schools: our agenda for action", which set out the most comprehensive modernisation programme in our schools for a generation. That package of reforms spelled out our agenda to have heightened expectations, stronger leadership and ambition in our schools; more freedom for teachers and schools; greater choice and opportunity for pupils; better support for learning; and tough and intelligent accountabilities that are built round our school system.

Our agenda acknowledges that, although we have a lot of strength in our schools in Scotland, a number of challenges still must be addressed. I have explained before to the Parliament that Scotland is in the premier league of international education. By the time our young people reach the age of 15, their performance is among the best in the world. According to a major Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development study, only three other countries in the world significantly outperform us in the key measures of maths, science and literacy.

Other countries look to Scotland to learn from our approaches to education. We are held up as pioneers for leading the world in our commitment to continuing professional development for teachers and in our approach to teacher induction, whereby we introduce into the teaching profession graduates straight from university. Other countries also look to us for inspiration about assessment—in particular, they turn to our assessment is for learning programme—and for guidance on the provision of support for children with additional support needs because of the pioneering legislation that the Parliament recently approved. Self-evaluation, inspection and enterprise education are examples of the many other areas in which Scotland is at the leading edge of what is happening in world education.

I regularly meet ministers from other parts of Europe. We can always learn from other nations, but it is clear that Scotland is in the vanguard of educational development in Europe. We sit in the main stream of contemporary thinking in Europe about how to deliver effectively for our young people. We can be proud of what our young people and their teachers achieve in Scottish schools. The fact that attainment levels in primary schools have increased by an average of 9 per cent over the past five years is a clear indication that our investment in free nursery education—which is now universally available—in early intervention and in smaller class sizes is beginning to pay dividends in the outcomes that we achieve for our young people. This year, exam pass rates increased at all levels and half of all school leavers now proceed into further or higher education.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

Would the minister care to comment on some of the reports in the press over the past fortnight, which have sought to argue that so-called league tables truly reflect achievement, especially for primary schools?

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I have made my position on that clear all along. No Scottish Government of any complexion has ever published league tables. We reckon that league tables give a narrow and one-dimensional interpretation of schools' performance, which can be wholly misleading to parents. That is why we prefer to have a much more rounded approach and have set up a website that is designed specifically to give parents access to the information that they may desire about their children's schools.

No one should interpret my recognition of the strengths of Scottish education as complacency. I am not complacent—we need to, and we can, do better. Too many young people still leave school with too little. We must rise to meet a number of challenges from outside Scotland, such as the globalising of the economy, which is accompanied by the globalising of human resources. That means that our young people will have to compete for jobs in ways that none of us had to in the past. We have an obligation to ensure that our education system makes our young people fit and able to compete for jobs on the international stage.

Other factors that are relevant to the development of our education system are technological change, which will have a huge impact on learning and teaching, and the demographic changes that are taking place in this country. The fact that there will be fewer young people and more elderly people means that there will be a smaller economically active population to sustain the remainder of the population, so we must utilise every piece of human potential that we have. We cannot afford to write off any individual, not just for the sake of their future, but for the sake of the interests of society as a whole. We must increase our endeavours to ensure that we reach and improve the performance of those young people who are underperforming in the system.

We also face challenges inside the Scottish education system. Our inspectors of schools tell us that 15 per cent of the leaders in our schools are regarded as weak. That has profound implications for how staff are managed and, in turn, for how pupils are motivated to learn. We know, too, that the performance of the bottom 20 per cent of young people has remained static for the last number of years. That group contains a significant number of looked-after children whose educational outcomes are far below what they ought to be. We must address those issues. The young people whose performance is in the bottom 20 per cent are concentrated in the most deprived communities in Scotland. Too many young people—boys especially—disengage from learning at secondary 1 and secondary 2 because they find that their lessons are not sufficiently stimulating or challenging and do not have enough pace or relevance for them.

We must ensure that our young people are more creative if they are to compete effectively for jobs on the world stage.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The minister made an important point about the concentration in deprived areas of those young people whose performance is in the bottom 20 per cent. Does he acknowledge that some schools in those areas achieve successes and that, although we must target the schools that are underperforming and underachieving, we must recognise that there are success stories out there?

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I agree whole-heartedly. The other day, I saw some statistics that demonstrated that some of the best-performing schools in our poorest areas are outperforming some schools in our least poor, or most affluent, areas. That illustrates that it is possible to get high performance if high standards and expectations are set and a variety of devices are employed to support learning.

The "ambitious, excellent schools" document set out our agenda for building on our successes and systematically tackling the challenges that I have described. The ambition and sheer scale of that agenda is recognised and appreciated by those who are in the know. When I addressed the Headteachers Association of Scotland recently, its general secretary said that he felt both joy and trepidation when he heard me speak. I should tell members that it was mostly joy that he experienced, although there was some trepidation. The ambition of our vision made him feel joyful, but the sheer scale of the challenge that we are setting for our education system gave rise to his trepidation. That is a far cry from the uninformed claims that our education system in Scotland lacks ambition or vision.

The schools white paper that was published down south in the past few weeks identifies almost exactly the same challenges as we identified a year ago. England has different traditions and education structures and it is debating its own solutions. We have always had a distinctive and successful education system in Scotland and it is increasingly clear that our thinking chimes with that of those European nations that are enjoying most success.

There were 69 separate commitments in "ambitious, excellent schools". Just one year on, we have achieved 38 of those and are well on the way to achieving the other 31. Although I do not have time to go through all the progress that we are making, I will update the Parliament on progress on some of our key reforms.

We promised a new excellence standard to encourage all schools to aim higher. We have delivered that excellence standard as part of a new six-point scale that is now being used in all school inspections. We promised a schools of ambition programme for those schools that had the vision and drive to transform themselves and we said that there would be 20 schools on the programme by 2007. We have delivered on that promise—we have already put 20 schools on the programme, each of which receives additional investment of at least £100,000 a year—and we will invite more schools to join the programme during 2006 and beyond.

We promised to abolish the age-and-stage regulations, which restrict when pupils can sit exams. We have abolished those regulations and have issued new guidance to schools so that pupils can sit exams when the time is right for them to do so. We promised to repeal the outdated Schools (Scotland) Code 1956 so that primary teachers could work in secondary schools. The fact that we have repealed that code means that more of those pupils who struggle to make the move from primary school to secondary school will get the extra support that they need.

We promised to devolve more power to head teachers so that they would have greater control over their budgets and a greater say over how their school was staffed. We have agreed new guidelines on devolved school management, in which we make it clear that we expect head teachers to have three-year budgets, which will give them the stability that they need to plan ahead and the authority to make decisions on staffing structures. The guidelines also help to redefine the relationship between councils and schools.

We are delivering on our promises to introduce new skills for work courses; to have better school and college links; to put in place more rigorous selection procedures for head teachers to strengthen leadership development; and to improve the involvement of parents in school life. Those achievements offer just a snapshot of our significant progress over the past year. They also demonstrate the breadth and ambition of our reform programme.

I will dwell on just one more commitment that we made in "ambitious, excellent schools" on which we are making progress and which will underpin much of the work that we do in future to tackle poor attainment, disengagement and indiscipline. In "ambitious, excellent schools", we promise to accept in full the document "a curriculum for excellence", the report on the first phase of the curriculum review.

We have also undertaken to provide, for the first time, a seamless curriculum from ages three to 18. The curriculum will spell out what young people should become: successful learners, confident individuals, responsible citizens—which I have to say embraces knowledge of history—and effective contributors to our society. The curriculum will increase choice and opportunity for young people; ensure that literacy and numeracy remain at the heart of learning; allow pupils to study subjects in depth and to experience greater challenges; and give more time for music, drama, physical education, sport and work-related learning.

Since we made that undertaking, a systematic review of curricular areas has been taking place with the aim of simplifying, prioritising and updating existing guidelines. Much more is still to be done, but those radical reforms will ensure that the curriculum can indeed be made more interesting and exciting for our young people. It will increase their engagement in and motivation for learning and, as a consequence, achieve better results for them. Early next year, the curriculum review team will publish a broad rationale for change across the whole curriculum. Arising from the work on the curriculum is new thinking on the future arrangements for assessment and qualifications to support the values, purposes and principles that are outlined in "a curriculum for excellence".

When I launched "ambitious, excellent schools", I made it clear that we would review the link between standard grade and the new national qualifications in order to simplify the structure, widen opportunities and improve progression. We wanted to build on the best of our current arrangements for standard grade and national qualifications and to see young people building up a profile of all their achievements, particularly as they work their way through secondary school. We have begun to explore the various options for future qualifications, but that thinking is in its early stages.

I make it clear that I am not signalling a fundamental, root-and-branch review of the qualifications system, which has great strength already; rather, I am signalling that some change will be not only necessary but inevitable as a consequence of changes to the curriculum. No decisions have yet been made, nor will they be made until we have thoroughly engaged with the education community and others.

We also need to support and involve parents more and recognise the role that they can play in raising ambition and supporting learning. We know that, where parents are successfully involved, schools and children's learning are stronger as a result. In "ambitious, excellent schools", we promised to improve parental representation and involvement. The recently introduced Scottish Schools (Parental Involvement) Bill will do just that. It aims to remove the current narrow, prescriptive rules that cover parental representation. The bill, along with our wider parental agenda, is about enabling parents to do what they can in their circumstances to support their children. Among the changes that were made to the proposals in the bill following consultation is a new requirement on head teachers to provide an annual report to the new parent council on school performance, in which the ambitions for the school for the period ahead will also be set out. Parents want information about their school and about their child. They have a right to that information; the bill will strengthen that right.

At its heart, our agenda is about taking a strong education system and making it even stronger. It is about raising ambition and achieving the best, so that we can address not only the global changes that mean that we must do better, but the domestic challenges that limit the performance of too many. We need to break the unwritten rules and expectations that have limited the system for too long; we need to ensure that schools are striving for excellence and to help them in whatever way we can. We also need to put in place the right leaders and invest in the infrastructure that makes change possible. That is what we set out a year ago in "ambitious, excellent schools" and it is what will deliver even more success for Scotland. I commend the motion in my name.

I move,

That the Parliament recognises that young people are one of Scotland's greatest resources; believes that every child is entitled to the opportunity to fulfil his or her full potential; notes the significant progress made over the last year by the Scottish Executive on the most comprehensive programme of modernisation in Scottish schools for a generation or more; supports the objectives set out in Ambitious, Excellent Schools; welcomes the emphasis on heightened expectations, stronger leadership, greater freedom for teachers and schools, increased choice and opportunity for pupils, better support for learning and more appropriate accountability, and supports the Executive's ongoing modernisation of Scotland's schools.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Scotland is at a crossroads in relation to its sense of identity and purpose. We want a progressive Scotland for the 21 st century—a country that has a belief system and is confident about the future—but how do we know where we are going if we do not know where we have been and how will we know whether we have got there if our cultural compass is lost or confused?

The situation is serious. Why otherwise would 500 writers and 500 of their peers have presented a petition that calls for Scottish culture, heritage and history to be embedded in our curriculum for primary, secondary and tertiary education? Alarm is the response to the minister's confused message on history and the teaching of history and to a leadership that sees the grass-roots evolution of the curriculum as a reason to abdicate leadership and drive in the championing of the interests of Scottish culture, heritage and history.

High up on a wall above the rostrum in the main hall of Ayr Academy—the school that I went to—engraved in gold on marble, a biblical quote is cited:

"Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding."

I admit that some of us are still getting. Nonetheless, we have to reflect on what we want our children to get from their education. The debate is not just about knowledge, content and detail, but about understanding and wisdom.

Much of the thinking behind the Executive's education policy comes from the national education debate. Of course, the Parliament's Education Committee had its own purposes of education inquiry. The point on which we all agree is that, in a changing world where detail and content can be accessed at the flick of a switch, we must strive for knowledge, wisdom and understanding. Connections, context, consistency and coherence are essential if pupils are to create their own world view.

The Scottish National Party's contention is that, after generations of neglect, the time is right to promote a Scottish world view in our education system. For example, in languages, we should promote the French-Scottish enlightenment; in science, we should promote our past and current inventors; and in literature, we should promote our wealth of talent, past and present.

The Executive motion smacks of "Groundhog Day"—it is a mechanistic motion about delivery one year on. I worry that the Executive has decided to have such annual or regular debates at a time when issues such as domestic abuse and criminal justice need to be debated. Will our Parliament just become a matter of annual debates in years 2, 3, 4 or 5 of any number of subject reviews?

The Executive's message is about the mechanics of driving forward the leadership and ethos perspectives in schools. That is fine in detail and of itself, but targeting 20 schools out of 400 is hardly ambitious. We have to remember that, at one point, the programme was about targeting schools that needed support and not about stretching excellence. However, it is right that the programme should be about exploring and discovering excellence and I have no doubt that the schools of ambition will do that.

It is interesting to note, in the bids for national funding under the scheme, how many schools decided to choose a cultural route to explore self-esteem and leadership issues. I congratulate the schools and wish them well. However, perhaps the message that the Executive should take is that nine of the 20 schools decided to choose cultural connections as their vehicle for expressing excellence and ambition—and this at a time when the Executive seems to be drifting on its cultural policy and curriculum development.

I agree that the grass-roots, bottom-up, evolutionary approach to the curriculum has merit, but it can also lead to a reinforcement of the same. I also agree that it is absolutely essential for teachers to grasp the opportunity to take the lead in ensuring that cultural, historical and heritage perspectives are built into the curriculum. If that does not happen, teachers will wait a gey long time for the Executive to grasp the thistle and ensure that a Scottish world view is on offer to our children.

The talk in the 21st century is of the need for creative and confident Scots. How can someone build a sense of self and self-esteem if their national consciousness is shaped and informed by perspectives that may not be about their country's experience? How can someone know something, let alone understand it or gain wisdom from an understanding of it, if they were not taught it?

In a world in which the importance of emotional intelligence is recognised, a sense of self becomes increasingly critical, as does an appreciation of the prism of understanding through which one's identity is shaped. The debate is about Scotland's window on the world; it is about a bridge to an international identity, understanding and wisdom that can judge the merit and demerit of huge world decisions such as whether our country should go to war.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I concur with a lot of what Fiona Hyslop has said, although by no means all of it. When Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon put forward their manifesto to become leaders of the SNP, did they say that the only subject that should be taught in schools should be not Scottish history but Scottish industrial history and nothing else?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

As someone who was a student of economic history, I can say that it is quite something for a member of a unionist party to give a member of a nationalist party a perspective on Scottish history. The SNP has consistently called for Scottish history to be the bedrock of our curriculum.

A key concern of Labour and the Tories is the language of choice—for them, choice is all. However, flexibility and an extended range of choice can dilute the content of a curriculum and make it strong on range but light on depth. They want consumer choice in education and to motivate pupils by choice rather than content, but is that choice at any price? Is it flexibility that loses focus? Is it teach everything but teach nothing? Flexibility and choice may lead to inconsistency, incoherence and a lack of understanding. We should remember that most other countries teach history to the age of 16.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Will Fiona Hyslop clarify which areas the SNP wants to take out of the curriculum and thus reduce choice, which is what she seems to be arguing for?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I am not arguing that. I am arguing about making the connections and ensuring that history can be taught as a discrete subject in S1 and S2. As the Minister for Education and Young People walks from the chamber—

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I am not.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The minister may want to reflect that he has yet to confirm that he believes that history should be taught as a discrete subject in S1 and S2.

Shonaig Macpherson, chair of the National Trust for Scotland, said this week:

"By celebrating Scotland's past we can build a better future".

However, we have to know what we want to celebrate in the first place. I am not talking about culture, history and heritage as entertainment; I am talking about fulfilling people's potential.

The minister caused alarm when he retracted a statement that he had made. He said:

"I believe history will always be taught in secondary school, and rightly so."

He also said:

"I am quite clear that history, as a distinct discipline, has a hugely important role to play."

Which years was he talking about—S1 and S2 or S3? Will he tell us—because Scotland wants to know—whether our children will learn about their history in S1 and S2 as a discrete subject?

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

This is all complete nonsense. When asked by a history teacher whether I would make history a thing of the past—which is a rather curious way of putting it—I said, "Absolutely not." If Fiona Hyslop took the trouble to read the curriculum review that we published a year ago, she would see that at its centre is a statement about creating

"responsible citizens with ... respect for others",

who have a

"commitment to participate responsibly in political, economic, social and cultural life and"

are

"able to ... develop knowledge and understanding of the world and Scotland's place in it".

That encapsulates in a few words what she has been trying to say for the best part of 10 minutes without much success.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The minister has not convinced the 500 of our writers who e-petitioned the Parliament, or the academics and everyone else. We have to suspend our disbelief when listening to him.

In the spirit of making constructive suggestions, I will tell the minister about the SNP's five-point plan, which could be taken up and delivered. We should use the curriculum review to embed Scottish history, culture and heritage in the curriculum. We should engage the experts. We have a wealth of talent in the academic, cultural and heritage fields to help to develop appropriate materials to inspire pupils. We should build Scottish education's academic spine. Robert Brown asked where we can do that. We can do it in science, languages, mathematics and a range of subjects. Other countries have developed their own national view of the world. We want a Scottish world view.

We should support the providers. We need specialist history teachers teaching in our classrooms. We must ensure—the minister will have to do this with the curriculum review—that initial teacher training addresses the issues. Continuous professional development, the McCrone opportunities and non-contact time also open up huge possibilities for delivery.

We must move from studies to qualifications, which means that appropriate exam options must be available to those who have studied. The Scottish Qualifications Authority must develop a range of options, including stand-alone Scottish history exams and the inclusion of Scottish history papers in other history exams.

One day on from this year's St Andrew's day, the Parliament can vote to ensure that, one year on from this year's St Andrew's day, Scotland will have moved on decisively from the crossroads at which it finds itself in determining how our culture, history and education are embedded in the curriculum. The mediocrity of the Executive means that it is not making history. I appeal to the minister not to make history history.

I move amendment S2M-3658.1, to leave out from "the significant progress" to end and insert:

"that all schools should be Schools of Ambition; notes the objectives set out in Ambitious, Excellent Schools and, in particular, the cultural emphasis of a number of the successful bids for schools of ambition status but, in doing so, notes the general concern that Scotland's culture, history and heritage lack national support from the Scottish Executive in the education system; notes with serious concern the proposals by the Executive to make history history in S1 and S2; asserts the importance of children in Scotland having a firm understanding and appreciation of Scottish heritage, culture and history; recognises and supports creative ways to weave this into every subject in the curriculum providing a Scottish perspective; rejects, however, any attempt to remove the stand-alone subject of history from S1 and S2 in schools in Scotland, and regrets any suggestion of this by any Scottish minister, reflecting that such a move would not be even countenanced in other countries who have a pride in promoting their nation's history."

James (Conservative, Lothians)

With the indiscriminate praise of a proud parent, the Scottish Executive has presented us with the annual report card of its brainchild "ambitious, excellent schools", but I will be glad to scrutinise the performance of the initiative with a degree of careful examination.

The first 20 schools of ambition are to operate with maximum autonomy. The new funds for the schools—about £100,000 per school—are to be under the full control of the head teacher. We are told that schools will be able to access the full range of enhanced devolved school management, but the implementation of existing devolved school management has been somewhat patchy and there is little to suggest that the new guidance or a new initiative will remedy that. We fully support diversity, but extending a small degree of autonomy to 20 schools represents only a small step in the right direction—it does not go far enough. Until head teachers have the authority to hire and fire staff and to expel violent and disruptive pupils, and until parents and not local authorities shape the education system, there will be limited scope for schools to achieve their ambitions of excellence.

Leadership and innovation are vital to a school's success, but they are the very qualities that are suffocated by some central targets. Head teachers are prevented from spending where they see the greatest need, because DSM procedures do not allow for maximum flexibility to transfer between budget headings or for discretion in carrying forward surplus budgets. According to the estimates from the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy in Scotland for 2004-05, Clackmannanshire Council and Fife Council devolved just over 50 per cent of education spending to head teachers. The Scottish average is 68 per cent. There is little point in training heads in leadership skills if they are not to be fully trusted with the freedom to lead.

Jordanhill School in Glasgow and Daldorch House School in Ayrshire, both of which are independently run but publicly funded, were nominated in the prestigious annual SQA awards for school of the year and centre of the year respectively. They are glowing examples of what schools can do if they are allowed the freedom to innovate.

South of the border, the Labour Government is considering a dynamic reform programme. The Prime Minister has gone beyond the Scottish Executive with the Blair proposals, but we would go beyond Blair. He said:

"Parent choice can be a powerful driver of improved standards."

However, where the proposals in the education white paper "Higher Standards, Better Schools For All" fall short of real reform, we would give all schools genuine autonomy and would support them in using their freedoms more.

We argue for and support greater flexibility in the curriculum. The relaxation of the age-and-stage regulations will enable more-able pupils to sit exams early if they wish, allowing them to gain more qualifications and preventing them from becoming bored or disengaged. However, if the Executive is to meet the aspirations outlined in "ambitious, excellent schools", such as pupil-centred assessment for learning, smaller class sizes and greater curriculum flexibility, there must be a sufficiency of highly qualified teachers.

We urge ministers to explore all avenues for supporting schools in providing the broadest range of subjects to stimulate the broad range of our children's aptitudes and interests. Subsuming the teaching of history into modern studies limits schools' autonomy and therefore limits the scope of our young people to realise their potential. In any case, the minister should take great pride in Scotland's heritage, from William Wallace to Flora MacDonald and Elsie Inglis, who founded the hospital that is hardly a stone's throw from here. She was a Scots lady of whom Sir Winston Churchill said:

"Elsie Inglis and her nurses will shine in history".

However, it appears that there will be no shining if the minister has his way.

Prime Minister Tony Blair said:

"We want every school to be able quickly and easily to become a self-governing independent state school—an opportunity not just open to a small number of schools, but to all who want it."

Alan Milburn called the education white paper

"a critical test of New Labour's ability to set the future agenda."

He continued:

"If the education white paper learns from the Swedish school reforms and the American charter school reforms and so gives parents—particularly the poorest—the power to choose then we will pass that test."

In my view, it is high time that the Scottish Executive put itself to the test by learning from the dynamic reforms being proposed south of the border, which go a long way towards meeting our policy of standards, choice and opportunity. Such a policy would enable Scotland's education system to be second to none and the very best in the world.

I move amendment S2M-3658.2, to leave out from "recognises" to end and insert:

"acknowledges the aims of the Scottish Executive's agenda in Ambitious, Excellent Schools; believes, however, that in order for each child to have the opportunity to reach his or her potential, the Executive must explore all avenues for supporting schools in providing the broadest range of subjects to stimulate the broad range of our children's aptitude and interest; notes that the Executive's schools modernisation programme, set out in The 21st Century School, Building Our Future: Scotland's School Estate, is leading to many valued rural primary schools being closed or amalgamated with other schools on new sites in the name of rationalisation; acknowledges that in order to achieve its professed aim of emphasising strong leadership and greater freedom for teachers, schools must be granted more genuine autonomy, and urges the Executive to consider education reforms of the sort being contemplated at Westminster, so that every school will be able to become a self-governing independent state school to give genuine choice and opportunity to all pupils."

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I am delighted to speak in the debate, and I hope to raise the issue of how the Scottish Executive is delivering excellence in education, rather than taking the narrow approach that the SNP and the Conservatives have adopted this morning.

When "ambitious, excellent schools: our agenda for action" was published last year, the agenda included heightened expectations, stronger leadership and ambition, more freedom for teachers and schools, greater choice and opportunities for pupils, better support for learning and tougher, intelligent accountabilities. That is what the Scottish Executive, with the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party together, is trying to deliver in our schools.

Leadership is extremely important in our schools. Nobody can overestimate the value of a good-quality head teacher in improving the standards in a school. It is important that we get that right, and it is right that the Executive has focused on the leadership agenda in our schools, with its consultation papers on leadership and its efforts to improve the standards of headship in our schools. That is the central plank in ensuring that it is not just 20 schools in Scotland that achieve excellence, but every school in Scotland. That is our ambition, which is not limited to dealing with a few schools that in England would be called failing. Our ambition is to deal with every school in Scotland to ensure that every child in Scotland gets an excellent education and excellent opportunities.

Leadership is crucial to that ambition and so, too, is the teaching profession. The number of teachers is an important issue; that is why the Executive has a commitment to increase the number of teachers in our schools to 53,000, targeted first of all at reducing class sizes in primary 1 and in maths and English classes in S1 and S2. We want to ensure that there is breadth in our education system and that we have more specialist teachers who can visit primary schools to teach subjects such as physical education, music and drama. Teaching is central to the quality of education in our classrooms; that is why we are investing in more teachers.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Does Iain Smith acknowledge the concern that those experts are being brought in precisely to allow non-contact time and that they will teach their subjects without the class teacher being present? Class teachers are frustrated that they cannot then take up the issues that come up in PE or drama with the class for the rest of the week.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I am not entirely sure what alternative Fiona Hyslop is suggesting with regard to the importance of non-class contact time for continuous professional development. Teachers must have the time that they need to plan what they do in the classrooms and quality education can be delivered by specialist visiting teachers. I am sure that all schools will operate in a way that ensures that there is co-ordination between the work of the classroom teacher and the work of the visiting specialists. That is part of the importance of leadership and the quality of our teaching profession in schools.

The role of pupils and parents is important. We must ensure not only that parents have rights, but that they recognise their responsibilities. Parents have a responsibility to work with schools to ensure that their children get the best from their schools; they also have a responsibility to deal with discipline and bullying, which have still to be fully addressed in many of our communities. Those important issues can be dealt with only in partnership with parents and pupils.

Curriculum development is essential; I shall return to that in a moment when I talk about the SNP's amendment. The proposal for a three-to-18 curriculum will allow us to look specifically at the difficult periods when children are in transition between one stage of the education system and another. We need to look particularly at the transition from nursery to primary and at how we deal with children in P1. We also need to look at the important transition from primary to secondary, when many of our children go backwards because they do not engage with the secondary curriculum. That is why it is important that we develop the curriculum so that it delivers results for our children and does not demotivate them, and that is why I am disappointed by the SNP's amendment.

History will show that the SNP has a paucity of ambition for the education of children in Scotland. The SNP looks only at one minor topic in the curriculum review. It believes all the reports that it reads in the papers, but does not look at the wider review. It is important that Scottish history is part of the bedrock of our curriculum, as the SNP has suggested, but that means that it must be taught not just as a standalone subject but as part of learning to read, as part of science and as part of social and environmental education, as happens in our primary schools. Those are important ways of ensuring that history is taught across a wide range of subject areas. If we go into our primary schools, we can see history being taught in projects across the school in a way that ensures the quality of that learning.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Does Iain Smith believe that those who undergo teacher training, particularly primary specialists, have a deep enough education themselves in the aspects of Scottish culture that he, and I, would like to see taught naturally through the other subjects?

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

The quality of our teacher education in Scotland is high and Margo MacDonald's question touches on some important aspects of it. It is important that the curriculum materials and support that are available to schools, through head teachers and education authorities, help teachers to get their hands on the resources that they need to teach in those areas. I have seen good practice in such teaching in the primary schools in my constituency.

The Conservative amendment is even more disappointing. In essence, it tries to say that what is happening in England would be appropriate here in Scotland. I think that the English education reforms that are proposed in the white paper are not even appropriate for England, and they are certainly not appropriate for Scotland. Let us not imagine that the English education system is doing particularly well. Thirty-one per cent of England's 17-year-olds are not in full-time education or workplace learning, and only 51 per cent of its 11-year-old boys reach the required levels in reading, writing and maths.

The English system is tied up with the issue of national testing, with which there are serious problems. A recent report, "Teaching Approaches to Promote Consistent Level 4 Performance in Key Stage 2 English and Mathematics", produced by academics at Durham University for the Department for Education and Skills, stated:

"Intensive preparation for and practice of national curriculum tests appeared to be seen in all schools as a natural thing to do ... Without question national tests dominated classroom teaching of both subjects in these schools for a large part of Year 6."

It also stated:

"Targets are a factor, in the tendency in Year 6, to focus teaching on the requirements of the National Curriculum Tests ... It is likely to have contributed to the increase in pupils achieving level 4"—

the standard that is expected of 11-year-olds—

"since the introduction of national testing. Whether it leads to sustainable learning is another matter".

In Scotland, we are moving away from that type of national testing, because we recognise that cramming and focusing on national testing is not the way to ensure breadth and quality of education.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Will Iain Smith give way?

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

How much time have I got left, Presiding Officer?

George Reid (None, Ochil)

About a minute and a half.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I am sorry, but I cannot give way to Fiona Hyslop. I need to conclude my speech.

There are already problems with the approach that is taken in England, but the white paper takes that approach further and will cause further damage to English education. It is not ambitious for education. The 30 city academies in England—the DFES plans to increase the number to 60—are causing problems. City academies, such as the Unity City Academy in Middlesbrough, which were built to replace failing schools, are now themselves seen as failing.

Other aspects of the proposals in England—for example, the admissions policy—also give cause for serious concern. If we were to follow the proposals in Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's amendment, we could end up with similar problems in Scotland. Studies have shown that the chance of a child in a poor postcode area attending a high-quality local school is low, but if their local school is of low quality they have a good chance of attending it. That is a strange way of improving quality. Two leading children's services have warned recently that the white paper would lead to the creation of sink schools and encourage a predatory atmosphere of competition in the brightest and best-supported schools.

When one reads the proposals in the white paper, one appreciates that the approach that is suggested is wholly inappropriate for Scotland. For example, one proposal is to provide free transport for secondary school pupils to any of three secondary schools within a 6-mile radius. I come from a little village called Gateside and the secondary school that was closest to me was 13 miles away. How on earth I could have been expected to attend a school within a 6-mile radius I do not know; it would have been impossible. Such a proposal does not make any sense in Scotland. It may be a London-based approach, but it is not an approach for Scotland. I reject the English white paper's proposals as damaging to Scotland, and recommend that we continue with the Scottish Executive's plans for ambitious, excellent schools.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

I will respond to some of the points that have been made by other members before I launch into my usual comments—not much has changed in some of these areas in the past six years. I shall support Fiona Hyslop's amendment.

The Deputy Minister for Education and Young People mentioned the squeezing of subjects. It is perfectly possible, in a senior secondary school, to accommodate successfully history, modern studies and geography in second year by a sophisticated rotation of those subjects—once agreement has been reached between those sometimes warring departments, which all want to stake out their command of teachers and to ensure that they do not get squeezed.

I recommend that the minister does not consider combining history and modern studies. When modern studies was first introduced in the early 1960s, there was confusion because it was taught by geography teachers and history teachers and it was seen as an amalgam of those subjects for non-academic pupils. Modern studies is now a separate, clearly defined discipline that is about political issues and how politics and the constitution of our country work. The subject is clearly defined—indeed, we have done a lot of work on that, over many years—and combining modern studies and history would be ill advised. I speak as someone who no longer has an interest, as I will not return to teaching now that I am 65.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

The member might have to return to teaching.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

Yes, I might have to.

Modern studies has so much to offer, yet only a third of Scottish secondary schools have separate modern studies departments. I think that every school in the country should have a separate modern studies department, because the subject addresses all the things that people complain about, such as pupils not being interested in politics and not knowing anything about politics, and concerns about citizenship. Modern studies is one side of teaching citizenship, but if we want pupils to learn citizenship in schools, we must consider the fact that they learn citizenship through volunteering and participation in vibrant and real school councils that have regular elections and real budgets. I have addressed that theme before. Pupils learn citizenship through experience.

I turn to the subject of the debate. I am impressed by the progress that has been made, especially by the movement away from the old-fashioned concentration on teaching to tests, which Iain Smith mentioned. Getting away from a national test curriculum and freeing things up will allow pupils to be taught and to learn in far more interesting ways. I have referred before to Howard Gardner's nine intelligences that should be developed in all our children, but I do not have enough time to develop that theme fully today. The Executive is making room for that development, but I would be more impressed if I saw real commitment to art, music, drama and the other arts coming through the Executive's policy. The minister made passing mention of those subjects, but I would like to see proof that they are getting the place in the curriculum and the attention that they deserve.

The main theme that I want to address is sustainability in education. The United Nations decade of education for sustainable development begins on 15 December, and I hope that the Executive will make a contribution to that. What has the Executive done so far? It will probably tell us, with some pride, about the success of the eco-schools programme. However, let us take a look at what is happening with that programme. It has been spectacularly successful, but it needs more support if it is to achieve the objectives that the Executive should be setting. Every school in Scotland should be on the eco-schools programme; therefore, the programme needs more support. It also needs to be reviewed in the immediate future. When one visits schools in which the programme is run, one finds that it is rarely run throughout the school unless perhaps for a week. The programme is driven by small groups of wonderfully dedicated young people, and the next step in the programme should be to see how it can be further embedded.

Nevertheless, there does not seem to have been any movement to embed sustainability issues within the curriculum. I would welcome a response from the Executive, after 15 December, on how it plans to embed sustainability in the curriculum.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I agree with Robin Harper that we need to increase our investment in the eco-schools programme. I think—I can confirm this subsequently—that both Ross Finnie and I have increased the amount of money that will be invested in that programme in the coming year, because we want to expand it.

I refer Robin Harper to the Executive's curriculum review document, "a curriculum for excellence", which is the most important document in our thinking about the future development of education. In the section on how we will help to create responsible citizens in our society, the document refers to young people being able to

"evaluate environmental, scientific and technological issues"

and to

"develop informed, ethical views of complex issues".

That is all about sustainability. We are trying to embed sustainability at the heart of what we do in schools to ensure that young people have those capacities.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

That is a good mission statement. We have yet to see how it will be rolled out, but I welcome it as a statement.

We need to embed high-quality environmental design into our schools. We do not want pupils to learn about sustainability and then to look around at the school buildings and say to themselves, "These buildings are not sustainable and are not being managed sustainably." There are fine examples of the way forward, such as the planned primary school in Acharacle, in the Highlands. Not only is Highland Council committed to producing a building of high sustainable quality, but through the work of Howard Liddell, it is involving the children in the design of the school. We could do that in our secondary schools as well. Young people have important things to say about design: they have wonderful ideas. In fact, the younger they are, the more likely they are—with minds that are uncluttered by the views of adults—to come up with something useful and good.

The minister is well aware that we need to issue clearer instructions or advice to councils about the roll-out of public-private partnership schools. There is clear evidence that we are losing green space that will never be recovered. It is not enough to say that that green space is being replaced, in many cases, by high-quality hard sports pitches, as those are not the same as green land that the community can access. We are losing community-accessible green land.

That brings me to my final point. The Executive has made a clear commitment to the development of sport in schools. I believe that there are now about 600 school sports co-ordinators and assistants throughout the country. In contrast, we have only 60 arts co-ordinators. I would not ask for those figures to be reversed, but let us have 600 arts co-ordinators as well.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

It is with trepidation that I follow the minister; however, I hope that, by the end of my speech, I will have added slightly more joy than the minister may feel that he did in his speech.

I disagree profoundly with the narrow perspective of the SNP and Conservative amendments. If we contrast today's debate with the kind of debate that we would have had between the mid-to-late 1980s and the mid-1990s—when there was much curriculum unrest in schools, as well as much uncertainty about the finances of reorganisation—we can see that we have moved on considerably. We no longer have the significant unrest that was a feature of too many schools across Scotland. We have moved away markedly from what could be seen as the anglicisation of Scottish education. That is evident even in the tone of today's debate, although the Conservatives, regrettably, have made a faint attempt to suggest that their amendment is in sympathy with the UK Administration. I am sure that education will be a real test for the Westminster Government in the next few years.

For many of us who served time in local government, the reality of the 1990s was that we had to look at school rationalisation on financial rather than educational grounds. That was not an edifying experience.

The minister identified some positive points, which have not been reflected by some of the Opposition speeches so far. We are one of the best performers among the OECD nations. Contrary to some of what has been said, the comprehensive model of education that was introduced in Scotland from the early 1970s has been a marked success across all social classes. That is not to mask the substantial challenges that face many communities in disadvantaged areas of Scotland to overcome poverty and lack of family aspiration for educational attainment. However, I would certainly defend the comprehensive system as a model for the provision of education. That is why I disagree with the direction that Westminster is taking. Of course, that is why we have devolution.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

I agree with the notion of comprehensive education, but I had always seen its objective as being to break down social barriers. The member says that comprehensive education as it happened in Scotland was a proven success, but what are his measurements of success?

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

Research that was done in the mid-1990s by the Scottish Centre for Research in Education showed that if the grammar school system—or secondary modern system, as it was then called—was compared with the comprehensive education system, there was a marked improvement in the comprehensive system, even for those social classes that would have gone to either the junior or senior secondary. I do not agree with the member's starting premise, although I know that that debate about comprehensive education took place in the 1960s and 1970s. My argument is that if we do not create more comprehensive neighbourhoods, we will not be able to transform the challenging statistics about which Margo MacDonald and I have concerns.

What should be central to today's debate are the four or five priorities that the minister touched on, although I do not mean to diminish the concerns about the curriculum content, particularly those that are about the history of our nation, our culture and our understanding of who we are. The central point should be about raising expectations across the board. How do we encourage leadership in schools at all stages—pre-five, primary and secondary—and encourage within families the concept that education can be the way in which to transform life opportunities? How do we ensure that more parents are involved in their child's school experience and in the wider role that the school can play in the community?

There has been broad and welcome consensus in the Scottish Parliament that we should try to achieve stability in schools. We recognise that there will be changes to the curriculum, which will throw up some complex and difficult questions. We must invest in the school estate, which will mean taking some difficult but necessary decisions about the future of schools in different neighbourhoods throughout the country. Those decisions need to be made on sound educational grounds, as well as on the grounds of improving the quality of schools and the experience that children have in their schools.

About 10 years ago, Glasgow was looking at primary school rationalisation and a shambles emerged in the year that we tried to do that. I remember going into one meeting at which 23 primary schools were up for rationalisation and emerging with a final decision on two and a bit schools. That is not the best way in which to organise change in schools.

Difficult decisions are being made at the moment in my home city about primary school rationalisation, but the principle behind that is the desire to improve the quality of the existing stock and to create some new neighbourhood schools. The substantial difference between now and 10 years ago is that that would not have been achievable without the levels of grant settlement and the commitments that have been given to local authorities during the past few years through the capital programme.

Much of the concern in recent months has arisen from statistics and, unfortunately, Glasgow has again featured negatively in some portrayals of the figures. However, if we look at the figures since 1997 for primary 7 reading levels, writing and mathematics, we will see that there has been a year-on-year improvement in Glasgow schools. For example, the percentage of pupils achieving primary reading level D increased from 62 per cent in 1999 to 72 per cent, and in mathematics there has been an increase from 59 to 69 per cent. Progress has been made even in some very difficult circumstances and that has happened because of the commitment to put schools at the centre of local authority and national commitments.

Glasgow faces such challenges because of its economic and social history, and that is one of the interesting parallels to the debate on history. In the recent Fraser of Allander series, with which Wendy Alexander was involved, Ed Glaeser concluded that

"successful cities should be skilled cities"

and that their future is to

"maintain, attract and create a skilled workforce".

If we are talking about the fundamentals of improving schools, that is the agenda about which we should be concerned today.

Points have been made about history and culture in the curriculum. I do not know whether he experienced pleasure or trepidation when I handed in my essays, but I had the pleasure and privilege of having Tom Devine as one of my lecturers at the University of Strathclyde. He is on record as saying that the level of understanding in Scottish schools of Scottish history and culture is markedly better than it was in his and my day when someone could navigate a Scottish school or arts curriculum without encountering any core issues of Scottish history and culture. We should all be committed to dealing with that, but there is already a range of options for pupils at standard grade or in the advanced higher courses. There is a legitimate debate to be had and it is to be hoped that the minister is engaging in that debate with Tom Devine and other senior figures in the field of Scottish history.

The curriculum is important, and we have to get it right. Investment is important, and we are making progress on that. Stability is central, and we have made remarkable progress in access to and assessment of education. More importantly, the leadership that has been made possible through the Executive's commitment is making the difference and it needs to be matched by the commitment of local authorities and schools across Scotland.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

In supporting Fiona Hyslop's amendment, I make it quite clear that the aim of having ambitious, excellent schools that nurture, foster and give life to the ambitions and talents of our young people is clearly laudable. That aim will be supported uniformly around the chamber, as it should be. However, the fundamental question is how to achieve that aim and what we do when we construct the schools and create the curriculum that has been mentioned.

I believe that the precursor for achieving that aim is a population of young people who have hope, faith, vision and a fundamental belief in themselves. The basis of taking chances and opportunity is self-belief and confidence that we can be all that we seek to be, that we can fulfil all our hopes and dreams, and that we can be all we can be. The tragedy of Scotland is that many people do not believe that they can realise their talents, that they can fulfil their dreams and that they can achieve so much more of what they see on television and in the media. They have no faith or confidence in themselves and if we do not address that fundamental failing, the problem will continue throughout the generations.

I agreed with many of the points that Mr McAveety made, apart from those about Scottish history. As a child of the 1960s, I feel eternally grateful for the health service into which I was born and which nurtured and cared for me, for the free education system and for the opportunity to go to university with a grant and without having to pay tuition fees. I and others were able to achieve our aspirations only through those facilities.

Over the past year, I have had the fortunate privilege of interviewing many expatriate Scots; when asked what Scotland gave them, they uniformly replied, "An education." That is the fundamental thing that we have given people who have left their native land and they are eternally grateful for it. We should be proud of that. Indeed, those people will testify to the benefits of the comprehensive system, although it could be argued that any such benefits were limited to them and a few others rather than to everyone. On the downside, it became apparent that Scotland did not give those expatriate Scots any self-confidence or knowledge of their own history. We must address that failure.

I am not putting forward any conspiracy theories or suggesting that all that was done deliberately. The situation has simply arisen. However, it must be addressed. No one can deny that areas of Scotland suffer from a huge lack of self-worth and self-belief and from a culture of nihilism that manifests itself in antisocial behaviour, self-harm and other types of violence.

In fact, I suggest that even more educated people in Scotland aspire to go only so far. Not only is there a glass ceiling for women in this country, but there is also a glass ceiling for Scots in general. We need a system that allows us to address the lack of self-confidence and to target the lack of understanding of Scottish history and who the Scots people are. To its credit, the Executive has acknowledged that there is a problem with people's confidence.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

The member suggests that there is a glass ceiling for Scots. However, the Westminster Government is dominated by Scots. The chairman of the British Medical Association is almost always a Scot. Scots hold an astounding number of leading positions throughout the United Kingdom and around the world. Surely the member's comment is total rubbish.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

As I was about to say, the Executive has quite correctly supported Carol Craig's centre of confidence and well-being. Robert Brown might well think that what I have suggested is rubbish; indeed, I have argued with people in my own party who think that this lack of self-confidence is some alien manifestation and can be cured by independence. However, it exists. Robert Brown might be criticising the First Minister for supporting Carol Craig's approach. After all, if he feels that there is no problem because of Gordon Brown's position in the UK Government and the fact that Tony Blair attended Fettes College when Frank McAveety and I were attending state schools, he must also feel that there is clearly no requirement to take the direction that I believe Ms Craig is quite correctly taking.

However, I repeat that, notwithstanding Scots' individual successes in the UK Government or elsewhere, there is a problem that must be addressed. If the minister denies that, he nullifies Ms Craig's correct analysis of the current situation. As a result, his intervention was fatuous and is based on a false premise.

On the teaching of Scottish history, Ms Hyslop was correct to focus on how we address certain external matters. However, we must also address Scotland's current social problems, including sectarianism and Anglophobia, by giving people knowledge of who they are. One could call it the braveheart effect—Dr Murray might well chortle at that—but people in Scotland fail to understand the effect of the 1745 rebellion or do not even know who fought at the battle of Culloden. If we took a vox pop on the question, many people would probably think that the battle of Culloden was not part of a civil war but a doing-down of the flower of Scotland by English forces. In fact, more people died in that battle at the hands of the Black Watch than died at the hands of the Duke of Cumberland. Again, we have to address that problem.

Moreover, as west of Scotland members will certainly be aware, one element of the orange and green divide is the perception that the Catholic church in Scotland is some alien church that came from Ireland and that the natural church in Scotland is the reformed church. In fact, the Catholic church in Scotland predates the reformed church; to be more precise, the reformed church came from the Catholic church, whose unique history goes back to the declaration of Arbroath. That declaration and the papal bull made it quite clear that the Scottish Catholic church was to be a separate church in a separate nation. For that reason, the Scottish Catholic church is the only non-national church that the Vatican recognises. The Catholic church in Québec is recognised only as part of the Catholic church in Canada, just as the Catholic church in Bavaria is recognised only as part of the German Catholic church. All those aspects testify to the Scottish Catholic church's unique history. If we are to address the current problem of equating Catholicism with Irishness or whatever else manifests itself in trouble at old firm games, we need to give people a fundamental understanding of their history. It is not just how people act outwith—

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

You must finish now, Mr MacAskill.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

For those reasons, we must support the SNP amendment and address the issue of the Scottish people's lack of self-confidence and knowledge of their own history.

Rosemary Byrne (SSP, South of Scotland)

Debates on Executive documents such as "ambitious, excellent schools: one year on" do nothing but seek to pat the Executive on the back. They do not examine what is going on in our schools, open up a wide debate or allow us to listen to professionals who work day after day at the chalkface. I am concerned about the real importance of such debates to the teachers who have to stand in front of classes, the parents of pupils and, indeed, the pupils themselves.

What are the ingredients for an ambitious, excellent school? Many good schools certainly exist. For example, last Friday, I had a fantastic time at Girvan Academy's modern studies day. Indeed, I enjoyed the day so much that I felt that I should go back to teaching. I enjoyed meeting the young people and being shown a long-running project involving the community. The project had been set up by motivated second-year pupils, who were doing what we want all pupils to do: getting involved with the issues that affect society; speaking in public; making banners and posters; and learning about politics.

However, although such excellent examples can be seen throughout the country, we as MSPs also see the other side of things. People often come to our surgeries to tell us about problems that centre not so much on a whole school but on their child's individual education. Everything is not rosy. For example, we know that 70 per cent of young people in Polmont have poor literacy and numeracy skills; we know the number of dyslexics in prison; we know that looked-after children are failing in school; we know that some schools are almost no-go areas; and we know that teachers are struggling with discipline in schools. What is the Executive doing to resolve those problems? We simply need to strike a balance and understand the whole situation.

The debate comes at a time when many issues are not being addressed. For example, there is a growing call for smaller class sizes. Rural schools are being closed, which is extremely worrying for the communities affected. Moreover, there have been announcements of hit squads being sent into schools to eradicate illiteracy and poor numeracy skills and proposals to stop the teaching of history in S1 and S2. Meanwhile, the Executive has yet again sought to give itself a pat on the back. Where are the increased choices and opportunities? Where is the better support for learning?

I realise that it is still early days with regard to the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004. However, its provisions will not give pupils the right equipment if the local authority is not moving at the right pace. My case load highlights issues such as dyslexic pupils being denied access to technology. The minister touched on such access in his opening speech, but young people cannot get the right technology. In some schools, even a laptop is a treasure.

Another problem not only for dyslexic children but for many children with additional support needs is assessment and key planning. They are not being given the proper planning opportunities.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

Given the tenor of her speech so far, does Ms Byrne think that the Executive is doing anything right?

Rosemary Byrne (SSP, South of Scotland)

At the beginning of my speech, I said that there are many good schools. However, we are not getting to the nub of the problem and dealing with the difficulties that exist in many of our schools. That is the crux of the matter. If Bill Butler had listened, he would have picked up that point.

If we are to plan and to put into place the correct kind of opportunities for pupils with additional support needs, we must involve parents. The Scottish Schools (Parental Involvement) Bill is before the Parliament, but where is consideration being given to that issue? We must sit down with the young people, parents and key staff involved—it is not rocket science. After a plan has been agreed, it should be reviewed and monitored—it is as simple as that. If the plan says that the child needs a laptop, that laptop should be provided. If it says that the child needs a classroom assistant, that classroom assistant should be available—not someone who has not been trained to deal with the needs of the young person, but someone who knows what they are doing with them. Classroom assistants should not be removed and replaced because a local authority does not want to give them a permanent contract. We must address such issues. I have raised them repeatedly and I will continue to do so, because they are important for every child. If even one child is failing, we are not doing our job properly. We must meet children's needs and ensure that there is communication. It is not acceptable that children should be denied appropriate classroom assistants.

The other issue that I want to discuss is class sizes. We hear teachers saying that they cannot cope, because they have 30 children in their class, including two special needs children, as well as a classroom assistant whom they must manage. If we want to meet the needs of children with additional support needs, the solution is simple. We must reduce class sizes to no more than 20—15 for composite classes. The Educational Institute of Scotland is promoting that policy. Academics such as Brian Boyd tell us that we need to reduce class sizes. Across the board, the professionals are putting out that message. It is not good enough for the minister to tell me that the average class size has fallen and that the Executive is reducing class sizes in S1 and S2 for maths and English and in primary 1 to 3. The reality is very different. The minister has given head teachers the power to make arrangements, which is not working. The children in primary 1 to 3 need a better start—they need classes of no more than 20. We all know that, so let us grasp the nettle, take on board the need for smaller class sizes and examine the issue with great thoroughness.

There is much more that I would like to say. I could speak for ages on the subject. I wish that we could have a proper debate that allowed longer speeches and an in-depth look at our system. Let us stop patting ourselves on the back and let us deal with reality.

My final point relates to our school estate. A police investigation of public-private partnership schools is under way in North Ayrshire. We need to look at that issue.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

One of the first schools to qualify for the extra funding that is available under the schools of ambition programme was Barrhead High School in my constituency. There can be no more apt description of what has already been achieved by Barrhead High and the task that the head has set her staff and pupils than raising the ambitions of the school. It is chastening to think that, only 10 years ago, pupils attending the school were denied the opportunity to sit more than four highers in one year. The limitations of the curriculum that was offered to pupils—perhaps reflecting the expectations that were placed on families from an industrial background—effectively capped the aspirations of the school's students. Far from being stretched, pupils were schooled to expect and achieve less. It is little wonder that some families voted with their feet and applied to send their children to nearby Paisley Grammar School.

The situation has been transformed. No one is opting out in order to go elsewhere—far from it. Placing requests are now coming in from people who want to study at Barrhead's schools. Part of the £100,000 of extra funding that is available from the Executive has been used to establish drama classes at the high school, to engage the pupils in creative as well as academic study. When I visited the school just before the summer, the pupils were sending paper buddies—on their own initiative—to the leaders of the countries from around the world who were gathered for the G8 summit, to highlight the need for young people, regardless of their circumstances, to be able to attend school. This year, the school has paired up with a small town just outside Nairobi in Kenya, so that young people in both communities can learn from one another's educational experience. The school is looking outwards, is challenging its pupils, has raised its sights and is saying to its students that there is no limit to what they can achieve. What a difference a decade can make. What a difference a Government that supports local comprehensive schools, backs up its support with investment, does not regard such schools as second best and expects nothing but the best from them can make.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I understand that Barrhead High School is one of those schools that is using the creative industries and culture to drive forward ambition. The member referred to the schools of ambition budget of £100,000. Does he think that it is appropriate for that money to be used to employ additional teachers? I understand that at Barrhead it is used to fund an additional English teacher and an additional drama teacher. If there are shortages of teachers generally to pursue excellence, why do schools have to bid for money from the schools of ambition fund? Should the issue not be dealt with as part of the regular management of education?

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

The point of the policy is to allow schools the freedom to do what gets the best out of their pupils. If they choose to spend the money on drama where drama has been denied, that is very much to be encouraged. Both Fiona Hyslop and Robin Harper highlighted the importance of teaching drama and culture in our schools. For her now to decry that and to decry the Executive for funding it is illogical, to put it mildly.

Barrhead High School sits in an education authority that expects the best of all its citizens. Some members may have heard or seen coverage of an initiative that East Renfrewshire Council ran to provide school meals to families out of term time. The idea arose when the authority became aware that one young boy had been caught stealing sandwiches during the school holidays. On further inquiry, it soon became apparent that, in the absence of the school lunch and the breakfast club, the boy and his siblings were not eating properly. The director of education, with the support of the council, established a programme to continue school meals over the holiday period and to structure around it activities that would engage the young people.

The assessment of the programme has been overwhelmingly positive. Not only does it provide stability to somewhat chaotic families, but there has been improved attainment and even reduced antisocial behaviour. I hope that, as has been reported, the minister is looking at the scheme with a view to rolling it out in other areas, as I am sure that the experience of some families in East Renfrewshire is echoed elsewhere. When the scheme was first mooted, I wrote to the Executive requesting financial support for it, which was not forthcoming. However, the Labour-led authority pressed ahead in any event and chose to fund the programme. For that, it should not just be commended: funding schemes should reward such initiatives and the go-ahead local authorities that are clearly delivering on our shared objectives.

One of the most exciting initiatives in East Renfrewshire at the moment is in sport. Using the funding that is available through the active schools programme and for school sports co-ordinators, every primary school in the area is benefiting from a programme of activity in football, hockey, netball, tennis, basketball and rugby. Such short programmes are not just about teaching children—the specialists involved are passing on their skills and knowledge to teachers, so that the sport can be sustained. At an earlier age—in primary 1 to 3—the activ8 after-school sports club is giving some of our youngest children the opportunity to engage in a range of sports and other exercise. I am sure that no member needs to be alerted to the long-term benefits of developing active lifestyles and healthy habits, but there are also immediate gains, in improved levels of concentration and engagement.

I do not pretend that there are not still concerns or problems with which we must grapple. I hope that our additional support for learning reforms will be among our most worthwhile legislative changes and achievements. We need to continue to resource those reforms as they are implemented, to ensure that we have a truly inclusive system. Although we have made huge strides in the number of students accessing further and higher education, we have much more to do to narrow the gap between the attainment of those from the most prosperous and those from the most deprived backgrounds. We need to build on the work that we have done on and the investment that we have made in early years education—more family centres and more and stable investment in successful programmes such as bookstart.

We have been in office for less than 10 years, but already we have shown the difference that a Government that has confidence in our schools can make to our young people. There is no more curtailed ambition—the notion of state schools as second best is not for us. Our goal is excellence and ambition for all and we are delivering it.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The Conservative amendment has been criticised by a number of speakers for being drafted in terms that are rather too narrow. We must remember that, whereas the Executive has the luxury of being able to draft a motion that allows it to invite Labour and Liberal Democrat members to praise its record, we have to address our concerns with a great deal more urgency.

Not the least of our concerns is what appears to be happening to many of Scotland's rural schools. Although I take great pleasure in criticising SNP councils for what they have done to rural schools in areas such as Angus, I admit that the problem is not specific to one particular type of council. Throughout Scotland, councils of different political perspectives are forced to make radical decisions about the provision of education in our most rural areas. My concern is to ensure that it is not the Scottish Executive and the minister who dictate a set of policies that drive that decision-making process.

I am not the only member who can claim to have started his education in a small rural school. My experience of such schools has done much to colour my personal and cultural perspective over many years. My experience of being educated in larger composite classes does not appear to have done me any particular damage. In fact, having seen my own children go through the same schools, I believe that it is more important to retain the schools than it is to prioritise specific minimum class sizes or end composite classes. As an MSP, I am regularly sent Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education reports on schools in our cities, towns and rural areas. I find that some of our rural schools are among the best schools anywhere in the country.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The member talks about rural schools and composite classes and it is clear that education is delivered well in that way. The problem is that when the Executive cut primary class sizes from 32 to 30 pupils a few years ago, there was a mushrooming of composite classes, but the teachers were not trained in how to deal with such classes in an urban context. Even now at Jordanhill, student teachers are not being taught how to develop fully composite teaching in an urban as opposed to a rural setting, where it is par for the course.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Indeed, that is part of the problem that we need to address.

There are a number of other reasons why smaller rural schools are worthy of additional support and, in particular, the effort of the minister to ensure that they are preserved. When young people from a rural background begin their education, they benefit from going into smaller schools and avoiding the large school environment that they will inevitably experience when they travel to secondary school. It allows them to develop educationally, personally and culturally within a protected environment. It is not unacceptable to suggest that it is important that we retain small rural schools for that reason.

It is interesting that the Greens, for example, raise the environmental issues that relate to schools. I suppose that it is a reasonable argument that busing children over greater distances at an earlier age has an environmental as well as an emotional impact.

I have to ensure that the minister understands what we are asking for. We want to ensure that the move towards devolved school management delivers some protection for rural schools. We need to continue to argue for choice, as we have always done, but we must stipulate that that also means that parents in rural areas have the choice of sending their children to small rural schools. Conservative members and others have asked on many occasions for the minister to make a commitment to a presumption against closure. I would like him to address that subject in his closing remarks and to tell us whether there is any prospect of moving down that road.

I said at the outset that we were accused of being too narrow. The concerns of many people in many local authority areas about the future of their successful and vibrant local schools are not only to do with education; they are to do with the cultural traditions of their area and the nature of their communities. If there is one subject that I have had to address time and again from the moment that I became an MSP, it is the threat of school closures. Will the minister take the opportunity today to give some solace to those who are most concerned?

Gordon Jackson (Labour, Glasgow Govan)

This is a big subject and, like everyone else, I will focus on one or two specific issues—the importance of pre-school and early primary education.

In the past, I confess that I tended to think of pre-school provision as childminding, which is no doubt a generational thing. However, I now have an entirely different perspective and realise that that is simply not so. A great deal of up-to-date research demonstrates why education—I use the word advisedly—at that stage is so important.

We learn best in our very early years. Anyone who looks at small children knows that. On a daily basis, ideas are taken in and laid down in the mind. For example, literacy at the age of seven is hugely improved by pre-school education. More important, that is true whatever the parental background. Regardless of what the child's background is, pre-schooling will improve their literacy by the time they reach later primary years.

The risk of having a special educational need is substantially reduced by good pre-schooling. That foundation has a huge effect that will be felt over many years. It affects how well children learn when they go to school. Research suggests—and I take it to be right—that even such important matters as teenage crime are affected by that early foundation of attitude and learning. Put simply, the foundation of good pre-schooling, when properly done, has a huge lasting effect.

We need to establish our policy accordingly and we have done so to some extent. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said recently:

"While the 19th century was distinguished by the introduction of primary education for all and the 20th century by the introduction of secondary education for all, so the early part of the 21st century should be marked by the introduction of pre-school provision for the under-fives and childcare available to all".

Already, the result of that thinking has been a huge rise in the past eight years in the number of children who attend pre-school education—up from about 50 per cent to almost 90 per cent today. Funding has greatly increased, although I say to the minister that sometimes the complexity of the funding process for those at the chalkface almost makes them tear their hair out.

As always, those of us on the back benches ask what more should be done. I have two suggestions. First, there should be an increase in funding. I know that we always say that, that it is not always the answer and that it is never the whole answer, but if we really believe that pre-school education is as valuable as the research suggests, we should accept that we do not properly focus our spend on those years that have the highest returns. I know that a balance must be struck and that we will never spend as much per head on pre-schooling as we do on university education—I do not suggest that we should, but the balance might need to be looked at again.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

On the point about increased funding, would the member support an extension of the hours that three and four-year-olds experience in early education from the average of one and a half hours a day in order that they can benefit in the very way that he suggests?

Gordon Jackson (Labour, Glasgow Govan)

I do not disagree entirely but, oddly enough, research suggests that it does not matter whether pre-schooling is part-time or full-time for the advantages in later literacy that I described to be gained. There is a certain number of hours of pre-schooling after which the benefits do not increase. I do not want to debate the number of hours of pre-schooling; some people think that the more hours there are, the better, but somehow that does not seem to be the case in the young mind.

Another improvement that is required is in staffing, and I am not talking simply about the numbers. I take nothing at all away from the dedication and quality of those who work with young children, but the level of qualification and training is not always present. It has been suggested that there should be an entirely new profession—and I confess that I have stolen this directly from a speech by Wendy Alexander—of what are called "early-childhood educators". It would be a graduate profession of highly qualified people. Put simply, there should be some shared level of qualification between those teaching pre-school children and those teaching primary school children, so that the process is much more continuous.

I had wanted to say something about primary schools, but time does not allow. The provision of better training for teachers is the key; in the whole subject of education, I believe strongly that good teachers are the key. We talk about class sizes, funding and buildings, all of which are important, but nothing matters as much as good teachers. Schools improve when good teachers improve them. Those of us who were educated well in Scotland think back to teachers who gave us an interest in subjects that has lasted all our adult life. Such inspiration is harder to measure than money and class size, but it is very important.

The Executive is doing good things. Comparing teaching now with teaching 15 years ago is like comparing day with night. We used to argue about the lack of morale in schools and it would be false to say that the situation has not improved. We now have better development, proper incentives, good rewards and better training, which is to be welcomed. We will provide ambitious and excellent schools only through ambitious and excellent teachers.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

Iain Smith has covered—and I am sure that Robert Brown will cover—very efficiently what we might call the mainstream part of the argument from the Liberal Democrats' point of view. I want to approach the topic from a slightly different angle—that of a young person.

A lot of education takes place outwith schools. Today we are debating schools but we cannot debate them as if they exist in a vacuum. If there is much better informal education, and youth work and activities for young people in communities, that will spill over into schools. The attitude of the young people will improve; they will become interested in things that they will then go to school to study; and their behaviour will improve.

We must remedy the defect in what used to be called community education. I know that the present Executive has made efforts in the right direction, which I welcome, but community education, youth work and so on suffered a disastrous decline when the regional councils were abolished and have never really recovered. There must be more emphasis on the education of young people outwith schools.

As one or two other members have said, we must listen to young people more. When we give them a chance to speak, they often have remarkably intelligent ideas that adults have not thought of. Obviously, we cannot give them complete control—if we did, they would not go to maths classes if they did not like maths—but they could have much more say in things that affect them, such as the provision of facilities and activities either in school or outwith school. Young people could also have much more say in what happens. If we help them to start their own youth clubs and put them in charge—letting them make the decisions while giving them a bit of support, guidance and money—they will learn through experience and through taking responsibility. We must involve young people more in community planning, in physical planning and in the arrangements for better youth activities.

We must stimulate young people's imagination. There has been improvement in arts education and so on, but much more work is needed. Most classes are dead boring; the ones that I used to conduct certainly were. We must spark the imagination and put far more effort into teaching the arts and into getting young people interested in imaginative activities.

Sport is an imaginative activity—although there is certainly a lack of imagination in the Scottish football team at the moment. We must give young people activities that will really stimulate them and in which they can succeed. We hear a lot of managementspeak about having small goals that people can achieve before they go on to the next goal. That should apply to children, too. If a child did not previously spell a word correctly and now does, we have got somewhere. We must give children goals that they can achieve.

We have to concentrate on what has an impact on young people—things such as visiting plays. I am sure that all members have attended primary schools that have had visits, for example from Scottish Opera, to help the school to put on their own show, or performances by 7:84, which recently put on a really excellent play for schools. It was extremely anti-Bush but none the worse for that, and it provoked really good discussion in schools.

Visits to galleries are also important, as is outdoor education—things that stimulate the child to get out of the ordinary routine. That is what I remember from my schooling; I am sure that others do, too.

It is good that the current education ministers are trying to reduce the importance of league tables and tick-box examinations, but they should look into the marking of exams. Teachers have told me that they were appalled by seminars on the marking of exams; they thought that the whole thing was complete rubbish. There is a feeling that an exam is a sort of MOT—an absolutely scientific test of whether the motor car goes or does not go. Exams should not be like that.

About 35 years ago, I wrote an article in a Liberal pamphlet that nobody read, saying "Down with exams." I still think that. As a teacher, I used to teach people to get through exams. That is not what teaching should be about. I ask the ministers to consider that.

Above all, ministers should consider things through the eyes of young people. There is huge talent out there—possibly greater than ever before—and if we stimulate it and point it in the right direction, Scotland will whizz ahead and we will all be proud of ourselves.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

The idea of ambitious and excellent comprehensive education in schools is, I believe, supported by the vast majority of members of the Parliament, and rightly so. I am a former teacher of modern studies and I benefited from an education that could have been improved had we had better training for teachers. As Gordon Jackson said, we must consider training. I have spoken of its importance to the minister before.

The minister's idea of delivering ambitious and excellent schools seems to be about effective delivery, encouraging creativity and proud comparisons with our neighbours on how we are performing. However, that is rather a technocratic approach to the running of education. I am sure that educational organisations will be happy with that and will be happy to deal with the minister, but it does not make the best educational sense of what a curriculum can deliver for young people in Scotland.

There have been hints that our bringing of primary teachers' skills into secondary schools is good. However, it is also convenient, because the minister cannot get enough people trained to be teachers and so needs to have primary teachers coming into secondary schools.

The minister is reported as having said at a recent conference:

"We have got to question why we force young people to study subjects they hate, which they know they hate and which we know they hate."

If that is the case, why are we putting more into maths and English? Choice for children has to include core values. The SNP's amendment suggests that more subjects than just maths and English need attention in the curriculum. Young children need to have knowledge and wisdom to understand the country in which they are growing up and in which they hope to live. Our amendment aims not to deprecate the objective of having ambitious, excellent schools, but to challenge the technocracy that the minister represents and which has no heart for the country in which we live.

We must consider the evidence that is before us. Because new Labour is so keen on choice, it wants to ensure that everybody else makes the choices. Teachers can choose what they teach and schools in different parts of the country can focus on their pieces of history and ignore the rest. We need an idea of the cultural and historical orientation that children in our country should have.

The choice of history topics is all-important. However, that is not the minister's suggestion in a written answer to me on the question whether children are taught about the 1820 uprising. It states:

"The National Guidelines on Environmental Studies 5-14 advise that an understanding of the past should be developed through studies that include attention to Scottish, British, European and global contexts but they are not specific about the precise aspects of Scottish history to be studied."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 1 September 2005; S2W-18516.]

All Scottish children should have knowledge of some parts of Scottish history.

Cathy Peattie (Labour, Falkirk East)

Is the SNP arguing for a national curriculum?

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

If the question is about a national curriculum in the English sense, the answer is no. However, if the member is talking about the core values of a national curriculum in a Scottish context, we can discuss that. The Executive offers a spurious choice; it says that people must have certain skills and then puts extra effort into mathematics and English but not into other subjects. The minister is hiding the fact that he cannot deliver because he does not have sufficient troops to do so. He can raise his eyebrows if he likes, but he should listen to the experts.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member take an intervention?

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

No, thank you. My time is short, and shorter than it should have been because of the length of some of the other speeches.

An assessment of the curriculum is central if Scottish topics are to be included in it. Professor Gifford, who was the university representative on the Scottish Examination Board panel that introduced the compulsory question on Scottish literature—it was then dropped in 1999—has said:

"It remains the case that the vast majority of teachers of English do not have the confidence to teach Scottish literature".

Unless we include Scottish literature as a core part of teacher training and of the curriculum, we will not give people a broad understanding of what their country is like and who they are. The same could be said for several aspects of history. The written answer that I read shows that the minister would like such issues to be included, but he has not provided guidelines about what should be known.

There are far too many examples for me to go into in the time that I have left, so I will simply ask the minister to consider an analysis of what our schools produce by a moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1966 or thereabouts. The Very Rev Archie Watt gave a warning that our system encouraged the material advantages of education, but not the quality of the men and women that our schools and colleges produce. He said:

"Should the light of their minds be made artificial by the fake promises of an irresponsible affluence and distorted in a ruthless rat-race for selfish aggrandisement, then we shall be producing a generation which may be clever but not cultured, and a leadership which is neither educated in the best sense of the term, nor responsible."

We ask the minister to provide a responsible education that lets children know where they come from and where they can go.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Before I do my normal drum beating, I advise the minister that he should listen to the comments that the previous speaker made, some of which made sense. I share Rob Gibson's concern that although, according to Professor Devine, teacher training on Scottish literature and associated cultural aspects may have improved, it has not improved enough to make many teachers feel comfortable when teaching those subjects.

The minister said that more time will be given to subjects such as PE and music, following the curriculum review. He knows that I greatly approve of that, but I wonder which subjects will have to give up time. Page 10 of "ambitious, excellent schools" states:

"we know from the National Debate ... that parents and teachers worry about the volume and nature of assessment and about a cluttered curriculum".

I am a parent and a grandparent, and I worry about a cluttered curriculum, particularly in primary schools. Primary teachers are now asked to teach too many specific topics. I refer to Fiona Hyslop's comments on that—we have a common cause on that issue, although that is not the case for all her remarks. It is obvious when one talks to secondary teachers that children have to catch up in secondary school. However, it is not only secondary teachers who have to teach the subjects that are somewhat disparagingly referred to as the basics or the three Rs; universities have had to introduce catch-up courses in basic arithmetic for people who have ostensibly passed their highers and gained university entrance. We must consider how we deliver many of the objectives because, as members of all parties have said, some subjects that are now taught in primary school do not need to be taught there.

Despite the attempts to reintroduce the teaching of grammar in schools, the subject is not given enough time in teacher training and teachers in schools do not have time to teach it. I know that, occasionally, ministers can be misquoted in newspapers, so I will not punch out the minister for this, but he is reputed to have said that we should not teach children subjects that bore them rigid or that they do not like. Of course we should, because they have to learn wisdom and how to cope with boredom. They have to learn how to do things that they do not like, because they will have to do that when they become adults and are in the workplace. That is part of growing up and part of children's wider education. When the Deputy Minister for Children and Young People sums up, I would like to hear what plans there are to improve the teaching of grammar in schools.

Page 7 of "ambitious, excellent schools" discusses values and citizenship, which other members have mentioned. We need to take an almost collegiate approach to producing healthy and responsible citizens. The approach would encompass PE, aspects of home economics such as buying and preparing food and the social responsibility that must be imparted—I hesitate to say "morality", because that word has many interpretations. I know that the minister is considering such an approach. On world AIDS day, it is entirely relevant that we should accept that, as part of the health, physical and citizenship education that children receive almost by osmosis in school, we should include sex education. I do not see anything in the report on that.

To achieve all the objectives, we need more teachers. Although I respect the Executive's attempts, not enough PE teachers are in training to meet the objectives on PE in a reasonable timeframe. It is not enough to say that we now have oodles of sports co-ordinators, because they can co-ordinate only if the subject has been taught and understood. On a recent visit to some primary schools, I observed dangerous practices by teachers who were teaching a subject in which they were not specifically qualified. When I questioned them, they admitted that they were doing it because they felt they had to, not because they felt they could do it properly.

I have concentrated on primary schools, but I have a quick comment on secondary schools. I am glad that many head teachers are now saying that they will place children according to their ability in specific subjects. We have known that we should stream for a long time; saying that we should not has simply confused the situation.

Frank McAveety might be right that Scottish teachers are now more confident in teaching Scottish matters than they were in the past, but there are still areas of ignorance and confusion. Kenny MacAskill talked about the history of sectarianism. It is true that there was religious division in churches, but in Lanarkshire and the west of Scotland there was social division, which was imported by colliery owners, some of whom were called Hamilton. It was not only religion but social and economic divisions that set people against each other. We could do a bit more work on our Scottish history.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

I rise to support the motion in the name of the minister. The document "ambitious, excellent schools", which was published in October last year, is a wide-ranging blueprint for the modernisation of Scottish education. I support the fact that it is based firmly on the comprehensive ideal. Rosemary Byrne of the Scottish Socialist Party said that the motion is self-congratulatory; I disagree. Last year's document correctly outlined a range of challenges that we must meet if we are to build a system of education in our country in which every child is able to fulfil his or her potential.

The Government's document acknowledges that

"the performance of the lowest attaining 20% of pupils in S4 has remained flat in recent years and around 15% of 16-19 year olds are not in education, employment or training".

That is unacceptable. The minister referred to the fact that many boys are underperforming. That deficiency must be remedied. Major challenges remain in a small percentage of schools in which inspections have revealed weaknesses in leadership—leadership is important, so that cannot be allowed to continue.

The task of the Executive and the Parliament is to face those challenges in a manner that allows us to create in all our schools a system flexible and imaginative enough to allow every young person to achieve their potential. The Executive's approach is not uncritical; the education system is not and has never been perfect and improvements are required. To do that we must analyse the reality to the best of our ability. I accept that the Scottish National Party's concern is sincere. I also accept what Fiona Hyslop says about education being about understanding and wisdom—in other words, it is about the cognitive and affective domains. National consciousness is important because that is how we achieve international consciousness and interact with other countries and other peoples.

I was encouraged when the minister said that history will not be a thing of the past. I was glad to hear the minister reject the most pernicious myth—as opposed to a real concern—peddled by some of the media, which is the so-called evidence from so-called league tables. The Executive is correctly committed to publishing data on the performance of five-to-14s in a new Scottish survey of achievement. That will tell us accurately about the performance of the system as a whole. Five-to-14 assessment results are not suitable for publication at school level because they are designed as a professional tool. Teachers know that. Individual teachers must interact with individual pupils to raise the level of achievement of those pupils. League tables encourage a drive towards testing; they do not encourage but instead narrow real learning. They do not take into account the affective domain; they ignore the social context. I am glad that the minister has rejected them.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Iain Smith and I have just returned from Finland, which has a top-performing education system. We were looked at askance when we talked about the testing that goes on, particularly at primary level.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

I can but agree, although testing that helps the individual child to progress is fine when it is at the appropriate time, and the teacher at the chalk face should decide when is the right time. That is part of the professionalism of a teacher.

Challenges are being faced and the trend is one of improvement. There is discernible and verifiable improvement in attainment throughout primary schools. Five-to-14 test data show that since 1997, in primary 7, attainment is up by 7 per cent in maths, by 10 per cent in reading and by 14 per cent in writing. In the early years, 89 per cent of primary 3s reached the expected level A or better, which is an 8 per cent increase from 1999. At secondary level, overall pass rates have risen at every level. For example, the number of pupils getting five or more standard grades at credit level or equivalent has risen by 9 per cent since 1999. More than half of our young people go on from school to higher education, either at university or college. We should be proud of that. To express those facts and to describe a trend that is one of improvement is not to indulge in complacency; on the contrary, it is to ensure that the debate surrounding the present condition and future direction of Scottish education is balanced and is based on evidence.

I am encouraged that the Government is investing in education. As a former classroom teacher with 20 years' experience, 17 of them under the last—and I hope that it really was the last—Conservative Administration, I am glad that we now have more teachers, smaller classes, modern buildings, better information technology and free nursery places. I applaud the guarantee that every pupil will have the opportunity to learn a modern language in primary and to take one year's free music tuition by the time they reach primary 6. However, I also welcome the fact that we are talking about enterprise in education, and I hope that the minister will say something about the inclusion of co-operative and mutual principles in the teaching of economics and throughout the curriculum.

Scotland has a strong education system, but if we are to serve all our young people, there is still scope for improvement. I hope that that is to be found. I think that it will be found in the direction in which the Executive is going. I commend the motion.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

I welcome the annual report on the progress of "ambitious, excellent schools". It is a pity that some Opposition speakers have not done any homework; indeed, some of them appear not to have been paying attention in class.

The SNP's contribution included a strange and woolly five-point plan. I had some difficulty working out where one point stopped and another started. Fiona Hyslop seemed to suggest that the imposition of a Scottish history exam would be a solution, not that I am necessarily opposed to that. Rob Gibson was oddly anti-choice. Indeed, the SNP seemed determined not to understand the minister's commitment to history, as did Rosemary Byrne. Well, read his lips. He said that he is committed to history in S1 and S2. As far as the Tories are concerned, I am sorry that Lord James Douglas-Hamilton will not be with us after the 2007 election. I will miss him when I return in May 2007. Lord James repeated the Tory education policies that were so unsuccessful with the Scottish electorate at the general election this year that it returned one Tory MP, at a cost of £1.3 million.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Money well spent.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

The member may think so—I could not possibly comment.

I cannot reconcile the Conservatives' commitment to a market-led model of self-governing schools with the retention of small, rural schools that cost far more per head of population. I am afraid that that does not compute. Alex Johnstone commented that the Executive was driving councils to close rural schools. That is not true. That is the excuse that many councils, some quite close to home as far as I am concerned, have tried to use in order to drive through closure of rural schools, but it is not the Executive that is forcing that on them.

To return to Scottish history and culture, I was interested in Frank McAveety's comment about Professor Tom Devine's views. Too often, middle-aged people judge today's education on the basis of what they received and not on the basis of what is being delivered today. What might be interesting—and might address some of the SNP's concerns—would be the grouping of subjects and themes in early secondary school. Bill Butler referred to the need for a national consciousness in order to have an international consciousness. In other words, if I understand where I am coming from, I will be able to understand and have pride in where someone else is coming from.

Children often have preconceived notions about subjects—based on what they are told by siblings, parents or friends—such as that history is boring or that science is difficult. It always amazes me that history and science programmes on television are extremely popular, but that people think that they will not enjoy such subjects in school. Perhaps in early secondary school we need thematic teaching, whereby subjects are grouped together. For example, we could have Scottish studies, but the teaching would still be delivered by specialist teachers. If subjects were grouped together for one term, the pupils could be told, "We are studying Scotland this term." If children studied Scottish history, culture and science at the same time, they might better engage with those subjects. They could then go on from studying Scottish history to want to learn about UK history or European history. How we present subjects in schools is important.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Will the member give way?

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

Sorry, I am a bit short of time.

Such change might address some of the concerns that have been raised in the debate so far. Thematic teaching is already offered in primary school. All teaching was subject based when I was in primary school, but nobody would think of having subject-based teaching in primary schools today. We need to move the argument on by grouping subjects in secondary school to see whether that will engage those children who are disengaged. Some children enjoy learning for its own sake, but many do not. The challenge is how we engage the 20 per cent of children who do not achieve. They are not engaged by our labelling subjects so that they seem to be academic exercises, rather than something relevant to their lives.

As might be expected, I want to say something about maths and science. I am pleased that, compared to other OECD countries, Scotland has some success in those extremely important areas, but I sometimes get slightly confused when we say that we want to put numeracy along with literacy at the heart of education. I do not disagree with that aim, but numeracy must not be narrowly defined as the ability to add or subtract or to deal with a problem that one has been told how to solve. In an economy that will be based on advanced technologies and quality economic development, it is important that we have skilled workers who have the problem-solving skills that are developed by the study of maths and science. Again, we need to consider how we present those subjects to our young people, who will be the skilled workforce of tomorrow, in a way that engages them and allows them to develop those extremely important problem-solving skills.

Let me end by saying that I am pleased that we have returned to the subject of "ambitious, excellent schools". Sometimes we have apple-pie debates that we could do without, but debates on annual reports on what progress the Executive is making on its policies are extremely important. I welcome today's debate and I welcome the advances that have been made towards achieving the goals that were set out a year ago.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

This has been a wide-ranging debate, with interesting contributions from all sides.

Let me start on a consensual note—it will not last—by welcoming this morning's announcement by the Minister for Transport and Telecommunications on the route for the Aberdeen western peripheral road. The route that has been chosen will mean that the future of the Camphill school in Aberdeen will not be threatened. Like many other members, I met some of the residents and teachers from that area when they came to the Parliament a few months ago. One cannot but be impressed by the quality of education that is offered in that setting, so the fact that today's announcement will safeguard the school's future is very much to be welcomed.

We support the principle of "ambitious, excellent schools". We welcome the steps that the Executive has taken towards greater devolved school management and autonomy, modest though they may be. We also accept that, across the piece, the general standard of education in Scotland is good and that most of our children receive a good quality of education.

However, there are problems. As the minister acknowledged in his opening remarks, too many young people leave school with too little. The problem is that those who miss out, who do not have an education system that fits them for their future lives, tend to be those from less privileged backgrounds. In effect, the current system militates against such children accessing a better quality of education. We must do more for those groups.

On this side of the chamber, we believe that we need a more diverse system that provides more choice and more local decision making. We should not shy away from philanthropists who want to assist education in Scotland. Why do we not set up new types of schools? For example, why do we not have a city academy in Glasgow to give more opportunities to the youngsters in that city who are not fulfilling their potential? As James Douglas-Hamilton said, we should perhaps consider some of the interesting ideas that are being developed by the Labour Government south of the border and adopt those that work.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

How does the member reconcile his comments about the need to help those from disadvantaged backgrounds with the evidence that the so-called increase in choice of admissions policies in England militates against disadvantaged pupils getting into the better schools?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

That is an extraordinary intervention. All the evidence suggests that the city academies in the industrial centres are delivering a quality of education that is far above that which was delivered by the previous schools. Such academies are better for youngsters from disadvantaged backgrounds who receive a far better quality of education than was ever available to them in the past. Mr Smith should look at the facts.

On the subject of so-called league tables, which was raised by several speakers including Bill Butler, I think that it is, frankly, a bizarre idea that we should seek to withhold information from parents. Of course we all want better information, but surely even partial information is better than none. Why keep parents in the dark? Indeed, why assume that parents are daft? If one goes to any town or suburb of any large city in Scotland, one can stop people on the street and ask them what the schools in the area are like. From the conversations that people have with their children, neighbours and others, people know exactly what their local schools are like. They know what the quality of education is, what the standards of discipline are and how the kids behave themselves inside and outside school. Everybody has that information, so the idea that we will achieve anything by seeking to withhold information is, frankly, rather daft.

An interesting debate has developed on the teaching of history in schools. I have some sympathy for the SNP amendment and, being a student of Scottish history, I enjoyed Mr MacAskill's tutorial on the subject. History is an important part of our national identity, so of course our youngsters need to know about Scottish history. However, history should not be restricted to Scottish history. We cannot afford to be insular and inward looking. We need to know about British history and world history, too.

I have a vision—or nightmare—that children in an SNP Scotland would be force-fed all the dismal parts of Scottish history. According to Mr Gibson—who sadly, is no longer in the chamber—certain parts of history must be taught to all children. My suspicion is that those will be the clearances, the collapse of the Darien scheme and the Hanoverian crushing of Highland culture after 1745. The SNP wants people to be taught all the negative aspects of Scottish history to perpetuate the idea of Scots as victims who are hard done by.

In teaching Scottish history, we should celebrate it. We should look at positive aspects such as the great Scots, and the many things that we have achieved over the centuries, such as our contribution to the development of the British empire. More than 100 years after he died, the great Scot David Livingstone is still celebrated in Africa for his humanity and his Christian concern for the people he met. Surely that would be a more responsible approach than the rather narrow-minded view that is put about by some SNP members.

In conclusion, if the Executive is serious about creating ambitious, excellent schools, it will have our support. We believe that a more diverse and open system with more school independence is required if we are to have an education system that meets the needs of Scotland's youngsters, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

This morning's debate has been interesting, as befits the importance of the subject matter. Let me make it clear that the SNP does not take great issue with the sentiments that are expressed in the Executive motion, although we question the minister's claims of

"significant progress made over the last year".

It was interesting to witness how Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's advocacy of Tony Blair's reforms in English schools was so firmly rejected by the minister. However, we make no apologies for focusing our concerns on the fact that, six years into what is at least a measure of self-government for Scotland, little or no progress has been made in embedding Scottish history, heritage and culture within the school curriculum.

The minister himself has heightened that concern with his ill-judged remarks about history teaching in S1 and S2. Although we acknowledge his retraction, he has a long way to go to convince us that he is in any way committed to the reform that is being demanded by ordinary Scots and by the Scots academics and literati who presented their St Andrew's day petition to the Parliament yesterday. That is not a minor matter that can be dismissed as lightly as Iain Smith dismissed it.

For Iain Smith's benefit, and for that of his colleague Robert Brown, I emphasise the need to overcome the problem of the Scottish cringe. Indeed, Murdo Fraser was at it again in his speech. I refer to the notion that concentrating on anything Scottish is somehow parochial or inward looking, despite the fact that the Scots, of all people, can be regarded as among the first citizens of the world, and that, arguably, they have contributed more than any other nation—certainly of comparable size—to the development of the modern world.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will Mr Ingram give way?

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

No, thank you. The Liberal Democrats—and indeed Murdo Fraser—are clearly still part of that problem.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Come on—Mr Ingram must give way.

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

No, I certainly shall not. I need to press on.

We agree with the minister when he says that changes to the school curriculum will be the key liberators in opening up the space for schools to innovate, inspire and drive up performance. We are convinced that, for young Scots to become effective contributors to society, successful learners, responsible citizens and confident individuals, they must be armed with the knowledge of who they are. As Tom Devine wrote,

"Historical study is a necessary part of the formation of citizens in modern democracies. It is the memory of society, teaching us to understand how we came to be the way we are"

and, therefore, how to shape and change our future.

As Kenny MacAskill eloquently stated, a lack of self-confidence and self-esteem is a feature of Scottish life, which must be addressed by our education system. Until now, however, our schools, far from addressing that problem, have been reinforcing it with their cursory treatment of the experience of being Scottish. Let us take the teaching of history, for example. The national story should be the academic spine that supports the consideration of European and world developments, yet many pupils can go through their school lives without being exposed to that story at all. I suggest that most of us here have learned more about Scottish history from books that we have read since school than we ever did at school. Even now, the guidelines for five to 14-year-olds stipulate that the teaching of one topic per year with a specific Scottish focus will satisfy the need to examine the Scottish context.

That disregard for the Scottish experience in history teaching is bad enough. Thanks to the St Andrew's day petition from our writers and poets, we are reminded that such disregard goes right across the curriculum. It is particularly pronounced in English language teaching. Why is it that no Scottish book is compulsory at any level until advanced higher? What kind of message does that send to our children? Does it tell them that Scottish achievements in literature are so inconsequential that they are not fit to be taught in our schools?

We believe that Scottish history and culture should be mandatory elements in the school curriculum up to the age of 16. No other European country would allow its children to be left in ignorance of their country as we do, and have done for many generations, much to our disadvantage. We are dismayed that the minister appears to have set his face against directing the curriculum review that way, and that he has instead been seduced by arguments for more pupil choice in schools. He seems to have missed the point about the damage done to subjects such as history because of that approach, and he has failed to recognise that the sort of direction that we are suggesting would offer a means to improve access to the curriculum for all and to equalise opportunities.

The minister might be content with the progress that he is making in modernising Scotland's schools, but we in the SNP beg to differ. The current curriculum review will be the key driver for change, but it is not radical enough, and it will not tackle the scandal that Scottish history, heritage and culture remain closed books in our schools. I urge Parliament to support our amendment.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

This has been an interesting debate, which has been shot through with insights from all sides of the chamber. As I think Adam Ingram indicated at the start of his closing speech, the truth is that there has been no substantial attack on the central themes of the Executive's education programme by any of the Opposition parties.

Presiding Officer, let me introduce you to Flat Stanley. This Flat Stanley in my hand belongs to Mark at Abbeyhill Primary School in Edinburgh, where I went on Tuesday to launch a global citizenship pack that has been developed by classroom teachers in association with the Scottish development education centre—Scotdec. At Abbeyhill, we were treated to musical performance of a high order, which had clearly been stimulated by the presence of a regular music specialist. Dare I point out to Fiona Hyslop that that has enhanced the activities of the ordinary teachers in that particular primary school? We were also entertained by dancing, stories and drama—in the best Scottish bardic tradition—from different classes.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I, too, took part in a Parliament outreach visit, to Hilton Primary School in Inverness, which is losing its drama teacher and its music teacher. Visiting teachers are also disappearing. That is because of the shortage of teachers. The school that the minister visited might be lucky, but the fact is that, although the youth music initiative is opening up experiences to kids, there are no teachers to follow it through. That is the problem.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

There will obviously be different positions around the country when it comes to the immediate availability of teachers but, having said that, there is no doubt about the general thrust, which is that there are increasing numbers of teachers. That is moving us towards our target of 53,000, not least in the subjects of drama, arts, music and PE, which we have been hearing about throughout the debate.

At the school that I visited—and this is echoed at many schools that both I and the Minister for Education and Young People have visited throughout Scotland—the children were clearly proud of their school. They were motivated, well-mannered and caring. They were a credit to themselves, to their parents and to their teachers.

Flat Stanleys—along with Horace the bear—were sent off by the schoolchildren to Africa, India and other parts of Asia, Australia, North America, South America and different parts of Europe. Flat Stanley met children in those countries there. Mark's Flat Stanley here, who is actually called Ken, has come to the Scottish Parliament today having been to Toronto; he has also been scuba diving in Egypt. He came back with a new suit of clothes and photographs of his travels. Flat Stanleys offer a brilliant way to establish links with other countries and to develop some understanding of the lives of children there, as is happening in many schools in Scotland using increasingly innovative practices.

The SNP's position in the debate is substantially founded on myth. Every nationalist party has to have myth. The main myth today is that the Scottish Executive is about to abolish history as a separate discipline. Making history history would no doubt be a good soundbite for the party that was meant to be "free by 93". However, it is simply not true. What is true is that the curriculum review might well produce opportunities to consider how history, and indeed other subjects, are delivered, not least in S1 and S2, where most people agree that it is a challenge to continue to motivate and interest young people. That is what the curriculum review is about. It is not about trying to harness people to a narrow, nationalist approach; it is about having the widest possible curriculum for the future of Scotland's children.

This is not about a lack of knowledge of who we are. Young people in Scotland are not swallowing a particular view of Scotland's history and position. That is what is bothering the SNP.

Peter Peacock quoted the curriculum review document, describing how

"knowledge and understanding of the world and Scotland's place in it"

is central to our young people becoming

"successful learners, confident individuals, responsible citizens ... and effective contributors".

That clearly made the point about what the objectives are. Things are happening successfully across the system, as Frank McAveety told us. The curriculum is about engaging with people from throughout Scotland on the themes that I have been discussing. It is about significantly improving young people's experience so that they can succeed in life. It is about making space for arts, culture, drama, music and sport. Robin Harper was right to give significance to that point.

Young people are one of Scotland's greatest resources. As Peter Peacock said in opening the debate, we are in the top international education league for many of our young people, with all the significance that that has for the Executive's top priority of growing the economy. That did not happen by accident; it happened because of the dedicated, professional and highly motivated work of teachers and other staff in our schools and because of the work of the young people themselves.

That is in contrast to the position in the past, to which the Conservatives want to take us back, when teachers felt embittered, embattled, hard done to and hard done by. Those days are gone, thanks to our investment in the profession following the McCrone inquiry and thanks to the sense of purpose, the leadership, the investment in the school estate and the care that has gone into nurturing the best professional practice of innovation and motivation in schools.

In the visits that I and many members throughout the chamber make around Scotland, it is clear that the atmosphere in schools has changed dramatically. They are bright, exciting and dynamic places that are brimming with ideas and innovation. They are filled with enthusiastic staff: head teachers, teachers, classroom assistants and auxiliary personnel, of whom there are more. They are better—they are better trained than they have ever been—and they are proud to work in schools. The increased dynamism from the major increase in new young and enthusiastic teachers who are being trained and recruited into schools gives us the opportunity to provide a much-enriched experience by reducing class sizes, supplying specialist teachers and helping those with specific support needs.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Will the minister give way?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

No—I am sorry; I have limited time.

A key part of our vision is to empower teachers to reach new heights of professional excellence. Hundreds of teachers and head teachers have been involved in early discussion on the curriculum review and thousands more will be involved as the review develops. An empowered profession that helps to shape the future for our schools—that is what devolved school management means.

We are sailing with a fair wind and teachers like what they have heard so far. They are being asked questions and they like being involved. Excitement is felt about the idea, which has not been mentioned today, of liberating science teachers to discuss what makes science interesting, thrilling and important in the world. Teachers in the expressive arts are captivated by the prospect of working creatively across the curriculum. Thinking about good learning and teaching is just as important as considering structures and guidelines, so our plan for the immediate future is to stimulate debate about why change is needed, the extent of that change and how it might happen.

We heard from the Conservatives the familiar mantra of support for the changes that the Labour Government in London proposes. Far be it from me to defend those changes; Iain Smith did a good job on them and Frank McAveety also commented on them. The point is that the system in England is different. What is appropriate there may or may not be appropriate in the different Scottish context. It is slightly bizarre that the Conservative party's main contribution was to advocate adopting the approach of the Labour Government in London. That was undershot by Alex Johnstone's comments, which have been touched on, about the effects that those proposals might have on rural schools in Scotland.

Robin Harper was right to talk about modern studies. I share with him a commitment to the future of modern studies in our schools. The subject is available in almost every school, with only the occasional exception. It is important and is a separate discipline from history. There is no suggestion of amalgamating the subjects.

Iain Smith talked about the aim that every school in Scotland should achieve excellence. The Conservatives fall short on that, because they concentrate on some schools and forget the effect on other schools in the vicinity of such concentration. We want excellence for all schools and we are very much going along the lines of achieving that.

A report that we received from the Office for Standards in Education contained the interesting statistic that teaching in one in four schools in England was only satisfactory or poor, whereas the quality of teaching in Scotland was poor or unsatisfactory in only about one in 14 schools in the past seven years. That point is significant. We must deal with the schools that are not as successful as others, but there is a difference of kind between the position in Scotland and that in England.

Other interesting points were made by Gordon Jackson about the importance of pre-school provision; by Ken Macintosh about leadership, as emphasised by the position at Barrhead High School; and by Donald Gorrie about informal education against the background of the youth work strategy, which we will adopt shortly.

As I have said before, we have a great generation of children and young people who will do great things in the world and will make the world and their local communities better places for their presence. Our challenge, on which we are increasingly focused, is to ensure that all our young people have the opportunities, notwithstanding sometimes difficult family backgrounds, to develop their personalities, their talents and their abilities to their fullest potential, to realise their ambitions for themselves and Scotland and to contribute to Scotland's success in the challenging world of the 21st century. I urge support for the Executive's motion.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — General Questions

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what concerns it has in respect of the provision of bus services in the Scottish Borders. (S2O-8285)

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

In the Scottish Borders, as in the rest of the country, my colleague Tavish Scott's concern is to see continuous improvement in bus services.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Is the minister aware that in many communities in the Borders there is next to no bus service and the oldest fleet is used? Those factors contribute to preventing people in the Borders, where the lowest wages in Scotland are paid, from breaking the cycle of social exclusion and finding work. Against that background and the recent derisory 2.9 per cent increase in grant-aided expenditure to Scottish Borders Council—1.9 per cent of which is ear marked for ring-fenced Scottish Executive commitments—where is the flexibility to improve public transport in the Borders and therefore social inclusion?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Christine Grahame will be aware that the Scottish Borders did well from the first phase of the bus route development fund and received three awards that were worth £1.182 million. We have provided funding, including through the bus route development grant, to support bus services in the Scottish Borders. I am very aware that local members lobbied hard to ensure that Scottish Borders Council succeeded in obtaining that money. As a result of that investment, several new services will come on stream.

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

Is the minister aware that the new services will run in my constituency? They include not only the X95 from Hawick through to Gala and Edinburgh, but the 62 to Peebles, the new buses for which were received this past week. That will improve services in response to many complaints from my constituents in the past few years. Will he ensure that those new services are advertised widely to people in the Borders community, particularly people who do not use buses and who should be attracted from their cars on to the improving bus services in the Borders?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

As Mr Purvis is aware, the introduction of new low-floor buses and the increase in service frequency from hourly to half-hourly between Hawick and Edinburgh via the A7 corridor will be widely welcomed in the Borders. I am sure that the local council, in conjunction with the bus company, will do everything possible to ensure that constituents in those areas take advantage of the new investment by the Scottish Executive and the new bus service that is its result.

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

To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to respond to Her Majesty's Government's consultation on ship-to-ship oil transfers in the Firth of Forth. (S2O-8250)

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

The Scottish Executive expects to respond to the consultation once it is available.

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

Will the minister confirm that the consultation is about the adequacy of a plan to deal with potential oil spills and not about whether the proposals should proceed in the first place? Will the Executive's response to the Maritime and Coastguard Agency include advice from the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage? Will the Executive stand with the local authorities and communities around the Forth to make it clear that protecting the sensitive natural habitats in the Forth, including two designated special protection areas, is of such importance that ship-to-ship oil transfers should be refused?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I welcome the consultation and I am very aware of the concerns that various parties, including Scottish Natural Heritage, have expressed. The Executive will of course participate in the consultation. We have not seen the documentation yet. SNH will of course advise the Scottish ministers on the natural heritage implications of the application before responding to the consultation. For its part, the Executive will refrain from responding to the Maritime and Coastguard Agency until we have had the opportunity to consider advice from SNH. I urge everybody who has concerns about the application to respond to the consultation.

Chris Ballance (Green, South of Scotland)

I am sure that we will respond to the consultation on the Forth oil issue, but it will take place in the absence of statutory regulation of ship-to-ship oil transfers. The United Kingdom Department for Transport has now informed us that such regulations will be the subject of a second consultation process in the new year. Why is a consultation on the proposed ship-to-ship transfers in the Forth being held now, when the national regulations are to be changed? What role will the Executive play in ensuring that the new regulations meet Scotland's responsibilities to safeguard areas that are protected under the habitats directive?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

The member must address his questions to the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, which has responsibility for that area. We will continue to take advice from SNH on the possible implications for natural heritage in Scotland.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

To ask the Scottish Executive what support it is putting in place to help deliver care for elderly people. (S2O-8309)

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

The Executive is making provision for expenditure by local authorities on community care totalling £1.6 billion in the current financial year. Of that, around £1 billion will be spent on older people.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

Is the minister aware of the fact that, in spite of the record levels of funding, authorities such as East Renfrewshire Council are experiencing difficulties? Elderly people who have been assessed as needing care are having to wait for it, either in a hospital bed that they are taking up inappropriately, or at home, in which case their family often struggles desperately to cope. Does he share my belief that although it is the responsibility of local authorities to manage their own budgets, if it is clear that demand is outwith a local authority's control, the Executive should explore every avenue to assist that authority and thereby help to support our vulnerable elderly people when they are at their weakest?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

When I published the latest delayed discharge figures yesterday, I said that I thought that it was important that health boards and local authorities continued to work together to address situations in which people who should really be able to leave hospital, either to enter a care home or to return home, are delayed in hospital. I recognise what Ken Macintosh said about people who have been assessed as needing personal or nursing care. We are keen to work with boards and local authorities to address situations in which they have encountered difficulties in delivering their responsibilities in that regard and we will continue to do so.

Janis Hughes (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

To ask the Scottish Executive how it will publicise entitlement cards before 1 April 2006 to those eligible for free concessionary travel. (S2O-8300)

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

The first phase—the current phase—comprises local publicity and aims to encourage card holders to apply now for the new card, which they will need to access the Executive's Scotland-wide free bus travel scheme for older and disabled people. In the new year, there will be Scotland-wide publicity to encourage everyone who will be eligible for the scheme—card holders and non-card holders alike—to apply for a card.

Janis Hughes (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

It is vital that we do everything that we can to publicise entitlement cards as widely as possible before next year. Does the Executive have any plans to extend that facility in future, so that entitlement cards could be used for purposes other than travel?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

The Executive will consider that proposal. As the member might be aware, we are developing proposals for a young people's scheme and we hope to make an announcement on that shortly.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Question number 5 was not lodged.

Cathy Peattie (Labour, Falkirk East)

To ask the Scottish Executive what steps have been taken to implement the Kerr report's recommendation "that the NHS in Scotland seeks to build on some of the success stories in Scotland (such as the Braveheart Project), and looks at what can be learned from the Department of Health's Expert Patient Project, with a view to developing a more systematic approach to self-management." (S2O-8319)

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

The Kerr report and our response, "Delivering for Health", recognise that innovative self-care initiatives are an increasingly important way of supporting people who have long-term conditions to maintain their independence and to enhance their well-being.

During 2006, we will assist with the establishment of a Scottish long-term conditions alliance, one of the main aims of which will be to support self-management. We will work with the alliance to ensure that patients and their carers have the skills and knowledge that they need and someone whom they can contact, if required; to develop mentors and expert patients to act as advisers and role models; and to pilot home-based information technology to support self-management at home. I expect all NHS boards to be providing holistic care of that nature to the most vulnerable people with long-term conditions by the end of 2007.

Cathy Peattie (Labour, Falkirk East)

The minister will be aware that that is happening already in the Forth valley area, in the work of the Braveheart project. With the support of Forth Valley NHS Board and with a team of committed volunteers, the Braveheart project is working successfully with local people with heart conditions. It is involved in mentoring projects and in helping people to manage their illness and change their lifestyles. Will the Executive consider encouraging other health boards across Scotland to roll out projects like the Braveheart project?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

Of course, the substance behind the pilot was to ensure that methodologies such as Braveheart work. I am pleased with the results from the project. Currently, it receives resources not only from the Executive but from the Big Lottery Fund. However, the future of the Braveheart project will, fairly soon, be the subject of discussion at the Forth Valley NHS Board. The project underpins what we want to achieve around self-management and the idea of bringing together patients, their carers and the community in order for us to manage long-term health conditions better.

On illnesses such as asthma and arthritis, it is also encouraging to note that we are developing similar models with organisations such as Arthritis Care. The Braveheart project is an excellent example of what can be achieved.

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to increase traffic-flow monitoring in the south of Scotland. (S2O-8248)

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

The Scottish Executive currently has no plans to increase traffic-flow measurement on trunks roads or motorways in the south of Scotland.

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The minister will be aware of concern right across the south of Scotland from Dumfries and Galloway to the Borders about the impact of increasing traffic volume on the adequacy of the road network. He will also be aware of the changing patterns of road use and the increased willingness of people to commute for longer distances than was the case in the past. Does he therefore feel that the current network of traffic monitoring stations is adequate for the purpose for which it was put in place?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Clearly, the member will be aware of the substantial investment that the Executive is about to make in the Borders rail link. I have no doubt that he is very supportive of that. The project is aimed at reducing the amount of traffic on the roads in the south of Scotland. I think that the project will be welcomed by everyone across the chamber.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I remind the minister of my correspondence with the Minister for Transport and Telecommunications about the need for a pedestrian crossing on the A75 at Springholm. Does the minister accept that current traffic surveys and monitoring of traffic flows tend to ignore the real problem of the traffic peaks that coincide with ferry landings at Stranraer? Will he agree to ask his colleague, the Minister for Transport and Telecommunications, to revisit the issue as soon as possible?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I am certainly willing to pass the member's concerns on to my colleague Tavish Scott. I am aware of concerns that constituents in my own area have about pedestrian crossings.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

To ask the Scottish Executive what action is required to upgrade the Haudagain roundabout in Aberdeen. (S2O-8272)

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

The Executive and the north-east Scotland transport partnership have jointly funded a study into possible measures to reduce congestion at the Haudagain roundabout. Further detailed appraisal work is required and we are working closely with NESTRANS to produce that.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

In the light of the delay announced today to the Aberdeen western peripheral route, will the minister accept that responsibility for this vital part of the north-east transport infrastructure is with the Scottish Executive and will remain so at least until 2011? Can we have rather more action than studies?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I am astonished at Mr Adam's response in light of the view of my colleague Mr Tavish Scott, the Minister for Transport and Telecommunications, on the matter. This morning, he announced the new route for the Aberdeen western peripheral route. It will combine the Milltimber Brae section with the addition of a fast link from Stonehaven north that will take traffic from the already congested A90. I am sure that members across the chamber will welcome the coalition's commitment to tackling the transport challenges that face the north-east and will recognise that this innovative solution will bring a further economic boost to the area as well as relieving the congestion at the roundabout that Mr Adam raised.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Very welcome as the announcement is that at last the peripheral route is moving forward, can the minister assure me that the two components to the announcement will not be so closely coupled as to delay the very real benefits that my constituents to the north of Aberdeen—who are without the benefit of access to railway—so desperately await?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I will ensure that Stewart Stevenson's concerns are passed on to the Minister for Transport and Telecommunications. I hope that, unlike his colleague Brian Adam, he will welcome today's announcement, because it will tackle the transport problems that face the north-east and, as I said, will provide a substantial economic boost to the area.

Charlie Gordon (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S20-8117 by Rhona Brankin on 17 November 2005, whether its Environment and Rural Affairs Department will ensure that full account is taken of other exceptional development costs on constrained sites, such as poor ground conditions and/or contaminated land, to avoid disincentives to the development of brownfield sites. (S2O-8298)

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Where Scottish Water is responsible for bearing the costs of work, either because it relates to strategic capacity or because it is part of its environmental programme, it will bear all the costs, even when they are exacerbated by poor ground conditions. Where the work is local infrastructure, the balance of the cost beyond Scottish Water's reasonable cost contribution will be for the developer or other appropriate authority to bear.

Charlie Gordon (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

Is the minister aware of worries in urban regeneration circles that the introduction next year of charges to developers on sites where additional local sewerage capacity is required could indirectly increase development pressures on greenfield sites?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I am aware of some concerns. The member will be aware that the Scottish Executive has just consulted on draft regulations to clarify the mechanisms for calculating the reasonable costs that Scottish Water is required to contribute towards new connections to its networks. The draft regulations clarify that Scottish Water will continue to make significant contributions to development and that developers will pay costs above those contributions.

I am aware that Glasgow City Council responded to the consultation on the draft reasonable costs regulations, and I know that it highlighted the particular infrastructure needs in Glasgow and the high costs that ground conditions could lead to for developers. The council's response is being considered alongside all the other consultation responses.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

On a point of order. Presiding Officer, would you care to comment on the fact that today four questions to do with transport—1, 4, 7 and 8—were down for answer, but the Minister for Transport and Telecommunications was not here to respond to them? I know that he has another engagement today, and that the Deputy Minister for Finance, Public Service Reform and Parliamentary Business stood in for him and did his best. However, for some other member of the Executive to flounder in giving answers is no substitute for questions being answered by the person who is in charge and responsible.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

You have made your point. There is collective responsibility in the Government. The issue is a matter for it.

I have to suspend for two minutes because we are out of questions. I ask colleagues to note that two questions were not lodged, which prevented members who could otherwise have put questions from doing so.

First Minister's Question Time

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-1956)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

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

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

The First Minister has said that there will be no approval for new nuclear power stations in Scotland until the issue of waste disposal has been resolved. For clarity, is the unresolved issue of waste his only objection to new nuclear power stations, or does he—like me and, I think, like his coalition partners—think that there are other reasons to reject nuclear power?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

A whole range of issues must be taken into account in the United Kingdom Government's energy review and in any consideration that we may give in Scotland, both during that energy review and afterwards, to the long-term decisions that are required. It is a fundamental point that waste issues need to be resolved in advance of any consideration of further development of nuclear power stations in Scotland, but I am sure that there are a number of other issues that we will also want to consider, not least of which is the financial implications.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I am glad that the First Minister accepts that waste disposal, although very important, is only one factor in the debate about nuclear power. Does he realise that the Prime Minister's energy review—starting right now—will look at the other factors, including cost, safety and whether nuclear power is needed at all to meet our energy needs? Does not the Scottish Executive have a duty to take a view and to make a submission on those other issues as well? What are the First Minister's views on the cost effectiveness of, the safety of and, indeed, the necessity for new nuclear power stations?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

There is a need for a reasoned and balanced debate on those issues. We cannot ignore the fact—it would be foolish to ignore it in the debate—that nearly 40 per cent of our electricity generation currently comes from nuclear power. We should, however, never ignore the fact that those nuclear power stations in Scotland produce waste for which there is, at the moment, no firm solution or resolution. It is therefore important that we examine the issue of waste but that we also take part in the wider debate. I know that that is not necessarily accepted by the Scottish National Party as a legitimate or adequate role for us, but Parliament and the Executive have significant powers over the development of any further nuclear or other electricity-generating stations in Scotland. We have significant powers over the planning conditions that might be imposed on any such developments, and we should use those powers reasonably, following a decent period of debate about all the issues.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I did not ask the First Minister what the issues were; I asked him for his view on the issues. I know that he wants to sit on the fence on all those issues, but cannot he see that Tony Blair has this week kicked the fence down? Cost, safety and necessity are up for discussion right now—they cannot be ducked until some later stage.

Let me make my position clear to the First Minister. I think that nuclear power is costly, dangerous and—with the right investment in other clean technologies—completely unnecessary. Charles Kennedy has said that he cannot envisage the circumstances in which the Liberal Democrats would vote for new nuclear power stations. What is missing is the First Minister's view on all those issues, so I shall ask him again: what is his view on those central issues of cost, safety and necessity?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I think that there are issues that need to be looked at in terms of the historic costs of nuclear power in Scotland and elsewhere. I think that there are serious issues in relation to the disposal of wastes from nuclear power, but I also think that there are serious issues about the long-term security of the energy supply in Scotland and the cost to customers. It may be adequate for the nationalists to have a simplistic solution for all of that, but when one is in Government one has to have a reasonable response that looks at all those issues.

We know that the SNP has difficulty in making even the simplest of hard decisions and that there are about 18 different policies on its back benches and front benches about wind farms, depending on the location of the individual wind farm or the lack or otherwise of a strategy. That is not good enough when one is in Government. One has to have a proper, thought-through policy that takes into account all the options and the reality of today's situation, and that is exactly what we will do.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

The First Minister misrepresented the SNP last week. Before his relationship with the facts becomes any more strained, I will make the SNP position clear. The following statement sums up our position. We

"support the development of alternative sources of energy",

but

"they need to be situated in the correct place."

That was a quotation from Tony Blair when he objected to a wind farm in his constituency last year. If the First Minister has a problem with that sensible position, why does he not take the matter up with his boss? It is one of the biggest issues that the country faces. Should not the First Minister engage with the debate instead of hiding behind a form of words? Will the First Minister break the habit of a lifetime and show some leadership?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Look at the SNP. Let us talk about quotations—I have some great ones here. The SNP's 2003 manifesto said that it wanted Scotland to become

"the green powerhouse of Europe".

Rob Gibson has suggested that there should be a wind tax—a tax on renewable power. Roseanna Cunningham says that there should be

"a more time-limited suspension of applications"—[Official Report, 6 November 2003; c 3104.]

for onshore wind farms. Fergus Ewing says that wind farms are "visually obtrusive" and, therefore, not

"a truly green form of renewable energy".

Richard Lochhead—who has had a few policies on this over the years—says that Scotland should aspire to be

"the world leader in renewable energy",

whereas Angus MacNeil, in the Western Isles, has said:

"The wind will always be there and there is no need for a headlong rush into this without enough forethought."

Never were so many policies held by so few.

When the Executive partnership discusses energy policy, we discuss it seriously. We will take a reasoned opinion for the long-term benefit of Scotland—for Scottish consumers and for the security of the Scottish energy supply. We will do so in relation to nuclear power only after the issue of waste disposal is resolved; however, we will take part in the national debate. We accept the responsibilities of Government, not the irresponsibility of Opposition.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues he intends to discuss. (S2F-1957)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I met the Prime Minister on Monday evening and we discussed a range of issues that were interesting and, of course, important to the people of Scotland.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I ask the First Minister how many drug rehabilitation places there are in Scotland.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I do not have that number with me. However, the announcements that were made by the justice ministers this summer will secure a significant increase in the number of drug rehabilitation places in Scotland. In particular, there will be an increase in the number of places that encourage abstinence to enable people to withdraw from reliance on drugs and on forms of drug substitution in a way that helps them to rebuild their lives in the community. That is a specific commitment that the Executive gave when we launched the review of our drugs policy. It is a commitment that has been delivered with additional resources and clarity of direction in policy that has not always existed. We will ensure, through allocation of resources, that we deliver better services for drug users and—which is more important for Scotland—get more drug users off drugs completely and back into the community.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

That response was McConnellspeak for, "I haven't a clue." That is not surprising; I have not got a clue either and, as previous parliamentary answers have disclosed, no one knows how many rehabilitation places there are in Scotland because the information is not held centrally. To help the First Minister, I will move to an area in which we have some facts.

According to a parliamentary answer that was given to me on 15 November, 411,399 methadone scripts were issued in Scotland during the year to March 2005. We know, from previous parliamentary answers, that the figure is increasing rapidly. The projection is that in 2012—only seven years away—we will be issuing more than a million such scripts a year. How can the First Minister possibly be content with that situation? Is he aware that, if we continue down that road, we will have to provide not only care for the elderly, but old people's homes for methadone addicts, such as exist in Holland? Does the First Minister agree with Professor Neil McKeganey, of the University of Glasgow, that that is something

"that we should seek to avoid at all costs in Scotland"?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

A variety of views have been expressed about Annabel Goldie's recent expressions of policy on drugs, methadone and drug rehabilitation. Most of the views that I have read have been extremely critical and although I do not have them with me today, I would be very happy to ensure that they are passed on to Miss Goldie so that she can have a good look at them.

When we consider the issue, it is important that we take a serious and responsible attitude. I do not want people in Scotland to be on drugs or on methadone, and I certainly do not want to see their numbers increasing. I also want to make sure that we take advice from experts. If it is the case that in some instances, as part of a rehabilitation programme—and I stress that—a move from drugs to methadone is a step on the right road for a drug addict, we should not ask them not to take that step.

We need more rehabilitation places. We have allocated the resources for those and they will be delivered. We need more places where drug addicts in Scotland can get off drugs completely and be supported not just in rehabilitation but when they are back in the community. We also need to provide several routes for people to make their way back into the community. To achieve that, methadone will sometimes be part of the solution. However, we should not rely on it for the long term.

We should not assume that the number of people in Scotland who use methadone will increase. I agree with what I think are the principles behind what Annabel Goldie has been saying about the issue, but I do not agree that we should adopt a simplistic approach to it.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

If the First Minister had given that answer during the first six months of devolution, it might not have been acceptable, but it would have been understandable. Six years down the line, that answer is utterly intolerable. The fact is that we need a sea change in our attitude to drug abuse so that instead of managing drug addiction, we help addicts to become drug-free. Surely that must start with a new attitude towards the resources that are deployed for drugs rehabilitation places.

Will the First Minister give a very simple commitment? Will he find out what facilities exist in Scotland and, as has been done in England, set up a central directory so that addicts and their families can find out where the facilities are?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

As I said earlier, I do not have the information with me but I would be happy to provide for Miss Goldie the detailed information that we have, as well as the recent announcements that were made to Parliament about the extension of resources that will allow for more rehabilitation places in more parts of Scotland in the years to come.

That is only part of the answer. Yes: we need more rehabilitation places and more of those places need to encourage an abstinence-based approach. More of those places also need to ensure that people are supported when they go back into the community. Some of those programmes will involve methadone and we should not deny that it is part of the solution.

We are doing a number of other things. The drugs courts, drug treatment and testing orders, and the new arrest referral and mandatory testing regime that we are bringing in will all ensure that we identify drug addicts earlier and that we are able to insist that they receive treatment and work towards rehabilitation. To suggest in any way that the issue is not being taken seriously is very misleading, and I hope that if I am able to provide Miss Goldie with all the information about all the activities and actions that are currently being pursued, she will be more reassured that our policies will be more effective in the future.

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland and what issues he intends to discuss. (S2F-1969)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I met the Secretary of State earlier this week and discussed a range of issues.

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

This week, the nations of the world are meeting in Montréal to discuss climate change. The message is loud and clear: Government leaders need to stop making climate-wrecking decisions and to move away from unsustainable development that is centred on burning more and more fossil fuels. How can the First Minister and his Liberal Democrat Minister for Transport and Telecommunications possibly justify this morning's decision on the Aberdeen western peripheral route? How can that decision be consistent with sustainable development?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I genuinely think that, in order to deliver sustainable development in Scotland, we must reduce congestion in our cities. One of the primary reasons for developing the new bypass in Aberdeen is to ensure that there is less congestion in the city centre. I hope that that will have a positive impact on the climate not just of Aberdeen but elsewhere.

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

All the evidence to date shows that road building generates more traffic and pollution. Indeed, the M74 inquiry proved that. It sounds as if the First Minister has made up his mind on the Aberdeen peripheral route. Given the way he swept aside the independent inquiry report on the M74, what confidence can anyone have that he will not do the same again after the proposals for the western peripheral route go through a costly publicly funded inquiry?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The minister with responsibility for transport and his predecessor were both involved in wide consultations on the route, and Tavish Scott has now come to a reasoned judgment on the route for the road. We made a firm commitment on the bypass in our capital programme for transport improvements in Scotland over the next few years. I believe that the route is important for the north-east's economy and that it will reduce congestion in Aberdeen, thereby improving the environment and the quality of life of people who live and work in the city.

I disagree with the Green party on this matter. Sometimes its opposition to all road improvements and road building in Scotland runs counter to the environmental objectives that it claims to have. I make it clear that we will build roads in Scotland only where they are justified, where they will improve the economy and where they will be part of the sustainable development programme. I should also point out that this is all part of a wider integrated transport policy in which more money is being invested in rail and other forms of public transport than has been the case for a very long time.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive will make representations to the Secretary of State for Defence regarding the retention of hackles, in the interests of Army recruitment in Scotland. (S2F-1958)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and other members know that, last year, we made a number of representations to the Ministry of Defence on that. The ministry took those representations into account in its final decisions, which were also announced last year.

On Tuesday, Lord James Douglas-Hamilton announced that he will retire from Parliament in 2007. If you will allow me to do so, Presiding Officer, I wish to take this opportunity to say publicly that he has been an outstanding member of this Scottish Parliament. I am delighted that he chose to serve here and wish him all the very best in serving in the House of Lords. [Applause.]

James (Conservative, Lothians)

I thank the First Minister very much for his reply, but I ask him to recall that on 28 October 2004 he said in the chamber:

"the identities of the six Scottish regiments should be preserved, because they are important for Scotland and for local communities throughout Scotland."—[Official Report, 28 October 2004; c 11304.]

Does he agree that, whatever modern operational requirements might be, to wipe out some of the last vestiges of Scottish identity will damage local recruiting and will lead to some severe murmurings among people like me, who once had the honour to wear the black hackle of the Cameronians along with—if I may say so—a great many of the First Minister's constituents from Motherwell and Wishaw?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Last year, when the Ministry of Defence announced its decisions, I said that although I was pleased that some of the regiments' identities would be retained—I know that the current objective is to retain the hackle in combat dress—the outcome was disappointing because the affected regiments' original identities would not be retained completely.

However, I stick by another comment that I made last year. It is important that, once such decisions are made, the regiments are prepared for their duties and are able to move forward, regardless of what anyone on any side of the chamber feels about the decisions that should have been made. I hope that we can support the new Scottish regiment, whatever members feel about the decision to create it.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

I am sure that I speak for the rest of the Scottish National Party group in associating myself with the First Minister's warm wishes to Lord James Douglas-Hamilton for his future.

I also want to associate myself with Lord James on the substance of his question to the First Minister on the regiments. In an exchange at First Minister's question time last year, the First Minister said:

"We will defend those identities strongly."—[Official Report, 28 October 2004; c 11305.]

In view of the recent announcement, has the First Minister seen the comments by Lieutenant General Sir Alistair Irwin, who drew up the blueprint for the merger and is now speaking of his "despair" and utmost "dismay" at the decision that has been announced. He makes the clear comment that, in effect, the distinctive nature of the regiments will be banished from the streets of Scotland. No more will Perthshire see the red hackle, because the Black Watch will not be permitted to use it in ceremonial dress. Does the First Minister believe that that decision in any way defends the distinctive nature of our historic regiments? If he does not, what will he say to the Secretary of State for Defence and to Westminster to get them to reverse the decision?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Representations were made last year during the debate on the issue. Those representations—not just from me, but from many other members—were crystal clear. This time last year, I expressed in the chamber our disappointment at the extent to which the identities of the historic regiments would be retained in the new regiment. However, I understand that the hackles will be worn when the soldiers are in combat gear, which they do for the majority of time that they spend both at home and on active duty. The hackles will be used for dress in Scotland.

My final important point relates to the future of the regiment. Whatever any of us thought about the creation of the super-regiment and the retention of the Scottish regimental identities, the reality is that there will be one Scottish regiment. It is important that that regiment is successful, is able to recruit enough troops and is able to be effective for Scotland and the United Kingdom wherever it is asked to serve. It is not wise for us to continue the debate for much longer, because at the end of the day it is important that British Army regiments are able to serve their country effectively. I remind Parliament—as I did on occasion last year, if we want to hark back to those debates—that there would be no British Army regiments in Scotland if the Scottish nationalist party had its way, as it described this week.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Roseanna Cunningham may ask a supplementary for clarification.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

Is the First Minister saying that Lieutenant General Sir Alistair Irwin is flat-out wrong when he writes that

"in the future when the Battalion parades ceremonially anywhere in your constituency the Red Hackle will not be worn"?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I do not want to be facetious, but I would expect the member of the Scottish Parliament for Perth to know that, when soldiers are in Scotland, they are not just in ceremonial dress and that there are times when they are in combat dress. When they are in combat dress, they will wear the hackle.

I do not want to defend the decisions that have been made, because they are decisions that are not for me or for the Scottish Parliament. Last November I expressed my reservations about those decisions, but I do not want members of the Parliament to misrepresent those decisions. Whatever we thought in advance about the creation of the new regiment, I want us to get behind it and to support it. One way of not supporting it is to advocate the breaking up of the British Army and having no British Army regiments in Scotland, and to advocate that Scotland and Britain should pull out of NATO so that there would be no NATO or British Army bases in Scotland. The SNP cannot come here as the great defender of the British Army to talk about regiments. One day after it got into Government in alliance with the Trotskyists, it would break up Britain and have no British Army at all.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Executive's plans are for investment in water and sewerage infrastructure. (S2F-1962)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Ministers announced ambitious objectives for Scottish Water on 9 February, including the connection of an estimated 15,000 homes a year to new infrastructure, in addition to those that will be connected to existing infrastructure. The Water Industry Commission announced yesterday that, in its view, all those objectives can be delivered in full without customer charges having to rise in real terms over the next four years.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

In the light of the sharply differing estimates in the cost of the water and sewerage infrastructure programme from the Water Industry Commission for Scotland on one hand and Scottish Water on the other, what reassurance can the First Minister give Parliament that urgent steps to remove development constraints will not be delayed by that disagreement? Will the First Minister give Parliament a commitment that there will be sufficient flexibility in the investment framework to avoid the emergence of further development constraints in the lifetime of the programme, which would be a clear impediment to the supposed top priority of the Scottish Executive, which is the growth of the Scottish economy?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

We gave a commitment last year to review the strategic objectives of Scottish Water and the long-term investment plans, and we have done that. We set clear objectives that are on target. The target for estimated additional housing outwith the existing areas where there is water infrastructure has been met.

The Water Industry Commission for Scotland has made it clear in its expert analysis that Scottish Water can deliver all the objectives with less-than-real-terms increases in water consumer charges in Scotland over the next few years. That is good news for the consumer, for Scottish business and for people who are waiting for homes in areas of Scotland where there is high demand and where there have been constraints in recent years.

If the constraints and development plans change over time, the objectives will be reviewed. However, we need to get on with the process now. If Scottish Water has concerns, there is a process that it can follow. There should be no reason why new developments are delayed.

Rosemary Byrne (SSP, South of Scotland)

ln the light of the reduction in the amount of sewage waste that is being used in land remediation and the subsequent backlog of sewage, will the First Minister say what funding has been allocated to address the problem? Will that money be in addition to existing budgets?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I am happy for the appropriate minister to provide a written answer to that question.

AIDS

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Executive is helping to combat AIDS both at home and abroad. (S2F-1965)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Ministers are supporting the HIV health promotion strategy with £9 million per year to prevent HIV and other blood-borne viruses. We have also provided an extra £15 million a year over the next three years to implement the national sexual health strategy, which aims to reduce the incidence of sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. Abroad, we provide financial and clinical support for a number of initiatives in Malawi and Zambia towards the G8 goal of universal access to treatment by 2010.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

On world AIDS day—the theme of which this year is "Stop AIDS. Keep the promise"—is there anything more the Executive can do in partnership with the authorities in Malawi to slow the spread of HIV/AIDS in that country and to improve access to treatment for people who have been infected, in line with the 3 by 5 campaign? Does the First Minister believe that the time has come in Scotland for a more proactive approach to health education and early diagnosis targeted at those who are most at risk from sexually transmitted disease, who are no longer just drug-injecting users, but are increasingly heterosexuals as well as homosexuals, women as well as men, and young people in particular?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

First of all, our sexual health strategy and our other efforts at health promotion are designed for early identification and prevention. I hope that the increased resources and focus on the matter locally will have an impact.

Among the other things that we can do for Malawi, we will continue to discuss with the UK Government and the Department for International Development their roles. I noticed this morning that significant additional resources to tackle AIDS in Africa have been announced; we will ask how much of that might benefit our friends in Malawi.

Secondly, we will continue to raise with international organisations the efforts that they put into Malawi in relation to HIV/AIDS. Thirdly, here in Scotland there is expertise, enthusiasm and energy among professionals and volunteers to help with the growing problem of HIV/AIDS in Malawi and throughout Africa.

On Des McNulty's final question, we know that in Africa more than 50 per cent of people with HIV/AIDS are women or children. Younger women are being added most quickly to the list, which consists not just of the traditional and largely male groups that were perhaps publicised more in the United Kingdom and elsewhere back in the 1980s. The epidemic is spreading and is devastating communities across the whole of Africa. We in Scotland should do our bit to help, given our fantastic history in medical research and medical science.

Margaret Ewing (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I thank the First Minister for his response; it was very detailed and is in the context of a severe problem, as we all know well.

Do members realise that 2,400,000 people will die this year in Africa alone as a result of AIDS? That is 8,500 people every day. The efforts that are being made by Parliament are hugely appreciated in Malawi and beyond. Will the First Minister tap into the rich source of expertise in Scotland, especially in medicine? Through research and development, and with the backing of the pharmaceutical industry which has a strong base in Scotland, there may be ways of finding alternatives and offering a generic derivation of some of the drugs that, at the moment, are way beyond the budgets of many of our colleagues in the African continent.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

That is clearly a big issue and one that extends far more widely than Scotland and Malawi and our partnership. People internationally are making real efforts to reduce the cost of those vital drugs and to increase their availability. We are working with them where we can to ensure that access can be widened in Malawi in particular.

We in Scotland, given our history and the expertise that exists here, have a particular responsibility to the rest of the world in relation to medical science. I know that many people in the Scottish health service want to give of their time to make that contribution. We will continue to do all that we can to facilitate that.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — Finance and Public Services and Communities

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

To ask the Scottish Executive how it encourages the managers of its departments, agencies and non-departmental public bodies to have regard to environmental impact in delivering public services. (S2O-8273)

George Reid (None, Ochil)

I call George Lyon.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I thought that Mr Lyon was the transport minister now.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

The Scottish Executive's best-value arrangements require public service organisations to consider the environmental impact of their activities and decisions. Within the Executive, our greening government policy is driving improved environmental performance. My colleague Ross Finnie is leading a major Executive initiative to improve the environmental performance of public bodies.

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I thank the minister for his answer and I am glad that it has provoked mirth on the Scottish National Party benches, although I do not know why.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The SNP has little to laugh about.

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Indeed. Is progress being made on recycling and the reuse of capital equipment? Is the minister able to measure that and can he tell us how much progress is being made?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I assure the member that the Executive has set a number of challenging targets, including to reduce the CO 2 emissions caused by energy use in our buildings by 7 per cent from 2003-04 levels by 2011; to reduce the amount of office waste going to landfill by recycling 70 per cent of total waste by March 2006; and to reduce water consumption in our key buildings to 7m 3 per person by March 2006.

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

Earlier this year the First Minister announced plans to encourage Scottish public bodies to adopt fair trade practices with a view to Scotland becoming a fair trade nation, thereby delivering genuine social and environmental benefits. What progress has been made in increasing the sale, use and promotion of fair trade and fairly traded goods within and by the public bodies and agencies that Mr Robson mentioned?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

We share some of the views that Mr Ballard has expressed. I would be happy to write to him to detail the progress that has been made since the First Minister made his commitment six months ago.

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

To ask the Scottish Executive what progress it has made on digital inclusion. (S2O-8280)

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

The digital inclusion strategy "Connecting Scotland's people" was launched in 2001. Since then, the Scottish household survey has tracked internet usage. In the first quarter of 2001, the percentage of adults who used the internet for personal use was 29 per cent. That figure had increased to 51 per cent in the second quarter of 2005.

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

My constituent Mrs Caroline McMorran, who lives in Strathbrora, up behind Brora, is having trouble because she cannot get broadband. Does the minister consider that a significant barrier to inclusion could be created by problems in getting broadband to rural areas? How will the Executive ensure that that important aim is not hampered and that broadband is available to every community in Scotland this year, including wee, out-of-the-way places such as Strathbrora?

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

As I understand it, our aim is to enable every exchange. Work has been done in some of our more challenging and remote communities. Argyll has received investment, as have communities such as Bellsmyre in West Dunbartonshire. I acknowledge fully the concerns that the member expressed. The strategy is, after all, to achieve the maximum possible levels of inclusion, which we will continue to strive for. I hope that, through those efforts, individuals such as the one whom he mentioned will, quite rightly, be able to access broadband and all that goes with it.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

I apologise for my slightly breathless arrival. The minister will be aware of plans to establish a Gaelic digital television channel. I welcome the recent announcement of funds for that, but does he acknowledge that large swathes of Scotland still cannot receive digital television cheaply or easily? What steps does he intend to take to ensure affordable access to a channel that is intended to start broadcasting next autumn, although digital switchover for much of Scotland, including large Gaelic-speaking areas, is not scheduled until 2009?

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

As I understand it, Digital UK is in discussions about these matters. As far as I can recall, the position was fairly fully explained in a recent debate in the chamber.

Carolyn Leckie (SSP, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it is satisfied that its local government finance settlement meets its obligations under existing equal pay legislation. (S2O-8243)

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

Responsibility for the pay and conditions of local authority staff rests with local government, not the Executive. Those obligations include the implementation of the single status pay agreement that was negotiated between local government and the unions in 1999. I will, of course, consider any representations from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on the issue, but it is important to recognise that, since 1999, the Executive has increased its revenue funding to local government to record levels—an increase of over £3 billion by 2007-08.

Carolyn Leckie (SSP, Central Scotland)

I am sure that the minister is aware that, under existing legislation, without moving to the consultation on the gender duty, the Executive as a public body has a legal obligation to do all that it can to achieve equal pay. Glasgow is proposing more than 300 redundancies in order to fund an inadequate compensation settlement for equal pay, which amounts to less than a quarter of what women would be entitled to if they pursued the legal route.

Despite the fact that, over several years, the Executive has stated that equal pay must be a priority—for example, Johann Lamont said it in March this year and Malcolm Chisholm said it in November 2004—COSLA, the unions and the Equal Opportunities Commission have had to make representations about the fact that the funds to settle the equal pay claims do not exist. Can the minister reconcile the Executive's actions with its statements that the issue is a priority? I would like to ask him to respond—

George Reid (None, Ochil)

No, I think that that is about enough.

Carolyn Leckie (SSP, Central Scotland)

Ms Lamont has said that not achieving equal pay does not make economic sense. Will Mr McCabe therefore agree that his local government finance settlement does not make economic sense, because it will not achieve equal pay for women?

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

In my original answer, I stressed the fact that, since 2000, the Executive has made record levels of funding—an increase of over £3 billion by 2007-08—available to local government. Of course we realise that we have a duty to ensure that equal pay requirements are fully met. However, we are talking about an agreement between local authorities and the individuals whom they employ. It is the Executive's duty to fund local government and it is local government's duty to decide how it uses the resources that are made available to it.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

As well as providing record funding to local authorities, the Executive has produced record burdens for local authorities. Is the minister aware of the statement made by his deputy—who was, at the time, not acting as a transport minister—to the effect that it was likely that local authorities would deliver a council tax increase of above 4 per cent? Now that that information has been confirmed by a Government minister, will Mr McCabe consider whether additional steps need to be taken so that the local government finance settlement that he has already announced to the Parliament takes account of equal pay legislation?

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

It would only be fair if I prefaced my remarks by saying that we do not regard record numbers of teachers or the delivery of record numbers of care services to the people in our communities who depend on them as being a burden. We regard such things as progress, as do, I am sure, the individuals who receive those services. I do not think that Mr Lyon said exactly what the member has just said that he did. I think that he said that there was an indication of what local authorities would do. Of course, each local authority is free to set its own level and we will know the level that they decide to set only when that is done in March next year.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will provide, if necessary, funding to help local authorities to meet the possible costs of equal pay claims. (S2O-8246)

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

It is for local authorities to consider the implications of agreements that they negotiate with any other party. If we receive representations from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, we will, of course, consider them.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

I would expect nothing less of the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform. However, I wonder whether he is aware that, if the recent judgment in favour of female council employees costs the City of Edinburgh Council the £25 million that it estimates, that will entail a 12.5 per cent increase in council tax in Edinburgh. The only way to avoid that is for the council to empty its reserves, which it says it will have to do. Will he urgently consider putting Edinburgh council tax payers' minds at rest? They are already concerned about the implications for council tax of the fact that the Executive has not paid the extra £3 million in costs incurred by the council for services provided at the G8 demonstrations, never mind the other wee matter that I wrote to him about.

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

There are some intimate pieces of correspondence that I do not want to share with the chamber. However, I hope to have some good news to announce in the near future about exactly how we will recompense not only the City of Edinburgh Council but local authorities throughout Scotland for the activities that they undertook in connection with the G8.

I hear what Mrs MacDonald says about potential council tax rises in Edinburgh, but that is against a presumption that all things remain equal. It is for the council to decide how to construct the services that it delivers when it has responded to the equal pay claims that it requires to settle. It is also for the council to decide how to use the reserves that it has built up over the years. I said in a previous answer that the Executive has made record levels of finance available to local government since 2000 and I am encouraged to hear that local authorities have used part of that finance to build up reserves.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

I welcome the minister's comment that he will respond to any requests from local authorities to discuss the role that the Scottish Parliament should play in rectifying the wrong of unequal pay. Does he recognise the role of the trade unions and local authorities in attempting, in difficult times, to rectify decades of injustice against women? Will he ensure that, in any settlement, the right balance is struck between the Parliament's responsibility to women who are arguing for equal pay and the delivery of quality services by local government?

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

I am perfectly happy to offer those assurances. The debate about equal pay is important, as the member said, and it is critical that we provide the best terms and conditions for all those who work in local government. I have a long personal involvement with local government and, as I have said on many occasions, 99.99 per cent of the people whom I have come across in local government are there for absolutely the right reasons. They are committed to public service and we should reward them adequately. The general public and the trade unions in Scotland would agree with those sentiments, but they would also agree that we are obliged to ensure that, while we treat the people who provide public services as well as we can, we also ensure that the services that we offer are of the best possible quality.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it is satisfied with current levels of council tax across Scotland. (S2O-8252)

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

The setting of council tax levels is, of course, a matter for individual local authorities. I urge them to show restraint in setting their budgets for next year and to look at all possible ways of reducing the burden on local council tax payers.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

I wonder whether the minister agrees with the comments of his colleague David Cairns MP, who recently told MPs of

"the terrible burden of living in constituencies controlled by the Liberal Democrats at council level."

He went on to note that the local authority in his area, Inverclyde, has

"the distinction ... of being the worst-performing council in all of Scotland since the Liberal Democrats took control."—[Official Report, House of Commons, 15 November 2005; Vol 439, c 816.]

If the minister agrees with Mr Cairns, will he tell us what action he will take to ensure that people who live in Liberal Democrat-controlled areas get a much better deal?

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

My friend and colleague Mr Cairns makes many informed comments and I am sure that he is aware of the actions that the coalition Executive has taken to ensure that the constituents whom he serves in Inverclyde are adequately served. The Accounts Commission and Audit Scotland gave their thoughts on the situation in that area and the Executive met the council leader and the then chief executive to discuss the situation. I wrote to the leader of the council only this week to stress the need for continued progress and to arrange dates to discuss further the situation. I am sure that communities throughout Scotland appreciate the representatives that they have elected, whether they be from the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats or—rarely—the Conservative party.