Scottish Parliament, 15 February 2007

358 contributions from 79 members. The official report.

Official Report 15 February 2007

Workers' Rights

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S2M-5581, in the name of Rosemary Byrne, on workers' rights.

Rosemary Byrne (SG, South of Scotland)

This Solidarity debate is about improving workers' rights and strengthening trade unions throughout Scotland and the United Kingdom.

The context for the debate is the experience of workers at Simclar Ayrshire Ltd. The Simclar Group has a history of locking out workers: workers were locked out in Dundee and Preston and now they have been locked out in Ayrshire. Simclar also has a history of receiving funding through regional financial assistance: it received £750,000 on 6 August 2002, £1 million on 30 July 2003, and £500,000 on 17 August 2004. The workers want to know how that money was spent and who monitored the spending. I want answers, too. Simclar takes from our communities and then leaves them, without taking financial or practical responsibility for the workers who have been loyal to it.

As we make every possible effort to bring Simclar and Sam Russell to account, it is also vital that everything possible is done to support the Simclar Ayrshire workers. Community, the trade union that represents the majority of the workforce, is doing an excellent job in the face of many difficulties, but support from agencies through the partnership action for continuing employment initiative has so far been inadequate, which has caused much distress to an already demoralised workforce—despite the fact that the Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, Allan Wilson, has said:

"As soon as the announcement was made, full and immediate support swung into operation through the well-established PACE (Partnership Action for Continuing Employment) framework."

Irene Oldfather (Labour, Cunninghame South)

Will the member give way?

Rosemary Byrne (SG, South of Scotland)

I need to make progress; I have to cover a lot of ground.

I seek an assurance from the minister that the situation will be rectified immediately, so that PACE carries out its functions properly and provides the assistance that the workers require. I also ask the minister how many full-time, sustainable jobs will be created through the Irvine Bay Urban Regeneration Company. I remind him that North Ayrshire has the highest unemployment in Scotland—after 10 years of new Labour in Government.

The Scottish Trades Union Congress said:

"in the context of ... recent job losses, we have to ask why other European countries with wage costs comparable to Scotland and more robust regulatory environments have succeeded in retaining and, in some instances, growing their manufacturing base."

It is paramount that the Department of Trade and Industry undertake an investigation into the workings of Simclar, which has a history of asset stripping, moving companies, setting up satellite companies and closing the gates on workers without adhering to its obligations. Simclar has dispensed with the 90-day consultation period and failed to make appropriate financial provision for its workforce three times, as I said. The minister told me that he had received a verbal assurance that there would be an investigation, but I ask him to secure written confirmation of that as soon as possible. I look forward to the investigation and call for the greatest scrutiny to ascertain whether there has been criminal wrongdoing.

Why must we fight for workers' rights in the 21st century? A Simclar Ayrshire worker who was made redundant on 29 January was, like many of her colleagues, being made redundant for the second time. The first time she was made redundant, 15 years ago, she received enhanced redundancy pay, six months' notice, access to retraining through the company and all moneys in lieu of notice. This time, she was locked out of her workplace and given statutory redundancy pay—paid for by the taxpayer, although Sam Russell is the eighth richest man in Scotland—and there was no cushion of six months' notice or commensurate moneys. Her pay with Simclar Ayrshire had never reached the level of her previous salary. Fifteen years on, she had less money and appalling conditions—that is the situation that our workers find themselves in.

That is why we need a trade union freedom bill. In 2005, the Trades Union Congress conference passed a resolution to repeal anti-trade union laws by introducing such a bill. In recent years, the UK labour market has changed. Privatisation, outsourcing and the restructuring of companies and services have become widespread, and workers' rights have been eroded. Our legal framework requires urgent changes. During the recent years of industrial change, employers such as Gate Gourmet have adopted increasingly aggressive cost-cutting tactics to win subcontracted work from transnational companies. Gate Gourmet is just one example; there are too many other examples of employers who have cut pay, slashed pensions and announced mass redundancies in the name of competition. Under existing legislation, unions feel powerless to protect the interests of the workers they represent.

The time is right for a trade union freedom bill. Last year was the 100th anniversary of the Trade Disputes Act of 1906, which protected unions from sequestration of funds and imprisonment. In 1893, Hull dockers who had been striking for seven weeks were defeated when strikebreakers were brought in by the police and the military. The 1906 act reversed laws that enabled bosses and the establishment to ride roughshod over workers. It is ironic that 100 years later, workers have fewer freedoms and rights. On 31 March 1997, Tony Blair said that even after the changes that Labour proposed, Britain would have

"the most restrictive trade union laws in the western world."

Our workers see the evidence of that daily.

A trade union freedom bill, with support from the unions and Labour members in Westminster, would make a difference. It should appeal to all trade unionists and the Solidarity motion should be supported by all right-thinking members.

As a lifelong trade unionist, I move,

That the Parliament supports the Simclar workers and calls for an appropriate redundancy package for them; welcomes the DTI investigation into the circumstances surrounding the closure of the Ayrshire plants; condemns poor employment practices that result in workers being sacked via text messages, video conferences and factory gate notices and denied real and proper consultation and appropriate redundancy payments, illustrated by the recent examples at Simclar Ayrshire, NCR Dundee and Young's in Annan; recognises the need to improve workers' rights and the existence of the Trade Union Freedom Bill in the Westminster Parliament last session which attracted cross-party support from 187 MPs and the re-lodged bill in the current term; recognises that this Trade Union Freedom Bill is supported and promoted by most trade unions, including the RMT and TGWU, and agrees to endorse and encourage support throughout Scotland for this necessary bill.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I am a lifelong trade unionist, too, and the subject matter of the debate is close to my heart. I thank Rosemary Byrne and Solidarity for giving us the opportunity to debate workers' rights.

The motion mentions Simclar Ayrshire. I think that I can express on behalf of all members our disappointment—indeed devastation—at the closure of the Ayrshire factories and the impact on employees and their families. We extend our sympathy to the 420 workers who have lost their jobs. I have met Rosemary Byrne and other local politicians, such as Irene Oldfather, as well as the unions involved and the administrator, to discuss the position and offer whatever support and assistance we can to the people who are directly affected. I have announced that full and immediate support is being made available through the well-established PACE framework. As a result of two recent PACE meetings in Ayrshire, a draft action plan has been produced, which I am happy to make available to members.

Rosemary Byrne (SG, South of Scotland)

Does the minister agree that up to now the PACE initiative has been disappointing and that there is a need to press for improvements as quickly as possible?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

In the context of PACE, there is an issue when an employer refuses to co-operate with public agencies that deliver services, as has happened in the case that we are talking about. That gives us pause for thought about how we respond to such situations. I would not criticise the public agencies that have been striving with great difficulty to cope with the situation that they inherited from an employer who was less than considerate of the interests of the staff that it sacked.

The wide range of support, advice and assistance that I have mentioned will be available to those Simclar Ayrshire employees who have been affected by the redundancies, and we will step up that response as far as we can to help them secure alternative employment or the necessary retraining or upskilling that might be required for them to move on. Substantial funding—in the region of £1 million—will be available to assist with that work, and that sum has been quantified by PACE this week. The various agencies involved are putting considerable effort into ensuring that the affected staff can engage fully with the range of services and support being offered. It is worth pointing out that PACE has a very good record in this context, with high levels of retraining and alternative employment being offered in similar circumstances, at rates of 97 per cent at Longannet and 96 per cent at BP in Grangemouth.

There have been calls—not least from me—for a DTI investigation into the circumstances surrounding the Simclar closure. There have been allegations of asset stripping and questions about why Simclar Ayrshire went from having a 90-day redundancy consultation period, which was not due to end until 26 February, to being a company that went into administration and closed overnight.

It would clearly be unwise and inappropriate for me to make any further comment on those matters, other than to say that I have written to the appropriate DTI minister on two separate occasions now. As a matter of principle, change and restructuring must be managed well. To my mind, that means treating the employees involved in the change and restructuring with the appropriate consideration and respect—which has been sadly lacking in this instance.

Irene Oldfather (Labour, Cunninghame South)

Has the minister had any advice from officials about any way in which the closure might contravene the European information and consultation directive? Would it be appropriate for him to refer that point to UK colleagues, and presumably the trade union, so that they can establish whether action can be taken through an industrial tribunal?

George Reid (None, Ochil)

You now have one minute left, Mr Wilson.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

Thank you, Presiding Officer—although that is not a long time in which to deal with what are fairly complex matters. I will perhaps come back to some of those issues in my closing remarks, but suffice it to say at this juncture that I have raised the issue that Irene Oldfather highlights directly with DTI ministers, together with a number of other issues that have been raised directly with me by some of the workers concerned—they are my constituents, and some are friends and colleagues—by the trade union and in discussion with the administrator. I have included all the issues that have been raised with me in two separate communications to the appropriate DTI minister.

I suggest to members and others that information about the events that led to the Simclar closure may be sent by post to the companies investigation branch of the Department of Trade and Industry, PO Box 447, London SW1H 0WU. If people have concerns, such as have been expressed by Irene Oldfather and others, that is the appropriate place for them to be sent, as an investigation is under way.

I move amendment S2M-5581.4, to leave out from "supports" to end and insert:

"believes that the right to work is a fundamental human right; supports the objective of full employment and welcomes the 150,000 new jobs created in Scotland since devolution in 1999; further supports the Simclar workers and calls for an appropriate redundancy package for them; supports the Scottish Executive's call for a DTI investigation into the circumstances surrounding the closure of the Ayrshire plants; condemns poor employment practices that result in workers being sacked via text messages and factory gate notices and denied real and proper consultation and appropriate redundancy payments, illustrated by the recent example at Simclar Ayrshire; recognises the need to further improve workers' rights and entitlements and agrees that the Parliament supports the enhancement of employee rights on consultation in a redundancy situation; reaffirms its commitment to providing appropriate resources to meet the costs of retraining and upskilling workers affected, and recognises the role that the Irvine Bay Urban Regeneration Company will have in creating new job opportunities for the workforce."

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

We are whole-heartedly in favour of workers' rights, and we are grateful to Solidarity for creating this opportunity to debate the subject. We believe that, when properly addressed, workers' rights will help to achieve economic resurgence in Scotland.

From experience, I know that good employment conditions, mutual respect and job security boost business viability and customer satisfaction, creating more robust businesses. Ignoring and disregarding workers' rights is increasingly a recipe for disaster, as can be seen elsewhere. The fact is that competitiveness can be achieved and built up only through co-operation with employees and suppliers. The good news is that, in the long term, monopolies are unsustainable and damage the monopolists themselves, and the abuse of workers' rights is unsustainable and damages the perpetrators themselves; the bad news is that monopolies and the abuse of rights can cause real pain and damage for our people and our economy in the interim.

I believe that Government needs to create the conditions that produce more socially responsible behaviour by business leaders in the interests of the wider common good. That was wonderfully described recently in a book by Don Young and Pat Scott, "Having Their Cake". They discuss the tendency towards mergers rarely benefiting employees, customers, suppliers or even the shareholders, but mainly benefiting the current management, market makers, stockbrokers, corporate accountants, lawyers and bankers, who need the churn of such transactions.

We believe that it is the job of Government to act as honest broker between companies, which want to maximise profit and viability, and employees and trade unions, which—properly—want to maximise the employment terms and conditions of working people.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Jim Mather has talked about the Government's position. I wonder what the Scottish National Party's position is on the proposed bill to reform the trade unions. Would they support it?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

We will give it due consideration. Today, I am calling for a proper and full debate in which we learn from other places. There is a difficult blend to be achieved. It is important to achieve sustainable long-term growth, to maximise the number of people in work, to maximise national competitiveness and to maximise Government revenues. That blend must be achieved. It is the job of Government to maximise the effectiveness of the economic system. To do so, it must bind together businesses, unions and employees in a system that works and that is consistent with everyone's objectives.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I agree. Would the member agree with me that the UK has been spectacularly successful in that context? It is one of only three EU countries that have surpassed the Lisbon agenda target for full employment.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

There has been an element of success but, if we consider countries such as Denmark, we find that they have achieved that better. We are currently facing the challenges of globalisation, which are similar to the challenges that we felt 100 years ago. There is a widening gap between rich and poor in the United States of America, Britain and Canada, but that gap has not opened up so much in France, Japan, the Netherlands, Denmark and elsewhere. There are clearly numerous factors involved in that but, as The Economist said this week,

"It is easy to assume, with globalisation, that a rising tide lifts all boats. And most people do gain, even if the improvement in their way of life can sometimes be hard to discern. But workers whose factories are shut are unlikely to see it that way. For them, it must seem these days that a rising tide lifts only all yachts."

We have to change that in Scotland. That is particularly the case where there is a branch economy, and where the branches are frequently cut to save the roots and protect activity in home economies.

We need a proper debate and to examine the effectiveness of what Denmark has in place. We should also look closer to home at what is happening in Ireland, where the national development plan for 2007 to 2013 has just been announced. That involves spending €184 billion in building up the economy. Entwined with that is a new national agreement, "Towards 2016: Ten-Year Framework Social Partnership Agreement 2006-2015". That social partnership has been embedded all the way through. We should examine that—we need to consider what works elsewhere. We have got to learn—I will leave it at that.

I move amendment S2M-5581.2, to leave out from "existence of" to end and insert:

"need to create a new era of social cohesion where employers, employees and the state work together to ensure that Scotland achieves new higher levels of competitiveness and co-operation in the workplace so that we achieve increased economic vibrancy, better terms and conditions in the workplace and an improved safety net for redundant employees."

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Rosemary Byrne's speech was wide-ranging and time is a constraining factor in the debate, so I will not seek to make interventions and I will not take any during my speech. I congratulate Rosemary Byrne on giving us the opportunity to discuss the issues around Simclar Ayrshire. I do not go along with her motion entirely, as my amendment suggests, but it is great that we have it before us to debate. I would like to think that the Parliament can finish by taking a unified decision on the motion or an amendment so that the debate will have an outcome.

Simclar Ayrshire is an absolute disgrace in terms of the ethics of business behaviour. Barefaced asset stripping has taken place and there has been a manipulation—legal or illegal—of company law. That is why I welcome Allan Wilson's move to involve the DTI, which will determine whether the behaviour is legal. If it is legal, there is room for Government action and change somewhere along the line. If it is illegal, I want the sternest steps to be taken against Sam Russell and the company that he has operated.

The fact is that Simclar had a loyal, well behaved and diligent workforce. Overnight, the individuals in the workforce found themselves out of a job. People who were to work the night shift were locked out and separated from their possessions. That cannot be right in today's world, whichever way we approach the issue.

Families were left without any income whatever and a big question mark still hangs over where money will come from. As well as assets—or so-called assets—of the company, employer records and other information that allow people to claim benefits have been locked up. That is a disgrace. The Conservatives—and, I feel, members around the chamber—want those matters to be addressed.

I am concerned about the movement of goods since Simclar was locked up and about what could be seen as a relationship between Sam Russell and the administrator. The DTI will examine and determine that.

Sam Russell said that Jack McConnell did not understand business behaviour. I do not always agree with Jack McConnell, but if Sam Russell means that what he has done is to be interpreted as business behaviour, I do not go along with that.

I congratulate Allan Wilson on his actions and I go along with Rosemary Byrne on the idea that perhaps a bit more PACE should be injected. However, as for the motion, we will support our amendment to it. We will not support the SNP's amendment, because it retains the reference to Young's of Annan, which is trying to address the business situation that has arisen. We will not support Rosemary Byrne's motion, because it goes too far. We will not support Allan Wilson's amendment, but if—as I suspect—Parliament agrees to his amendment, we will support the amended motion.

For a range of reasons, we Conservatives consider that what has happened is contrary to everything that we believe about trade union law. We make no apology for the changes that we made to trade union law and we acknowledge that the Labour Government that was long awaited after 18 years did not reverse the elements that it opposed vigorously when in opposition. However, the balance must be right. The workforce must be treated well. Every businessman depends on the people who work for him to provide profits and income. Such matters are important to Conservatives.

I move amendment S2M-5581.1, to leave out from "and factory" to end and insert:

"or factory gate notices and denied real and proper consultation and appropriate redundancy payments, as illustrated by the recent example of Simclar Ayrshire."

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

I apologise to the Presiding Officer and to Rosemary Byrne for being late. One is subject to the vagaries of the taxi service, such as it is.

It may surprise members to learn that I was once upon a time a member of the Transport and General Workers Union.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I am surprised.

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

I thank Jackie Baillie for that.

Having worked in the oil fabrication sector and in the drilling sector for some years, I understand exactly the fear that has been described of being made redundant and the terror of the P45 coming one's way.

In a way, this speech is an opening and a closing speech, so if the Presiding Officer does not mind, I will comment on other members' speeches. I was pleased by what I heard of what Rosemary Byrne said and I applaud her for lodging the motion.

Here we are in the closing stages of the session and running into an election. What has been raised is one of the biggest of the issues that lie before us. I pay tribute to Phil Gallie for his speech—it was well said. I for one will miss him in the next session and I am sad that he is leaving us.

What Allan Wilson said about the DTI is very good. I hope that, in his ministerial role, he will pursue the issue all the way.

I have believed in my working life that management co-ordination with the workforce has been and remains an issue. I have been there right at the bottom, on the shop floor, getting my hands dirty. I have seen bad management.

The point about Young's is that it is offshoring its processing of scampi to Thailand. I pay tribute to Christine May and to Alex Neil, who is not with us this morning, for agreeing—in their capacities not as deputy convener and convener of the Enterprise and Culture Committee but as back benchers—to meet workforce representatives to discuss that issue. Surely a greater issue is not before us. Does it make any sense whatever to take fish from Scotland all the way to Thailand for processing before bringing them back here? That is utter nonsense. It is not for the Enterprise and Culture Committee, of which I am a member, to dictate what the next session's enterprise committee—if that is what it is called—should examine. However, given the carbon footprint, such a move to globalisation is entirely wrong and should be examined.

I have seen asset stripping in my constituency. Members may be familiar with Brown and Root Highlands Fabricators at Nigg, where I worked for several years on the shop floor, as I said. I am covered by parliamentary privilege, so I may say that in the closing years of that operation, there was some evidence that the management was shutting down the yard and, I contend, not bidding for orders. We could see tools being removed from the yard and sold on to the international market. That is surely a sin against good management.

Presiding Officer, I am sorry for an al fresco contribution to the debate, and for being late. I applaud Rosemary Byrne for introducing the debate and I congratulate her. Workers' rights affect us all and the debate is important.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

I thank the member for being brief. Such short debates always mean truncated speeches and few interventions. They are not particularly satisfactory in that respect, but I must ask members to keep to four minutes and the Greens to keep to two minutes.

Chris Ballance (Green, South of Scotland)

I will stick to my two minutes. The motion is excellent and it is important to debate such issues. It is positive that all members—in the motion and the amendments—accept that the state of affairs at Simclar is unacceptable. The tragedy is that we appear to be impotent. We can argue for a DTI inquiry, for closer scrutiny of how such companies spend large amounts of public money and against asset stripping, but we cannot stop such events happening and we cannot protect the workforce.

All that underlines the importance of the call for extra protection for workforces and for the trade union rights and freedoms bill, which is mentioned in Solidarity's motion.

I strongly wish to mention a part of Rosemary Byrne's motion that did not feature in her speech. In Annan, a globalisation absurdity has meant that we are losing Scottish jobs to Thailand, where workers are paid perhaps 25p an hour for similar work, where health and safety standards are poorer and where production standards are poorer. The environmental absurdity of shipping those jobs 17,000 miles away beggars belief yet, again, we can do absolutely nothing. The Parliament is impotent. That underlines the need for stronger workers' rights.

The strength and loyalty of the workforces of the companies that are involved have all been praised and I echo my colleagues' praise. I just wish that I could say more.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I acknowledge the difficulties that have been experienced by workers in Simclar, NCR Dundee and Young's, and in Methode Electronics Europe in my constituency, where workers' rights were swept aside. Other members have addressed and will address those issues eloquently, so I will focus on the general issue of workers' rights.

Let me share with the chamber some headlines that I have read over the past year: "Betrayal of their workers", "Collective agreements—ripped up", "Contracts—unilaterally broken" and "Riding roughshod over pay and conditions of staff". Is this some reactionary employer—a multinational, perhaps—with scant regard for its employees? Here is another quote, which calls on the employers concerned to

"put aside petty political squabbles and honour their agreed contract with the workers. Workers are suffering as a consequence of their intransigence. It is ironic that the two MSP boast about their support for trade unions and workers in struggle when they are riding roughshod over the pay and conditions of trade union members."

I am talking not about some reactionary, right-wing business that cares nothing for its workers, but about two members of the Parliament: Rosemary Byrne and Tommy Sheridan. It is worth pointing out that the words that I quoted are not mine: they come from the National Union of Journalists—Mr Sheridan's trade union—and the Industrial Workers of the World, whose members are affectionately known as the wobblies. They come from people who were friends of Mr Sheridan.

Tommy Sheridan (SG, Glasgow)

Will the member confirm the truth to the chamber—that the quotes that she read out come from the NUJ chapel that happens to be the Scottish Socialist Party chapel of the NUJ, and not from the official union? The member should get her facts straight when trying to get involved in a petty squabble.

Frances Curran (SSP, West of Scotland)

That is rubbish.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

A member has responded to Mr Sheridan's point from a sedentary position. I understand that both the organisations to which I referred are in formal dispute with Solidarity over its treatment of members' staff. I was astonished by the fact that before Christmas there was a demonstration on the issue at the very door of the Parliament. The irony was not lost on some of us that Solidarity members, who speak at every passing protest, were strangely absent, perhaps because they were the subject of the protest. If there is one lesson for the chamber to learn from the matter, it is that consistency is important—members cannot do one thing privately and another publicly and expect to get away with it.

Labour has a strong record of improving workers' rights. Mr Sheridan may laugh, but one of our first actions was to sign the European social chapter, which was resisted by the Tories. We have increased maternity leave, increased paternity leave, increased holidays, provided a better work-family balance, provided rights to trade union membership, and—I hesitate to invite Mr Sheridan to laugh at this—we have restored rights of trade union membership to workers at Government Communications Headquarters.

We have ended the two-tier workforce in the national health service and introduced the national minimum wage, which was articulated as a demand by Keir Hardie more than 100 years ago and delivered by a Labour Government. At the time, unsurprisingly, the Tories were unashamed in their opposition to improving employment rights. The Scottish National Party slept through the vote and was absent for it. Jim Mather's claims to be concerned about workers' rights ring hollow—we should look at the SNP's actions. I hate to say this to Jamie Stone, an acknowledged member of the Transport and General Workers Union, but the Liberals thought that the introduction of the minimum wage was too dangerous. Workers' rights are safe only with Labour.

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I deplore Jackie Baillie's rather petty contribution to this morning's debate. It did not set the right tone, especially for the Simclar workers who are looking to the Parliament for leadership.

I congratulate Rosemary Byrne on securing the debate, at a time when the rights of a loyal workforce at Simclar Group plants in Ayrshire are being brutally trampled on. Thirty-odd years ago, Ted Heath coined the phrase "the unacceptable face of capitalism" to describe the behaviour of the Lonrho group and its boss, Tiny Rowland. That description applies equally well to Simclar boss Sam Russell—one of the richest men in Scotland, as Rosemary Byrne mentioned. Surely it is unacceptable in this day and age for any group of workers and fellow citizens to be treated with such disrespect and disregard by an employer.

Rosemary Byrne has outlined the callous way in which the plants were shut without forewarning. I assume that Irene Oldfather will say more about that later. People were barely able to retrieve their personal belongings, such was the suddenness of the owner's announcement and the deployment of security staff. The closure process had the smack of a paramilitary operation, with both factories being stripped of their machinery in the middle of the night. Presumably, it was transferred to Dunfermline, where the group is based. The ruthlessness of the action is beyond belief and must be condemned by the whole chamber, especially because 420 workers have been dumped on the scrapheap without so much as a penny from Mr Russell in the form of redundancy payment. As Allan Wilson mentioned, employment services have been left struggling to cope with the demands of the situation.

I have two questions for the minister, which I hope he will address when he sums up the debate. First, what is he doing to help to bring Mr Russell and the Simclar Group to book for their behaviour, which may be legal but is both politically and morally unacceptable? Secondly, what urgent action is he taking to fulfil his promise to pull out all the stops to support this betrayed workforce back into employment? At the moment, there is a great deal of confusion and despair among the workforce—people need to know what help they can expect and when they will get it.

The closure of Simclar (Ayrshire) Ltd has been a shameful episode in Scotland's industrial history. Although I recognise that the Parliament does not have the powers to ensure that that kind of employer behaviour does not continue to go unpunished—I welcome Chris Ballance's remarks on that issue—we have a duty to press those who have such powers to exercise them. I echo Phil Gallie's demands for any investigation by the DTI to leave no stone unturned in bringing Simclar and Sam Russell to book.

Frances Curran (SSP, West of Scotland)

I welcome this debate on workers' rights, which is long overdue. I regret the fact that the chamber has been spurred into action on the matter by the Simclar factory closure because, since the Thatcher Governments, power and protection has been moving consistently towards employers. The balance of power is heavily in favour of employers, and workers' rights have been eroded enormously. The lack of workers' rights is all too clear in this debate, because the main avenue that is being pursued to deal with the disgusting position in which the Simclar management has left workers is a DTI inquiry. It seems that the trade unions are powerless to pursue Sam Russell and Simclar. There have also been the closures of NCR and Motorola and all the other situations in which employers have behaved in such a way. We are dealing with an employer who has absconded with wages and redundancy payments. We do not know about the pension situation, because we are waiting for the liquidator to tell us what is in the pension fund.

The amendment that the SSP lodged, which was not selected, highlights the need for a legal framework to ensure that it costs employers to up sticks, to move jobs to China, to close factories, to asset strip and to use all the other procedures that we have seen them use. They should face penalties if they take such actions, and there should be big, legally enforceable compensation for the workforce. There should be legal redress and reparations—not just for workers but for Government—from companies that have received regional or national grants of taxpayers' money. We know that in Germany and France legislation is much harsher and more protective. If we are serious about the issue, that is the type of legal framework that we need.

When employers, regardless of who they are—today there is some hypocrisy in the chamber on the issue—steal wages, pensions or redundancy money, it should not be just a civil matter. Theft is theft. The money that has been taken by Simclar belongs to its workers, just as money that was taken by other employers belonged to the workers in their factories. There should be criminal legislation in the area—the trade unions and the workforce should be able to take employers to court to recover the money. In my opinion, if Sam Russell steals money from pensions, redundancy payments and wages, he should be put in jail. That should be a criminal act—we need more than just civil legislation.

We need more than words. The big problem is that no proposal for legislation is on the agenda of the minister or the Government parties. I realise that some of the issues are reserved, but there has been no probing to examine what the Scottish Parliament could do and whether legislation could be introduced to bring back protection for workers. We need legislation.

Politics is about power—who is in power and who they represent. It is clear that Labour, both in Westminster and here, is not representing the workforce or trade unions. There should be an automatic right to be a member of a trade union and to be represented by a union. Because the anti-trade union laws have not been repealed, workers have been put in a precarious position.

Finally, I put on record that I have not stolen or absconded with anybody's wages, and I am an employer in this Parliament.

Irene Oldfather (Labour, Cunninghame South)

First, I apologise to the chamber—I have had laryngitis this week, but I thought that it was important to come here today to make the case that the Simclar workers have been making to me as a local constituency MSP.

Since I first raised the matter two weeks ago at First Minister's question time, a sorry and disgraceful tale of injustice has emerged. I put a point to the First Minister about asset stripping, and that very afternoon Sam Russell put out a press release calling the First Minister, me and other politicians who had responded "ill-informed". Having listened to what the workforce has had to say—some of which I want to put in the public domain today—I think that members can draw their own conclusions about that.

This is a tale of a company that has demonstrated no regard for its workforce, employment obligations or the communities affected by the closure. It is a company that, as far as I can see, is motivated by profit. It is not working in partnership with the workforce, but operating and closing at the expense of the workforce and the local community.

I want to take a moment to say that I am very proud of how the workers and their families have behaved even though they have been struggling with no income in the past few weeks. They have behaved with dignity and in an orderly manner at public meetings and within the local community, despite much provocation. I know that members who have attended some of those meetings will acknowledge and agree with that.

No matter which part of the political spectrum members come from, they all see that an injustice has been done. Questions have to be asked about how the closure has taken place and about the ethics of a company that is transferring or selling—we are not sure which yet—capital assets within weeks of closure. For those who know the local situation, I speak of the B building in Kilwinning. Not only was that asset transferred to the parent company, Simclar International, but for the past few weeks the parent company has been charging Simclar Ayrshire rent. While the plant sits empty with no workers and no work, Simclar International continues to take rent. That is an outrageous situation. With no commercial activity taking place, the company is taking money out of the workers' pockets and what should have been their redundancy payments.

Questions have to be asked about how the company could simply close the doors and call in the administrators when it had orders on the books. I am told that there was work for at least six months, and in the communities that I represent such a timescale is not to be sneezed at. Six months of work in Irvine and Kilwinning is important. However, the company simply transferred the contracts to the parent company while telling us that it had no assets.

That brings me to the question of the millions of pounds of stock and assets that are held outwith Simclar Ayrshire, in the United States and elsewhere. They belong to Simclar Ayrshire, but the company appeared to forget about them until a redundant manager brought them to my attention and I passed the information on to the administrators.

Furthermore, pension contributions were deducted every week from employees' salaries until 29 January, but they were not paid to the pension company. One employee confirmed that the last payment to his pension company was on 14 December while the last deduction from his salary was 29 January. I say to Mr Russell that six weeks of pension payments is a lot of money to the families, because they have survived on nothing in the past two weeks. I call on Mr Russell, even now, to do the right thing and pay the money back.

At a recent meeting, the administrators said that there were buyers for much of the plant and machinery—Mr Gallie mentioned the movement of goods in and out. Who were the buyers? Simclar International, the parent company. We have to ask ourselves why it needs that additional equipment if there has been such a downturn in the market. The reason is that the contracts have been transferred. The highly skilled workers in my constituency who are turning up at the job centre desperate for work are being told that there is a company looking for their skills. It is called Flexible Recruitment Services, and the workers would have to be willing to travel to Dunfermline. Guess who the principal owner of the contract agency FRS is—Simclar International.

Questions have to be asked and answered. I am grateful to the minister, who responded quickly and came to the constituency on the Monday following the closure and called for a DTI investigation, which was the right thing to do. I have not had the opportunity to speak about the upskilling, retraining and regeneration of the area, which are important to me as the local MSP, but I hope that there will be opportunities to do that in future.

I support the amendment in the name of the minister.

Campbell Martin (Independent, West of Scotland)

I congratulate Rosemary Byrne and Solidarity on bringing the issue of workers' rights to the Parliament, and I acknowledge the immense amount of work that Rosemary Byrne and Irene Oldfather have put in to support the Simclar workers. The treatment of those workers has been an absolute disgrace, and the behaviour of Mr Sam Russell has been little short of capitalist gangsterism. The man is doing it because he thinks that he can get away with it—and he thinks that because of current legislation.

We would do well to learn from history. I come from Ardrossan in Ayrshire. I am proud of the fact that my father was an Ardrossan docker and lay official of the Transport and General Workers Union. Because of his involvement in the docks and in that movement, I am aware of the crucial role that was played by the dockers in Ardrossan in 1912, when they asked for an extra ha'penny a ton for shovelling coal. The employers—the Ardrossan dock labour board—considered that unreasonable and refused to pay it, so the dockers went on strike. Within a week, every worker in every company in the port had come out on strike in support of their comrades. That would not be allowed today, because legislation states that people cannot support other workers. Back then, however, it was crucial that the workers were allowed to support their fellow workers in industrial action.

Although the strike was ostensibly about ha'penny a ton, in reality it was orchestrated by the employers to try to break the unions on the Clyde. That is why Ardrossan became crucial in the fight. We know that it was orchestrated because, on the very day that the Ardrossan dockers went on strike, the employers brought in scab labour—it had been arranged beforehand. The police moved into the port on the same day, taking control on the side of the employers and ensuring that the scab labour could get in. They attacked the workers on strike and members of the Ardrossan public who were supporting the workers. That is reminiscent of more recent industrial action in 1984, when the miners faced the same situation. Perhaps if we had learned from history and the Ardrossan dock strike in 1912 we would not repeat the same mistakes and we would not have the current anti-trade union legislation.

If members are interested, I should say that the Ardrossan dock strike is well recorded in a book that was written in the early 1990s by a Saltcoats man called Billy Kenefick, who is now Dr Billy Kenefick, and he lectures in history at the University of Dundee. It is well worth a read.

I have said that, because of current legislation, today's trade unions are not allowed to support their fellow workers, but back in 1912 the UK trade unions supported the Ardrossan dockers. A man called Ben Tillett came up from London to speak to the Ardrossan dockers and to support their fight for workers' rights. In Billy Kenefick's book, he is described as a man who was disillusioned with the parliamentary route to social change, and is quoted as saying that he was disillusioned with it

"due to the failure of the parliamentary Labour Party to promote political and economic reform to the benefit of the working classes."

That was almost 100 years ago. New Labour seems to have been with us for much longer than we thought.

It is a disgrace that workers have had to fight so long and so hard for their rights and that they must still fight hard for basic rights. That they must do so has happened not by chance but because there are exploitative employers and because legislation lets those employers get away with exploiting. We must scrap the anti-trade union laws and scrap the Government that supports them.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

This has been an extremely unhappy debate. I have never been a trade unionist, but I have been made redundant—it happened six months before the Parliament came on stream, so there were no real issues for me. However, I compare and contrast my employers before I was made redundant with Simclar. When I was being made redundant, people were given every possible chance to relocate, generous payments were made and a lot of money was spent on enabling people to get counselling and to consult employment practitioners to find out how their problems could be sorted out. By contrast, Simclar's conduct has been little short of disgraceful. It has shown callous disregard for its employees at every stage in the process and has failed to realise the damage that its actions can cause to wider industrial relations. It is hardly surprising that there is bitterness in the Irvine area. Once that bitterness is allowed to fester, it will make moderate people militant and militant people more militant.

For once, Conservative members have no criticisms to make of the Scottish Executive's handling of matters. Allan Wilson deserves great credit for moving into action effectively and for demanding a DTI inquiry, the results of which we await with considerable interest. We should consider the direction in which to go when we receive those results, not before. The First Minister's comments on what has happened have been moderate and sensible; indeed, they contrast starkly with the comments of Simclar's chairman, whose language has been extravagant and counterproductive, to say the least.

A way forward must be considered. Everyone accepts that it is not easy for 430-odd people in an area such as North Ayrshire to go down the road, but the Executive is due credit for its endeavours in trying to obtain a constructive solution for those who have been most affected by what has happened.

Adam Ingram correctly said that Ted Heath coined the phrase "the unacceptable face of capitalism" in somewhat different circumstances. The unhappy episode that we are considering demonstrates how things can go very wrong when businesses behave irresponsibly, but what has happened is not typical, so we should not overreact. I have talked about my experiences in that respect.

Let us await the outcome of the DTI inquiry. Campbell Martin's arguments were interesting, but, they are, with respect, for another day. They would provide good debating material for a future parliamentary debate. We must consider the plight of the Simclar workers and find constructive solutions to individuals' problems. When the DTI report is published, we can consider whether the Parliament and the Executive can do anything to avoid a repeat of this shoddy affair.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

This has been an excellent debate; indeed, it has been one of the few debates on workers' rights in which uniform views have been expressed by members of Solidarity right through to members of the Conservative party. Members recognise the importance of the issue and the manifest injustices to which the Simclar workers in particular have been subject.

Redundancies and workers' rights have been a theme in the debate, but the situation at Simclar in Ayrshire is at its heart. Irene Oldfather's speech was one of the best speeches that I have heard for a long time in the chamber—indeed, the Presiding Officer was correct to be rather indulgent in the time that he gave her. If Mrs Oldfather had spoken for considerably longer, members would have been equally interested and captivated. She encapsulated the manifest wrongs that have occurred and must be remedied.

I hope that the minister will answer the questions that my colleague Adam Ingram asked. We accept that the minister is limited and constrained in what he can say—quasi-judicial matters to do with the DTI, for example, are involved—but we have been heartened by his quick actions in meeting representatives and ensuring that there is communication with the DTI. We ask him to clarify the issues that Adam Ingram raised, but also to take on board the uniformity of members' views and the unity in the chamber. Members believe that the actions of Mr Russell and Simclar are unacceptable, and the minister has our full backing for taking whatever action he can take. Even with an election looming, we should not indulge in petty point scoring. We should sort out a fundamental injustice and address actions that besmirch employers in Scotland. I agree with Bill Aitken in that respect. What has happened is not a normal course of action for employers in Scotland. It is unacceptable, but—thankfully—unusual.

Redundancies frequently happen, but they are a blow to people. Sometimes we forget the pain that they bring. They bring periods of employment to an end. We must recognise that employment is important to people, and its importance lies not simply in its defining who a person is or in letting people bring home money that enables them to look after themselves and their families; its socialisation aspects are also important. If a person has contributed a great part of their life to a job, irrespective of how humble that job is, losing that job can be a serious body blow. Statutory redundancy payments in this country are not kings' ransoms. The golden farewells that may occur in the City of London are not the norm for those who are made redundant in country areas or in Scotland. We must recognise that workers' dignity is affected by redundancies and that they must be treated with dignity.

Sacking workers by text message is unacceptable. Local authorities have sent redundancy notices by taxi, which is an equally unacceptable way of treating people who have contributed a great part of their lives to an employer. They will have received pay, but they will have contributed a lot.

Members have spoken about workers' rights. The Scottish National Party's position is that part of the problem in the United Kingdom is that we have not sought to codify and enshrine what workers' rights are. We have considered giving people legal immunities in a piecemeal way. We must consider the European model at some stage, which is not to give various people legal immunities but to clarify what the rights of workers are. We must take a pan-European approach and seek to reach the same levels that Denmark has reached. As someone who supports the European Union, I say that if the European Union spent more time promoting the rights of workers than the rights of prisoners, it would receive more support and there would be a greater understanding of its social and economic importance.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I welcome the comments that have been made by Kenny MacAskill, Bill Aitken and Phil Gallie and hope that, at decision time this evening, the Parliament will send out a clear, fundamental message to employers that certain practices are completely unacceptable to the people of Scotland, whom this elected Parliament represents.

I agree with Kenny MacAskill and Bill Aitken when they say that this incident is not typical of employment practice or employers in Scotland. Employers, trade unions and employees take a much more enlightened approach across the board than this incident has shown. It is to our nation's shame that such an event should have taken place in such a manner at those factories.

I hope that I have given Adam Ingram and the whole chamber the assurances that have been sought. We acted quickly when the matter was brought to our attention, and all the unanswered questions that Irene Oldfather raised during her commendable speech today—and when she first raised the matter at First Minister's questions last week—have been put to the DTI. The issues are under investigation and I hope to speak to DTI ministers on Monday next week to pursue them further.

Kenny MacAskill also made important points about our living in a wider European market. The impacts and effects of globalisation have been mentioned. They affect the whole world, as the global supply chain stretches around the world.

It is not true to say, as some have said today, that workers in the United Kingdom are any less protected than are workers anywhere else in Europe. In some respects, blue-collar workers have more protection in the UK than they have in many other EU member states. Employers in the UK, as in other member states, are under a statutory obligation to consult employee representatives about proposed collective redundancies. The consultation must cover ways of avoiding redundancies, reducing their number or mitigating their effects—none of which took place in the case of Simclar.

I know a bit about the subject because, like Bill Aitken, I was once made redundant: I was sacked for having the temerity to join a trade union and go on strike. Employee representatives or employees who believe that their rights under the provisions that I mentioned have been infringed may seek a protective award of compensation from an employment tribunal. If the tribunal finds in the applicant's favour, it may award up to 90 days' pay to each affected employee. I understand that the trade union Community is currently pursuing those issues, and I wish it well in its endeavours. As has been mentioned, and as I understand the situation, those unfortunate workers received absolutely no redundancy payments, although many of them were hard-working employees who had given, in some cases, in excess of 20 years' service to their employer.

In an insolvency situation, as was the case with Simclar, employees have preferential status in insolvency proceedings. In effect, that gives their claims priority over the company's general creditors, and over creditors who have taken security over the assets by way of a floating charge. Preferential status does not extend priority over the status of creditors who have taken fixed-charge security. However, actions can be taken under the provisions of schedule 6 to the Insolvency Act 1986 to ensure preferential status for employees' claims for holiday pay, wages up to £800 in the four months immediately preceding the date of insolvency and certain occupational pension contributions that have been deducted from employees' pay in the four months preceding the date of insolvency. Again, I hope that all reasonable efforts will be made to ensure that whatever rights and entitlements the Simclar workers have are secured and that appropriate moneys are paid to them.

I do not have enough time to go into the detail, but I assure Phil Gallie that employers and trade unions in this country have agreed that entitlement to redundancy payments should be reviewed. The Government is currently engaged in that review and, as part of the Warwick agreement with trade unions, there was a manifesto commitment to increase the fixed payment. Therefore, these entitlements are under review with a view to strengthening workers' rights and ensuring that the employer's voice is also heard in the process.

I hope that we can unite at decision time this evening and send a clear message to Simclar that such practice and procedure are not acceptable in modern Scotland.

Tommy Sheridan (SG, Glasgow)

First, I want to indicate that the Solidarity motion has wide support outside the chamber. I have a letter here from Bob Crow, of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, which reads:

"Dear Tommy

Thank you for contacting me to advise me of the motion being put forward by Rosemary Byrne to the Scottish Parliament on 15th February.

If enacted, the Trade Union Freedom Bill will significantly enhance the ability of Trade Unions to protect the interests of millions of working people.

The RMT has been actively involved in the campaign for a Trade Union Freedom Bill as an important step to strengthening trade union rights and as such we fully support the motion."

Another letter from Bill Hayes, the general secretary of the Communication Workers Union, states:

"I am pleased to offer the full support of the CWU for your motion on workers' rights and the Trade Union Freedom Bill to be debated by the Scottish Parliament on 15th February 2007.

CWU has actively supported the development of the Bill and the campaign to have it made law."

A letter from Mark Serwotka of the Public and Commercial Services Union says

"I am very pleased to offer the full support of PCS for your motion on workers' rights and the Trade Union Freedom Bill to be debated by the Scottish Parliament on 15 February 2007. PCS has actively supported the development of the Bill and the campaign to have it made law.

I hope your important motion is carried."

It is important that that wider support is recognised here.

I welcome the consensus that has been generated around the specific treatment of the Simclar workers. We all welcome the condemnation of Mr Russell and the way in which he has treated his workers with total and utter disregard, despite their loyalty during many years. However, such treatment is not as isolated as some members would have us believe. The workers at Selectron would argue about that, and the workers at NCR in Dundee were gathered into the canteen to be shown a video message from America telling them that they were being sacked. Incidents of poor employment practice in Scotland are not isolated: there is a growing and general pattern of employers not treating their workers with dignity.

If we accept the Executive's amendment, we condemn the Simclar experience, and that is right. However, accepting it would delete from the motion all reference to the trade union freedom bill. In other words, we would delete any idea of putting into legislation the necessary framework to prevent Simclar from being repeated over and over again.

During Jackie Baillie's speech, which exposed her high quality as an MSP, she asked the SNP whether it supports the trade union freedom bill. It is unfortunate that, as yet, the SNP does not seem to be willing to say that it supports the bill. Of course, the problem is that the amendment from Jackie Baillie's party would delete from the motion any reference to the trade union freedom bill.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Will the member take an intervention?

Tommy Sheridan (SG, Glasgow)

I thank the member, but I do not have time.

The bill, which was supported by the last Labour Party conference at which motions could be discussed—in 2005—is Labour Party policy. It is also Trades Union Congress policy. Our motion has the support not just of general secretaries of major UK-wide unions, but of the TUC and the Scottish Trades Union Congress.

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

It is a pity that Mr Sheridan did not give way to Jackie Baillie. Would he like to address the point that she raised about his treatment of employees in the Parliament?

Tommy Sheridan (SG, Glasgow)

We have no problem with our party's treatment of employees. I have to say that the matter is none of Mr Stone's business because it is about personal relations within a party. I give him this commitment: whatever the National Union of Journalists decides we should do, we will do. We will not take part in petty political squabbling when we have important issues to decide.

Frances Curran (SSP, West of Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Tommy Sheridan (SG, Glasgow)

No.

Mr Stone and Ms Baillie have refused to support the trade union freedom bill, the establishment of workers' rights—

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Will the member give way?

Tommy Sheridan (SG, Glasgow)

Ms Baillie has already had her turn; she should sit down.

That Jackie Baillie has refused to support the trade union freedom bill exposes the scant regard that she has for real workers' rights. She can talk a right good game. She can come to the aid of former SSP workers—it is an interesting alliance, if Jackie Baillie is speaking up for them—but the fact is that she refuses to support the trade union freedom bill despite the measure being Labour Party policy and TUC policy. It is sad that the Executive seeks to delete reference to the bill from our motion.

Campbell Martin made an excellent speech in which he referred to the industrial dispute of 1912. On Monday night, I had the pleasure of sharing a platform with Ricky Tomlinson, who spoke on behalf of the campaign for justice for the Shrewsbury 24, who were criminalised for their part in picketing strikes in 1973 in the context of the abusive practices of employers on construction sites across Britain. At that meeting—a packed meeting in Liverpool—the point was made that workers had more rights in 1972-73 under a Tory Government than they have today under a new Labour Government. It was also pointed out that workers had more rights in 1906 than in 2006, because the Trades Disputes Act 1906 gave workers the right to strike and the right to withdraw their labour; workers do not have that right under new Labour. Labour has refused to repeal the blitzkrieg of anti-trade union legislation that the Tories introduced and enacted throughout the 1980s. After 10 years in office, Labour still refuses to repeal that legislation.

The trade union freedom bill has attracted cross-party support from 187 MPs, including 170 MPs from the Labour Party alone.

Frances Curran (SSP, West of Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

George Reid (None, Ochil)

The member is in his last minute.

Tommy Sheridan (SG, Glasgow)

By agreeing to the motion, the Scottish Parliament could send a message to Westminster about the trade union freedom bill, which will have its second reading in two weeks' time on 2 March. We have the opportunity to say to Westminster that we in the Scottish Parliament support the trade union freedom bill and the fundamental right of workers to withdraw their labour.

Frances Curran (SSP, West of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

George Reid (None, Ochil)

No. He is winding up.

Tommy Sheridan (SG, Glasgow)

As Tony Woodley, of the Transport and General Workers Union, has said,

"If workers do not have the right to withdraw their own labour then they are serfs not citizens at work."

We need to establish not just the right to work but the right to withdraw labour. That is why the trade union freedom bill is so important and that is why I appeal to members not to allow the deletion of the reference to the bill in the motion that we will agree to today. With regret and sadness, I remind members that Allan Wilson, a former trade union official, has moved an amendment to the motion that would delete reference to our support for that bill.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Wind up, please.

Tommy Sheridan (SG, Glasgow)

Unfortunately, the Labour Party says some things before it enters office and does the opposite once it is in office. We need workers' rights—

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Wind up, please, Mr Sheridan.

Tommy Sheridan (SG, Glasgow)

That is why we need the trade union freedom bill to be supported.

I support the motion—in Solidarity's name.

Education

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Before the debate on school education starts, I must inform members that I am the only Presiding Officer available today and that I require a 10-minute break for a briefing before First Minister's question time. In consequence, I will need to suspend the meeting between 11.30 and 11.40. Therefore, speeches in this debate should be of around four minutes, with the exception of speeches from the Greens, for which I will allow three minutes.

The debate is on motion S2M-5570, in the name of Brian Monteith, on school education.

Brian Monteith (Independent, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Presiding Officer, will you clarify how long I have for my opening speech?

George Reid (None, Ochil)

A little over four minutes.

Brian Monteith (Independent, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am rather hopeful that this debate on schools will be better tempered than the previous debate, but one never knows.

I was surprised to see that an amendment to my motion was lodged, as I had thought that the motion would allow members to contribute to the debate in a variety of ways while raising any concerns that they have. By applauding the work of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education and supporting its strategic objectives, the motion allows members to say, for example, "We have concerns about modern studies so we want to know what HMIE can tell us about that", or "We have concerns about special needs education"—which was the subject of the amendment that was not accepted—"so we want to know what HMIE is doing about that." The motion is constructed to allow a broad discussion. Indeed, it will even allow Conservative members to unveil their new education policy, which was revealed only last week. However, rather than talk that up, I will leave them to do that.

I became interested in what HMIE does because I read its reports regularly and I visit schools as a result of the reports that it publishes. Every time that a school in Mid Scotland and Fife is the subject of an HMIE report—be it a good or bad report—I try my best to visit the school to find out people's experience of the inspection, what improvements they are working on and how they are building on the education that they deliver. Anyone who undertakes such visits—I know that I am not the only member who does so—finds that teachers and head teachers have gone through quite a trying experience. The inspection can be very testing and it can put people under a great deal of pressure.

Inspections can result in changes in schools. I have visited several schools after the publication of their HMIE report—as we all know, the process involved in publishing the reports takes some time—only to find that the head teacher was no longer in place because the leadership issues that had been highlighted were now being dealt with. It is a good thing that HMIE reports can bring about a process of change that tries to make schools better. When we make such visits to schools, we also sometimes find that people have a sense of pride and achievement in the fact that their hard work and good delivery of education have been recognised by those who witnessed and reported it on behalf of Her Majesty's inspectorate.

All those things happen as a result of HMIE reports. I could go on and talk further about the great work that HMIE does, but it is not incumbent on me to do so and I know that the minister will do a great deal of that. I can probably say now that I agree with every word that the minister says about HMIE doing a good job.

As with a previous motion for debate that I lodged, my motion today seeks to draw members' attention to the regularity of inspections and the accountability of the inspectorate. I am signed up to the idea that there should be regular inspections. It appears to me that we should ensure that, during a pupil's journey through school, there should be at least one inspection during their years at primary school and one during their years at secondary school. However, through the diligent work of the Times Educational Supplement and parent-teacher associations, we have found out that the most recent inspection for some 32 schools goes as far back as 1983, and some 280 have not had an inspection since 1995. That is a rather shocking figure. I hope that HMIE will address that by building into its programme a policy that ensures that full inspections are carried out in those schools.

The other issue that I want to raise—I leave it with the Parliament as an issue to be considered in future—is the accountability of HMIE. Is the inspectorate accountable to us through the minister? Is it accountable to the public, the pupils and teachers? In my role as Audit Committee convener, I look at how our committee conducts itself. Every month or so, we call before us chief executives of agencies or accountable officers from departments. When I look at the work of the Education Committee—I mean no disrespect to that committee; indeed, I served on its predecessor committee for four years—I cannot find an occasion when the chief inspector has been brought before it to explain in full glory the work of the inspectorate. I am happy to be corrected on that if I am wrong.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Wind up, please.

Brian Monteith (Independent, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am just about to wind up, Presiding Officer.

I propose that the inspectorate should come before the Education Committee annually to explain its annual report and all the good work that it does so that its policies can be examined. That is the sort of accountability that the Parliament is about. I hope that members will welcome my suggestion as a way of encouraging more discussion of education.

I move,

That the Parliament believes that Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education (HMIE) plays a vital role in raising standards of attainment and enhancing the learning of pupils and students at all stages of school and college education and supports its strategic priorities of promoting public accountability through inspection and reporting, working with other organisations to build the capacity of high-quality education and informing education policy development through knowledge of the whole education system, while managing and developing HMIE as a best value public body.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I welcome the terms of Brian Monteith's motion and the opportunity to pay tribute to the work of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education. It might be worth saying that both the Education Committee and education ministers have regular dialogue with Graham Donaldson, the chief inspector. His work and that of his colleagues is very much appreciated.

All members agree that high-quality education is crucial, both to ensuring that children and young people in Scotland realise their full potential and to securing Scotland's future as a highly skilled and internationally competitive nation. Through its inspection activity, its wider aspect reporting and the extensive provision of expert advice and good practice, HMIE plays a vital role in ensuring that every child benefits from such high-quality provision.

I remind members that Scottish education is a significant success story. We are in the top third of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries and have shown steady improvements in literacy and numeracy. According to the programme for international student assessment, our 15-year-olds are among the highest performing in the world, and only three countries had significantly higher attainment levels in maths, science and literacy. It is right to set that context at the beginning of this debate.

HMIE confirmed that success in its highly influential report "Improving Scottish Education". As the senior chief inspector, Graham Donaldson, noted,

"Inspection evidence shows that Scottish education does many things well and some things particularly well. Most learners are well supported and well taught ... Parents report high levels of satisfaction about their children's schooling."

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Can the minister explain why the chief inspector of schools says that standards of literacy and numeracy have risen while, at the same time, universities complain that they have to run basic literacy classes before students can take advantage of university teaching?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I accept that there is a series of issues to consider. The whole purpose of having inspection and local authority monitoring systems is constantly to improve and round up the quality of Scottish education.

We have invested heavily in our educational success and will continue to do so to ensure continuous improvement and the raising of standards in the future. Every child should benefit from that.

The inspection system, which is the subject of today's debate, is a world leader and highly regarded on the international stage. HMIE contributes regularly to thinking about quality improvement in countries across the world, most recently in the Czech Republic and Chile. The document "How good is our school?" has proved to be a particularly powerful motivator and has been translated into a number of foreign languages, and HMIE quality indicators are in use in many countries across Europe, Africa and South America.

Although Brian Monteith touched on the following, he did not develop the point. In 2002, we committed to ensuring that the inspection results will be published for every primary school by 2009 and for every secondary school by 2008. That is a huge undertaking, but we are on track to achieve it—in fact, HMIE is ahead of its targets. By the end of March this year, 1,626 primary and 350 secondary schools will have been inspected.

No matter how rigorous the inspection process—it is certainly rigorous, as Brian Monteith said—a one-off visit to a school is not enough on its own to ensure that children and young people receive the standard of education that they should expect.

HMIE has rigorous follow-through processes, but local authorities are primarily accountable and responsible for the provision and quality of education in schools. Every education authority was inspected between 2000 and 2005 and a further round of inspection is now under way.

Self-assessment, quality assurance, local authority quality improvement officers, monitoring of complaints and, ultimately, inspection by HMIE are among the tools in our armoury. If HMIE becomes aware of serious complaints about educational provision, it can and does bring forward the planned date of inspection. Our system for ensuring the accountability of our schools is robust and successful. Scottish education is the healthier for that.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I, too, support the motion and welcome its terms. We place on record our recognition of HMIE's valuable work in Scotland's education system. I am pleased, however, that the minister has burst Brian Monteith's bubble. In many respects, Brian Monteith is out of date and out of time about what is happening in inspections, HMIE's role in relation to the Parliament and the Education Committee's scrutiny of HMIE.

It is interesting that in the six years between 2002 and 2008 all secondary schools in Scotland will have been inspected. That is what I think Brian Monteith is looking for, but it is already happening. Between 2002 and 2009, all primary schools in Scotland will also have been inspected.

Brian Monteith (Independent, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I know that the member takes a great interest in the affairs of Linlithgow. Can she tell me whether she is satisfied that seven primary schools were not inspected between 1983 and 1995?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Far be it from me to defend a Labour-Liberal Democrat Executive, but there were 14 years of Conservative Government between 1983 and 1997. I understand that the member was a member of the Conservative Party during that time, so he must take some responsibility and blame for what happened in that period.

We should move on and look to the future. We have to move towards a culture of continuous improvement in schools, including self-assessment. Schools should not live in fear of the dreaded HMIE visit. Peer-assessment and self-assessment should be part of the culture in education, not just at school level but at pupil level. If we look forward to the types of assessment and inspection that we want, I think that we are moving in that direction.

I record my gratitude to Graham Donaldson for his regular appearances before the Education Committee in the past four years, not least to speak about additional support for learning. I commend the approach in an amendment to the motion that was unfortunately not accepted: there are particular issues to do with additional support for learning that HMIE could rightly address on its regular inspections. I would like that to happen in the future—it is an area in which there could be improvement.

Brian Monteith (Independent, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member give way?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I am sorry, but I will continue if I may. There is a big agenda issue with HMIE's role in the curriculum for excellence. If we are to change the culture of Scottish education and ensure that teachers have ownership, that they regain and retain their professionalism and that they have control of what goes into their teaching, they must have HMIE's support and know that they will not be criticised for making developmental use of their professionalism to try different things and ensure that more time is spent on the curriculum and less on assessment. The silent partner in any such change would be the Scottish Qualifications Authority. We have to ensure that the SQA and HMIE serve the curriculum for excellence and that the curriculum serves the pupils. It is sometimes possible to change the route of a Titanic, but if we are to change the route of Scottish education, we have to start seeing progress for pupils.

If I have one criticism of Brian Monteith's motion, it is that he does not mention that we must ensure that any improvements in Scottish education are, first and foremost, pupil centred. He will have realised the importance of that from the Audit Committee and Education Committee inquiries and from some of the issues to do with McCrone. In that spirit, I commend the motion and thank the member for bringing it to the chamber.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

Fiona Hyslop has made a very good speech and I welcome the fact that the independent members have raised the important work of Her Majesty's inspectors of education. The inspectors are a group of immensely highly qualified men and women whose reputation for engaging in the pursuit of excellence says a great deal for their professionalism and integrity. In discussing the current work of the inspectorate, which I regard as admirable, we must think about how education should best be run in the future.

For us, delivering education back into the hands of the teaching profession, combined with reasserting statutory parent power must, through evolutionary cultural change, be at the centre of the strategy. I will therefore focus on three key areas: devolved school management, teaching and the curriculum, and the necessity to reinstate school boards.

The policy of devolved school management is strongly supported by us and the Executive. DSM funding is that which is devolved to individual head teachers to spend. Ministers claim a target of devolving 80 per cent, and eventually 90 per cent, of funding to head teachers' control, but the reality does not match the rhetoric and it is patchy. The proportion of the total education budget that is actually devolved to our local authorities ranges from 95 per cent down to only 57 per cent. We must evaluate the list of budgetary areas that the Executive advises, but does not compel, local authorities not to devolve. DSM guidance should be bolder and aim for more consistent outcomes throughout Scotland.

Of course, another factor that limits the extent of true devolution of spending to schools is the excessive paperwork and bureaucracy that they face. My second point is that, as well as being highly qualified and worthy of trust, head teachers and teachers are best placed to know the specific needs of their communities, schools and pupils. Although the safeguard of some national strategic guidance should be retained, we should give heads more flexibility to implement unique solutions. That would give more prominence to the inspectorate's role of sharing with schools details of best practice. If head teachers had more freedom to innovate, there would be more best practice to share—for example, they would be able to work up their own continuing professional development policies for their teachers.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

If every headmaster had complete freedom to set their own priorities, how could we avoid a situation in which parents decided that they preferred the management of a particular school to that of the school next door, which would unbalance the whole school system?

James (Conservative, Lothians)

It is obviously important that parents have a say but, ultimately, the head teacher must make the decision. More decisions should be in local control. Parents have a part to play in influencing that process, but decision making should be in the hands of head teachers.

Thirdly, it has been said that

"Teachers continue to regard the matter of indiscipline and how to solve it as their number one priority."

Those are not my words, but the words of Sandy Fowler, who is the convener of the Educational Institute of Scotland's committee on pupil indiscipline. We have long repeated our view that head teachers should be given more powers to permanently exclude the very small number of persistently disruptive pupils, but the Executive's response has been to refuse to publish detailed figures on violence in schools and to complain about our having the temerity to follow up the matter through a freedom of information inquiry. Our message to the Executive is extremely clear: if it does not like our investigations, it should publish the information. After all, only a very rash minister would wish to play down disruption in schools. Moreover, a fundamental principle is at stake—the Scottish public have the right to know.

We want head teachers to have the freedom to shape the organisation, ethos and discipline regimes of their schools. More decisions being in local control would fit in with a more comprehensive implementation of devolved school management. I reassure Mr Brian Monteith that our manifesto plans will be revealed before long.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

It is a pleasure to open for the Labour Party. In many respects, today is a remarkable day. It is remarkable for me because this is my first speech as a back bencher after almost eight years in Parliament. It is also remarkable in that Brian Monteith has brought together the words "education" and "consensus", which I do not think has ever happened before—he is usually an extraordinarily contentious man when it comes to education. I suspect that the subject of the debate has been chosen principally because it is the only thing on which the other independent members can agree with Mr Monteith.

That said, the motion gives us the opportunity to examine the inspection system. There is no doubt that people in many countries of the world look with great envy on Scotland's inspection system and its history. Our inspectorate has high quality staff who have great experience and who possess insights into school education that bring enormous benefits to our system as a whole. It is no accident that countries throughout the world look to Scotland to learn about our education system and about our inspection system, in particular. Many countries are adopting our system wholesale.

As Brian Monteith said, we often think that inspection is principally about inspection of institutions, but the inspectors also conduct themed inspections of subjects such as maths or modern studies, which offer insights into the system as a whole and act as a best-practice exchange—an important part of their role, which I would like to be developed further. From time to time, the inspectors produce a state of the nation report—Robert Brown mentioned "Improving Scottish Education". In addition, they can give ministers access to insights into the system that help to inform policy decisions.

As Fiona Hyslop and others have said, individual inspections are regarded as being extremely tough and rigorous and many schools face the prospect with a high degree of trepidation, but in my experience of going round the system over recent years and further back in time, despite that initial trepidation, the experience is almost invariably good. Education is about learning and because teachers understand learning, they learn from the process, as do head teachers, and improvement occurs as a result.

Brian Monteith made the important point that any shortfall that is found should be brought to light. That is part of the purpose of the inspection system. Brian Monteith also rightly said that, invariably, change occurs as a result of an unfavourable inspection, either through the removal of the head teacher or through other changes that improve the quality of the education. Even when the education in a school is mostly good, but deficient in parts, improvement occurs.

Brian Monteith (Independent, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I have another example of a situation in which teachers and head teachers welcome inspection reports. When a report identifies that a school building is letting the pupils down, the head teacher can use it to argue for greater investment in the school infrastructure from the local authority.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Brian Monteith makes a valid point.

I turn to the frequency of inspection, which is a difficult issue that we must examine. It is hard to strike the right balance: we must hold inspections at a proper frequency and not have a system that becomes an imposition on teachers and head teachers because all they think about is the next inspection. I think that the balance is broadly right at present, but inspection needs to be underpinned by the principle of self-evaluation by schools, which Fiona Hyslop mentioned. As Robert Brown said, "How good is our school?" helps with that. We have more to do in inculcating the culture of self-evaluation and self-improvement.

In that regard, local authorities have a role to play. They are responsible for quality assurance and they have staff who visit schools regularly, which inspectors cannot do. When I was Minister for Education and Young People, I found that there was occasionally a disjunction between a local authority's view of a school's quality and the inspectors' view of it, which is alarming. Over the past few years, such disjunction has been evident in Argyll and Bute and in Dumfries and Galloway. There is a great deal of scope for more work to be done between inspectors and the school quality assurance system to ensure that there is a much clearer conjunction of interests and much greater clarity about precisely what is being measured so that parents can be reassured, not just at inspection time but between inspections, that the system is working for them.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

We move to the open debate. I ask that speeches be brief.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I, too, welcome the debate. Like Peter Peacock, I was surprised to read a motion in the name of Brian Monteith about consensus. In today's politically correct times, the debate could be referred to as a parenthood and baked-fruit product debate.

It is important to have consensus in a debate on HMIE because one of the key strengths of that body as it has developed in recent years has been its consensual approach to the inspection process. It tries to involve schools in developing its inspection process in order to show them that it is about working with them to improve young people's education. HMIE has moved away from a confrontational approach, whereby the prospect of the inspectors' arrival induced fear in teachers. Brian Monteith mentioned that inspections are a trying experience for schools; perhaps he could help to make matters less trying by not visiting them when they have just had an inspection. It is important that rather than regarding inspection as a trying experience, schools view it as an opportunity to work with the inspectorate to find ways in which they can improve.

Peter Peacock made an important point about self-improvement. By their nature, inspections are a spot check in a particular week. Schools must evaluate and improve what they do every day of the year throughout their children's education, not just when an inspection is due. We have moved away from the situation in which a school would receive investment or benefit from improvements only when a new head teacher arrived or when an inspection was due, and we must ensure that that continues to be the case. It is important to acknowledge that the Scottish Schools (Parental Involvement) Act 2006 will help parents to have greater involvement in ensuring that evaluation and improvement take place in schools every day.

It is also important to acknowledge that HMIE has a much wider role than just inspecting schools. That traditional role is important—given that the first inspector of schools was, I believe, appointed in 1840, it is a historical role—but HMIE is also involved in the overall improvement of Scotland's education. Peter Peacock mentioned the "Improving Scottish Education" report, in which HMIE draws on the experiences of inspections over a number of years to find out where improvements are needed in Scottish education. That document is an important snapshot of where Scottish education is and what needs to be done to improve it.

The role that HMIE plays today, not only in the inspection but the development of education, is extremely important in ensuring continuous improvement. I refer to its work with agencies such as Learning and Teaching Scotland, the people who are involved in implementing the curriculum for excellence, and those in the teaching profession more generally.

Our approach in Scotland can be contrasted positively with that down in England. I remain very concerned about the role and nature of Office for Standards in Education, the equivalent of HMIE south of the border. Although Ofsted recognises that most schools in England are performing well, it takes a much more confrontational stance in its inspections. Schools fear that they may be subject to special measures or to notices to improve—such things do not exist in the Scottish system. Obviously, HMIE recognises that some schools need improvement, but it does not go down the formal route of deeming a school to be a failing school, which does no good for a school's staff or pupils. All schools should be deemed to have the ability to improve; they should not be deemed to be failures. It is important that local authorities in particular respond to the role that HMIE plays.

My final plea goes to the local education authority in my constituency, Fife education. I ask it to respond to the very serous criticisms of the quality of buildings at Madras college. I hope that it will bring forward an action plan for a new Madras college and a new secondary school at the Tay bridgehead in north-east Fife.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

I well remember the time, in 1964, when I was awaiting with a dry mouth and sweaty palms my very first inspection. It was the inspection at the end of my first year of teaching—the one that would determine whether I would continue as a teacher, or not. Those days are long past. As Peter Peacock rightly said, people nowadays, both departmentally and individually, welcome inspections, which are now seen as being extremely helpful.

I will spend a couple of minutes talking about the promotion of good practice. In doing so, I have taken the narrow focus of the eco-schools initiative and how HMIE could, and should, be encouraging such good practice. Seventy per cent of Scottish schools are already in the eco-schools initiative. If we look at the health-promoting schools initiative, we see that it has demonstrated what can be achieved in promoting change in pupils' attitudes towards their fitness and health and their behaviour. We now need to apply that approach to sustainable development education, which offers a unique opportunity to equip our young people with the skills and attitudes that they need to ensure the health of our society, our planet, and the building of social capital in their communities.

A visit just yesterday, in which Sylvia Jackson MSP hosted pupils from Kinross high school and associated primary schools in the area, gave me an insight into pupils' feelings on the sustainable development education that they receive at school and from RSPB Scotland. It is clear that the pupils feel that they benefit hugely from the experience of outdoor activities in education, not only in terms of their personal development and empathy towards the environment, but in the invaluable support that such activities give to the academic side of their studies. I took away from the visit an appreciation of the living reality that SDE gives to book learning, and how it reinforces and extends pupils' understanding.

The week before last, the John Muir Trust and Ross high school gave a presentation at Parliament that reinforced my growing perception—indeed, I would go so far as to say, my growing knowledge—that for all subjects, but particularly for biology and geography, outdoor experiences are not an add-on, but an essential part of education. I now have a real sense that outdoor experiences are so essential that they can be regarded as the only and the best way of doing things.

By using practical outdoor activities such as gardening and polytunnel agriculture, less popular subjects have become the most popular subjects. I refer in particular to biology. That is the experience in Hamilton grammar school and doubtless of all other schools that take up the eco-schools initiative. By incorporating activities such as composting, waste recycling of paper and so on, in a cross-curricular way, Hamilton grammar school has inspired the way in which lessons in geography, biology, chemistry, maths and home economics are taught. In six years, the teaching of biology at Hamilton has moved on from one class at standard grade to four classes at intermediate grade and there has been a massive improvement in exam performance.

The strength of both sustainable development education and international development education is the emphasis that they place on pupil engagement in planning and target setting. That must be valued by HMIE, and measured and commended as the overall level of creativity in our schools must also be valued. The great contribution that HMIE could make in this regard is by assessing bottom-up approaches, computer networking, and staff and parental involvement. If it were to do so, it could change to an enormous degree how our schools operate.

Rosemary Byrne (SG, South of Scotland)

I welcome the debate that Brian Monteith has brought to the chamber, although I was a bit surprised to hear that he is disappointed that I had lodged an amendment to his motion. Everyone in the chamber is aware that I have a lot to say on additional support needs. I felt that that area could have been boosted somewhat in the motion.

I acknowledge the role of HMIE and the job that it does in education. Much progress has been made over the past few years in boosting that and in greatly improving the system. Like Robin Harper, I remember being very nervous about HMIE inspections, although not so far in the past as him. I remember finding the experience very daunting. If inspections are done in a positive and non-threatening manner, the feedback that teachers and schools get is one of the good ways in which the system can be improved. Along with quality assurance and self evaluation, inspections can successfully improve the education system, but only if they are done properly.

In my speech, I will focus on equality of opportunity for all. I would like to see HMIE inspections place greater focus on class sizes, for example. In a town that has two or three schools, the intake of primary 1 pupils can lead to 18 in a class in one school and 30 in a class in another school. That will come as no surprise to members—we know it from experience, but it is not equality. I would like HMIE to look much more closely at the standards and level of children who are taught in big classes. We have not done enough research on that, so we need more.

I would also like to see more being done on school meals. Some children in deprived areas still do not have a breakfast club, but magnet schools in middle-class areas do. Middle-class parents are not only vocal but are prepared to put in the money to pay for a breakfast club. That is not equality. A good breakfast in the morning is a good start for our children, so I would like to see HMIE scrutinise that area. Last week, I received a letter from a school in the Borders in which I was told that children at two schools in the Borders do not receive hot school meals. That is not equality. Indeed, I believe that they are the only two schools in Scotland in that category, but I am open to correction on the matter. I want HMIE to pick up on such issues.

I also want to see equal access in our schools to sports facilities, music and drama. At the moment, local authorities decide whether or not to employ a drama teacher, for example. That is not equality. I want HMIE to scrutinise that.

I turn to additional support needs. I am very pleased that specific inspections now take place in this regard. We have had one in relation to autism and we are about to have one in relation to dyslexia. Our HMIE needs to look very carefully at what is being provided for young people who have additional support needs, in which category I include young people who have social, emotional and behavioural difficulties. All too often, those young people and their parents are missed out in the interviews that take place. We need to ensure that the parents of those pupils get the chance either to fill in a questionnaire or to be interviewed on their child's additional support needs. I would also like there to be focus on assessment of such children, identification of their support needs, and planning and reviews. At the moment, a big issue for many parents relates to the Scottish Qualifications Authority's concessions for exams. Practice around the country is patchy, so I want HMIE to place a much greater focus on those areas.

I welcome the debate. I thank the Presiding Officer for calling me and I am glad that I was able to make this speech. I will support Brian Monteith's motion, but I regret that my amendment, in which I expanded on the terms of the motion, was not accepted.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

We move to wind-up speeches. Again, I stress that members should keep to four minutes. I am advised that I have missed out Richard Baker. I am so sorry, Mr Baker.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

How could you, Presiding Officer?

As we are short of time, I will cut to the chase. All members have welcomed HMIE's reports on schools, so there is no need for me to repeat those remarks, other than to say that I think that the reports are invaluable. Instead, I will speak briefly about HMIE's other work, which has involved commenting on local authorities' school estates reviews. I did not agree with everything that HMIE said about the review in Moray, which would originally have led to the closure of perfectly sustainable rural schools—although there is better news on that today—but it is nevertheless right for HMIE to be concerned about the wider issue of how local authorities maximise educational benefit in our schools.

As well as inspections of individual schools, HMIE carries out themed inspections. If possible, I would like HMIE to carry out a themed inspection of consultation processes on school closures, with particular regard to rural schools. That is not because I think that no rural school should be closed. If a local authority identifies a school as unsustainable because of a falling school roll or other factors; has the evidence to justify that; and has conducted a transparent consultation process, of course the school should close. That will often be sad, because rural schools are at the heart of their communities. However, if the decision is justifiable, the school must be closed.

The problem is that, in the past couple of years, swathes of rural schools, many of which received excellent HMIE reports, have been earmarked for closure by local authorities on arbitrary grounds, with poor consultation with parents, processes that are not transparent and, in the worst cases, direct misinformation to parents as justification for the closure. There has been short-termism and a failure to realise that it is often rural areas that are growing rather than urban ones. In some informal consultation processes, the proposals have seemed to be a fait accompli. The result of all that has been campaigns by parents to keep schools open, which I and many other members have backed. I am glad that, as a result, many schools that were earmarked for closure have been saved, but I am sure that everyone agrees that that is not the best approach to the management of the school estate. Those campaigns are a result of poor consultation processes. The processes have stalled rather than encouraged reasonable and rational reviews of school infrastructure. It is very probable that schools that are unsustainable have not been closed because they were bundled in with the process for schools that are clearly sustainable.

If possible, a consideration of the consultation process would be an excellent themed inspection for HMIE to take on. The inspectorate could disseminate examples of best practice and ensure that local authorities embark on transparent consultation processes that involve parents fully throughout. That would ensure far better management of local schools infrastructure, while rightly maintaining decisions at a local level, and would enhance HMIE's work to ensure excellent provision through its reviews of individual schools. The motion rightly identifies HMIE's good work. On the issue of consultation and other matters, HMIE can make a further positive contribution to education provision throughout Scotland.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

I welcome Peter Peacock to the bad boys benches at the back of the chamber. Looking at the members who are seated in the back rows confirms my view about those seats.

There is unanimity among members on the benefit of HMIE's work. That is a bit of heresy for me, as a former schoolteacher, who, like many other members, experienced the dread of inspections and the cupboard rummaging when the inspectors asked how we had acquired various resources and curriculum materials that perhaps contradicted some of the inspectorate's principles on copyright. That is my opening confession. However, HMIE certainly benefits pupils' education.

Brian Monteith has raised three fundamental issues. One is how we ensure a worthwhile frequency of HMIE reports, so that individuals in schools get the benefit of those rigorous reports and can continue to improve. The second is about the value of HMIE reports. Members have mentioned the role of schools when they are found to have both strengths and weaknesses. That is a welcome contribution by HMIE. The third and most important issue is how we engage with teachers, pupils, other staff and parents to ensure that we have a philosophy of trying genuinely to improve the quality of education in schools.

Obviously, debates will arise about what HMIE can assess. We have heard good comments about that from members. It strikes me that the broad principles on which HMIE should base its work are similar to those of schools that operate the philosophy in "How good is our school?" First, HMIE needs to consider the ethos and values of schools, as they can influence and shape the future development of our young citizens. Secondly, it must consider the leadership in schools, not just at head teacher level, but at subject and curriculum level, as well as other good role models in the janitorial and support staff. Thirdly, it should consider the range of activities that are provided; Robin Harper identified that issue. Good state and private sector schools provide a range of activities for youngsters to ensure that they develop. HMIE tries to address those issues, as well as other strengths and weaknesses.

I have taught and been an elected representative in the west of Scotland. The schools in which I taught were in some of the most challenging neighbourhoods in Scotland, if not the United Kingdom but, at secondary level, I have not yet encountered what I consider to be a failing school, although I have encountered failing elements within schools. The frustrating part is that systems have not been put in place to address those issues, week by week or year by year. Departmental failings and attitudinal failings among some staff and others in schools arise consistently. Quality assurance identifies ways in which we can deal with such issues.

We can create a culture of improvement and HMIE is absolutely central to that. However, the culture is predicated on partnership. In my area, Eastbank academy and St Mungo's academy have demonstrated that culture of improvement. Children in those schools, which are in the most disadvantaged part of Scotland, have better work destinations than pupils from any other school in Glasgow and the west of Scotland. That is a remarkable achievement. That work can be assisted through the work of HMIE and through other assessment frameworks.

Dave Petrie (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The debate has been good. As another former teacher, I have experienced HMIE inspections, which I found to be fair, balanced and comprehensive, with any identified shortcomings followed up, often with necessary staff changes, as Peter Peacock said. HMIE's responsibility runs from pre-school education through to further education colleges and community learning. It is responsible for promoting quality and attainment standards in Scottish education through inspection. It gives guidance to schools on self-regulation, which schools use to judge their performance against Executive targets. I agree with members' comments that that is extremely important. HMIE is also responsible for promoting the review of the national curriculum. I agree with Robin Harper that it is extremely important that we promote the eco-school ethic and with Rosemary Byrne that we must focus on extra-curricular activities.

Overall, the Conservative party strongly supports HMIE's work, which it carries out with professionalism and integrity. However, that work exposes the major shortcomings of our education system. I will raise a few issues with the minister. Half of secondary 2 pupils and a quarter of primary 7 pupils fail to meet the expected levels of literacy and numeracy. The Executive stopped collecting full results from local authorities on pupil discipline because of the failing record on that. I do not disagree entirely with the minister on the PISA report but, among the OECD countries, Scotland had one of the largest drops in the attainment level of 15-year-olds. Last year, 15 per cent of school leavers did not enter work or education. We have had a lot of talk about those who are not in education, employment or training, on which Scotland has the worst record in the UK. More than 18 per cent of pupils play truant. Rosemary Byrne mentioned class sizes, an issue that Fiona Hyslop has often raised in the past. The average size of mathematics and English classes in S1 and S2 is about 30. All teachers throughout Scotland accept that the Executive's target for May of an average size of 20 is not going to happen.

An HMIE report in January 2007 pointed out the failure of the McCrone deal to improve pupil attainment. Attainment among S4, S5 and S6 pupils has not improved and there has been a failure to raise the performance of the lowest-attaining 20 per cent of pupils.

Rosemary Byrne touched on mainstreaming, on which HMIE produced an interim report in 2004. We opposed the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004. I am all in favour of social inclusion, but a case can still be made for special schools. I have taught pupils with particular needs in schools—they do wonderfully well, but they still need additional support. We recommend that consideration be given to limited special school facilities.

HMIE's 2003 report, "Moving to Mainstream: The inclusion of pupils with special educational needs in mainstream schools", found that, with the right support, in schools that already have good practice in place for mainstreaming those with special educational needs, mainstreaming benefited all pupils. However, such success is limited and even the most successful schools have not been able to meet the needs of all pupils. That has resulted in a fall in the number of special schools and the expertise within them.

Brian Monteith asked about Conservative policy. We are committed to giving head teachers increased powers; to redefining the roles of the Executive and local authorities; to reducing the bureaucracy and regulation in local authorities; and to restoring school boards. Let us hope that the Executive is listening.

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The debate has been useful. The Scottish National Party thanks Brian Monteith for raising the subject—he is a man who could never be accused of lacking ideas, nor is he slow to give us the benefit of them. While I do not agree with most of what he comes up with, I admire his fecundity. If Brian Monteith does not return to the Parliament after the election in May, this place will be the poorer for it.

As it happens, the SNP will support the motion in Brian Monteith's name. HMIE undoubtedly has a key role in improving Scottish education. Its senior chief inspector, Graham Donaldson, mapped out the route we should be following in that regard in his report on the subject last year. He spelled out the key challenge that is faced by us all—politicians, professionals and parents—in the following terms:

"While many of our young people perform well in school and beyond, too many do not develop sufficiently the competences, capabilities and values which are vital for the future success and well-being both of themselves and of Scotland as a whole. For many, that future success will depend on participation in learning once they leave school ... However, over 20% of adults report difficulties with literacy and numeracy and too many young people aged 16 to 19 are not in education, employment or training."

In other words, the performance of the lowest-attaining 20 per cent of our school pupils has been flatlining for some considerable time. We must break that inertia if we are to progress as a nation. The chief inspector emphasised the need for high-quality leadership, for creating space for imaginative teaching and for more rigour in the development and certification of core skills. He argued that HMIE must make the maximum impact with the minimum intrusion in the system.

I turn to the issues that were raised in the debate. Brian Monteith is entirely mistaken in saying that the senior chief inspector is not accountable to Parliament for his organisation. He has responded every time to the Education Committee's many requests to him over the past four years. The minister explained the changes to the inspection regime, which have been approved by the committee. Fiona Hyslop addressed the issue of culture change, and the very great need to reduce assessment overload and move towards self-evaluation in quality assurance. It was a pleasure to see Peter Peacock in the chamber, this time extolling the virtues of the Scottish inspection system, which is world class.

All that said, neither the inspectorate nor the school system can operate in isolation from its environment. The United Nations Children's Fund report that was published the other day starkly revealed the alienating nature of British society. The United Kingdom is failing its children. Scotland can do better than that. It is time for us to come together to achieve the goal of giving every one of our children an equal chance to succeed in life. The Parliament must grow to meet that aspiration.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

As a number of members have said, the debate has been useful. We are indebted to Brian Monteith for securing it. I should begin with the shameful declaration that, unlike others in the chamber, I am not a teacher but a lawyer, which perhaps undermines my capacity to speak on the matter. I echo other members in welcoming back to the chamber Peter Peacock, with his great wisdom and experience in this area. We have all benefited from his contribution to the debate.

Given the timescale, I will concentrate on issues relating to HMIE. I would say, though, that I have a sense from the expositions from Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and Dave Petrie about Conservative policies that they are nitpicking on the edge of education, rather than engaging with the real issues. Major changes have been made in areas such as school buildings, teacher numbers, quality improvement and the curriculum for excellence, and many other themes have informed the work of the Parliament over the past eight years.

Dave Petrie (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I had better proceed, if the member does not mind.

As the Executive said in "ambitious, excellent schools: our agenda for action", delivering excellence in education requires both professional freedom and public accountability. We need to build on our world-renowned system of inspection to ensure further sustained improvement in our education system and our schools. As has been said by a number of members, we need systems that are proportionate and which focus on outcomes, promote self-evaluation and provide targeted support to those who are struggling.

In answer to Brian Monteith's point about accountability, it may be worth emphasising that HMIE is an executive agency of the Scottish ministers. As an executive agency, it operates independently and impartially, while remaining directly accountable to Scottish ministers for the standards of its work. It operates in a framework that is laid down by ministers for that purpose.

As part of the broad sweep of action set out in "ambitious, excellent schools: our agenda for action" we have in hand action in relation to inspection and the wider support that HMIE provides to the education system. An excellence standard for school and education authority inspection has been introduced, and a number of schools have come through with flying colours. HMIE is developing a range of materials to support the guidance that is already in place on the definitions of the key characteristics of excellent schools.

Inspections result in change and, indeed, in recognition of the pride and achievement in schools. Brian Monteith touched on that earlier, and Frank McAveety echoed that when he talked about the ethos in schools. The culture of self-improvement that was touched on by Peter Peacock and Iain Smith is a central theme. There are education systems that do not have the approach that is typified by HMIE. Last year, when I went on a ministerial visit to Denmark, I was somewhat surprised to discover that Denmark does not have an inspection system. We operate in a different environment in that regard. The central point, though, is that the thrust for improvement should lie with schools, teachers and education authorities.

Iain Smith contrasted the Scottish system with what many members would regard as England's inferior system, although, admittedly, that system has a different structure. A number of good points were made about issues of sustainable development and outdoor education. How can we have a debate about education without a mention of outdoor education by Robin Harper? Additional support needs have also been mentioned.

We need to look further ahead, too, to consider what form inspection should take after the generational cycle is complete in 2008-09. Inspection is not a burden and should not become so. Responsibility for improvement rests with schools and individual teachers. In many ways, what we are talking about is capacity in the system to secure continuous improvement, and that capacity has increased substantially. The emphasis on educational leadership and the culture of improvement is important in that regard. We are rightly demanding ever-higher standards and accountability. Inspection will remain a key part of that. It will need to be right touch and proportionate, but it is based on the substantial intelligence that we have about the strengths and weaknesses of individual schools.

I support the motion.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

I hope that members will forgive me if—purely because of the constraints of time—I do not refer to all the speeches. I support Brian Monteith in his basic thrust, which is that someone should inspect the inspectors. Who watches the watcher? I am grateful to the minister for explaining the chain of management and accountability.

I read HMIE's report, "Improving Physical Education in Primary Schools", and found that it contradicted itself. For example, while paragraph 2 said that there was quite a good standard of teaching, paragraph 4 talked about a lack of confidence in physical education teachers. I hope that the Presiding Officer will indulge me, because I will confine my remarks to that subject. I would like to be able to question the inspector about those apparent contradictions. According to paragraph 3.1 of the last report that I read, only 30 per cent of schools had programmes that were very good. The report stated clearly that visiting teachers made a huge difference, but it also referred to the lack of confidence among the classroom teachers who now take physical education in accordance with the target of two hours' PE a week for school children. It said that they often lacked the confidence to explain their attitudes and their reasons for programming physical education as they did.

Those issues are detailed and definitive. To be frank and with all due respect, ministers who are merely lawyers, such as Robert Brown, would probably not be able to answer my questions when they come before the Education Committee.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Does Margo MacDonald accept that the purpose of having visiting PE specialists is to provide teachers with extra input and expertise? If she has particular issues on PE, I would be happy to meet her to discuss them in more detail, if that would be of help.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

I thank the minister for that offer. It would be in the spirit of the debate for me to say that we will talk about it.

The report concluded:

"Key issues for education authorities to consider, include:

• ways of supporting schools and teachers through staff development in - developing effective programmes - teaching and assessment in physical education - managing physical education; • the provision and deployment of visiting teachers of physical education; and

• ways of supporting schools in developing outward-looking programmes".

That is quite a bundle. It appears that not all is well in physical education, although, if one were to read the report from cover to cover, one could gain the impression that things are getting better and, as Fiona Hyslop and Adam Ingram pointed out, the inspection rate seems to be improving.

Brian Monteith spoke historically and was right to do so in order to point out that we had to catch up. The report makes his point for him: a great number of questions are left unanswered by the written report and the inspector's appearance before the committee. He was not there to report on, answer questions about or explain his own work; he was there to comment on other people's work. I ask the minister to take the matter away and think about whether PE as a specialist area would benefit from the inspector having to be accountable to Parliament, perhaps through the Education Committee.

I invite members to support the motion heartily at decision time. It has been a pleasure to work with Brian Monteith. I am surprised that members have mentioned that he is a contentious person, because I have found him to be a pussycat.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

For the reasons I gave earlier, I suspend the meeting until 11.40 am.

John Swinburne (SSCUP, Central Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

You are just in, Mr Swinburne.

John Swinburne (SSCUP, Central Scotland)

It is more a point of information than a point of order. What would the procedure be if none of the Presiding Officers was able to fill the chair?

George Reid (None, Ochil)

We do not even consider that eventuality, which has not arisen.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — General Questions

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

To ask the Scottish Executive what action is being taken to promote links between business and universities. (S2O-12052)

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

Links between business and universities are a vital element of our economic development strategy. The Executive and its agencies are doing a great deal to strengthen those links. The knowledge transfer grant and the SEEKIT and SCORE programmes—the Scottish Executive expertise, knowledge and innovation transfer programme and the small and medium-sized enterprises collaborative research programme—have been specifically designed for that purpose. The new interface programme is specifically targeted at allowing business to access the expertise and experience in our universities.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

I thank the minister for that response and welcome the contribution that he has outlined. Would he support further developments, particularly in major areas of economic regeneration? Businesses in such communities could link up with universities to promote the benefits of the knowledge economy in Scotland.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I would indeed. Such collaborations and developments are vital in growing our economy, which is of course the Scottish Executive's number 1 priority. As we discussed this morning, as manufacturing moves east to low-cost destinations, it is vital that we compete on our skills base, knowledge base and ability to innovate and invent. Our Scottish higher education institutions are world leaders in that regard. It is important that we use our knowledge and experience and commercialise research and turn it into jobs here in Scotland.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Would the minister say that businesses in Dumfries and Galloway benefit from courses such as the one on matters relating to tourism that is offered by the University of Glasgow at the Crichton campus?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I am sure that they do. As the member knows, we will debate the Crichton campus this evening. I understand that the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council is in discussions with partners on how best to deliver course content. I am sure that Mr Morgan would agree that the important thing for the south of Scotland is that there is a breadth of courses available for people to take advantage of.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

To ask the Scottish Executive what its position is on the statement by Glasgow's new children's hospital clinical advisory group that "procurement of the adult and children's hospital as a joint PFI project was seen to be the most appropriate way forward". (S2O-12000)

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

Although we note the view of Glasgow's new children's hospital clinical advisory group, it is premature for us to comment as the appropriate procurement method will be determined through an auditable business case process based on value for money and affordability. The outline business case is scheduled to be submitted to the Health Department in early summer.

It should be appreciated that the redevelopment of the Southern general hospital site is one of the largest and most complex health care projects being delivered in the United Kingdom. It is crucial therefore that the service model is fully thought through and that appropriate infrastructure is put in place to support the chosen model of care. NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde proposes to co-locate on the site paediatric, maternity and adult services and in doing so deliver the most appropriate configuration of health care services for the people of the greater Glasgow and Clyde area.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

The minister will be aware that, throughout the consultation period, the people of Glasgow were continually assured that the hospital would not be financed privately. The minister's predecessor, Mr Chisholm, pledged £100 million to that end. Now we are being told that, without more money, the new hospital will have 25 per cent less land capacity, which will lead to a reduction in services. Does the minister support private finance for the project or have the people of Glasgow been seriously misled—yes or no?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

I am unable to comment on that, because I do not have any of the documentation that would verify it. NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde has not yet produced the full business case. I look forward to receiving it and will of course take a decision based on it in terms of value for money and affordability. We are talking about one of the most complex health care projects in the United Kingdom.

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

Will the minister rule out private finance for the hospital?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

I cannot rule out something that does not exist in the first instance. However, the hospital would not be built with the £10 billion black hole in the Scottish National Party's budget and the view that it continually adopts that puts patients after dogma.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Executive how it is encouraging the development of small-scale hydro power schemes. (S2O-12015)

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

Small-scale hydro developers gain extra income under renewables obligation schemes, which provide significant incentives and encourage new schemes. In November 2006, the forum for renewable energy development in Scotland agreed to establish a hydro sub-group to promote further development. The group will examine the potential for more hydro power in Scotland with a particular focus on support for small-scale hydro developments.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The minister will know that I have been corresponding with him about the delays that small-scale hydro developers face in obtaining section 36 consents. However, I raise another issue with him today.

The cost of the planning application process includes a non-returnable fee that is payable to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency for the granting of a controlled activities licence. A developer of a small hydro proposal that generates 1.2MW has to pay an upfront, non-returnable fee of some £22,000 with no guarantee that the application will be successful. Does the minister accept that such fees put a barrier in the way of small-scale hydro developers, whom we should be encouraging if we are to meet our renewable energy targets?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I agree that an appropriate balance needs to be struck between protecting the environment—particularly the water environment—and promoting renewable energy development, including small-scale hydro schemes. As I understand it, the power sector was well represented in the early discussions on the charging scheme and, as a result, SEPA reduced the proposed charges for smaller schemes and increased the number of projects that could gain exemption from annual charges. Of course, the charges have to be offset against the additional income that accrues through the renewables obligation certificate mechanism.

We can certainly ask our colleagues in the Environment and Rural Affairs Department to consider whether the charging regime acts as a disincentive or a barrier to future small-scale hydro production.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Does the minister agree that another disincentive to the development of small-scale hydro schemes is the extremely tortuous planning process that they have to go through? On the assumption that the Government is sympathetic to small-scale hydro projects, can the minister suggest any way in which the planning process can be made more straightforward—without any relaxation of the necessary checks and balances—to try to ensure that we get more progress on an area of policy that has had little progress in recent years?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I accept much of what the member said, but not his final comment. There has been significant progress in renewable energy development as a whole in the current session of Parliament. However, I accept that the planning processes should be streamlined and made more conducive to future renewable energy development.

The issue is partly about the training of planners in the local authority planning system. We are reviewing Scottish planning policy 6 and the advice that we give local authority planners on future renewable energy development. It is hoped that the revised planning guidance will streamline the process, speed up applications and ensure that appropriate developments are undertaken—and inappropriate ones are disposed of—more speedily.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Executive what advice it has given to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs ahead of the European Council of Ministers meeting to review the application for approval to plant BASF's genetically modified potato EH92-527-1 on a commercial scale in Europe. (S2O-11990)

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

The Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment considers the GM variety that the member mentions to be as safe as the conventional variety. The Scottish Executive therefore agreed that the United Kingdom should vote in favour of the application.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I am interested in the minister's answer. We do not know in detail what she advised, particularly given the views in Scotland about the nature of our food and the image that could be projected if a GM crop is grown.

We believe that the environmental liability directive has to be transposed into Scottish law soon and that consultations on the separation distances between GM crops and conventional crops are still at the consideration stage. Does the minister agree that, short of Scotland being directly represented in Europe, we have to find a stronger argument to protect Scottish food? If we do not oppose crops of GM potatoes that produce industrial starch for paper making, more and more GM crops will come in and threaten the clean image of Scotland.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

First, it would have been helpful if the member had listened and responded to my answer. The Scottish Executive agreed with the UK Government that it should vote in favour of the application. There were extensive discussions with ACRE. The application was not agreed to when it was first considered. The company was sent back to rework its information and was told that it could not use the potato as animal feed. A lot more information was presented and, when the application came back a year later, it was approved. We must be clear that it went through the correct processes.

On Rob Gibson's comment about future decisions, it would be premature to initiate a consultation. There are continuing discussions at the European level and the Scottish Executive is fully involved in debating the role of GM products.

The Executive's position on the matter is clear and I stated it in my first answer to Rob Gibson's question. He should go and do a bit of homework. This particular crop is not going to be grown in Scotland or the rest of the UK, but it has been agreed under EU procedures with our careful consideration after taking scientific advice.

Rosie Kane (SSP, Glasgow)

To ask the Scottish Executive which employment, training and personal development services formerly provided by One Plus are now being provided by other agencies and which agencies are involved. (S2O-12012)

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

The situation is still developing, but information that has been received to date suggests that a large number of labour market trainees have been placed with new providers. A wide range of local authorities, local enterprise companies, colleges and child care and social care providers from both the public and private sectors have been involved in making alternative arrangements for trainees.

The Executive is in negotiations with alternative providers regarding the sustainable employment service. Similarly, negotiations to re-establish key parts of the wider advice and support services that were formerly provided by One Plus are at an advanced stage.

Rosie Kane (SSP, Glasgow)

Is the minister aware that the services that existed under the One Plus banner were integrated, which meant that people who attended were offered other things that were connected, such as training, mentoring, child care and counselling, in a one-stop shop? That lifted a lot of the barriers to education. What will the minister do to ensure that such a cohesive approach is in place so that there is inclusion? Can he guarantee that the organisations that pick up the slack will not be overwhelmed by the influx of ex-One Plus trainees and workers to the detriment of the services that they already provide?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I am well aware of the integrated and co-ordinated services that One Plus provided in my constituency and other members' constituencies. As Rosie Kane says, it was important that those services were integrated in the way that they were. It was a devastating blow for the Scottish Executive as well as for the employees of One Plus when the organisation closed its doors, because we depended on it for the delivery of large parts of our social and child care policies.

As I said in my first answer, we have engaged vigorously with other providers to ensure that, wherever possible, services have been picked up by local authorities, social care organisations and others and that those services are integrated. Ministers remain in discussions on how best to take forward the successor organisation to One Plus to ensure that our social and child care policies are put into effect as efficiently as possible in the affected localities.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Will the minister join me in welcoming Amicus learning representatives to the chamber? Does he endorse the approach that Amicus and employers have developed to encourage lifelong learning among union members and workforces?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

Indeed. I am a long-term supporter of workplace learning and the trade unions' role in encouraging such learning, so it gives me great pleasure to welcome the Amicus delegates to the chamber. [ Applause. ]

I pay tribute and give due credit to the work that all unions do in the workplace to promote lifelong learning—literacy and numeracy in particular—among their members and other employees, whose experience of conventional education might not have been the best. It is vital that such people are encouraged back into learning. In that context, trade unions can reach people that other agencies often cannot reach. That is why we have given strong financial support to union learning representatives and workplace learning.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

To ask the Scottish Executive what representations it has received regarding the delivery of care services for elderly people in Orkney. (S2O-12019)

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Orkney Islands Council has made a number of representations to the Executive. I met council representatives and Jim Wallace in December to discuss those issues. George Lyon met council representatives earlier this month.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I am sure that at our meeting on 20 December the minister got the full flavour of the challenges and difficulties that the council faces in the context of the islands' fast-rising elderly population. As a result of the meeting, the council agreed to consider seeking the assistance of the joint improvement team in establishing a managed care network. In return, the Executive agreed to consider a pilot project between the council and the Executive, as well as funding. The minister knows that the council's convener has subsequently written to indicate the council's willingness to find out whether the joint improvement team can help. Will the minister take this opportunity to announce that he will support that initiative? Will he also confirm that the Executive is considering the potential for a pilot project on the delivery of elderly care services, as well as the wider funding issue?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

The meeting in December was constructive. I welcome the indication from Orkney Islands Council that it thinks that the joint improvement approach has potential and might help. I am pleased to report that officials have been able to work with the council and provide support in preparing a bid under the shared services approach, which is a significant step in the direction of greater joining up of the services that public agencies provide in Orkney. If the council wants to consider further measures, beyond that bid, it should work up proposals. Colleagues in local government are always receptive to innovative proposals and I am prepared to consider the potential for improving the delivery of services.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what action it is taking to reduce congestion in Aberdeen. (S2O-12035)

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

We are working with Aberdeen City Council and Aberdeenshire Council to complete the Aberdeen western peripheral route, which will remove through traffic from the city. We will continue to work with the north-east Scotland transport partnership to improve transport infrastructure and tackle congestion.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

The minister is aware that the Haudagain roundabout is a key pinchpoint for congestion in Aberdeen. Does he agree that progress must be made expeditiously on that issue? Can he confirm that action to address the issue by the Executive, NESTRANS and Aberdeen City Council will not be delayed until the completion of the western peripheral route?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I take Richard Baker's point about the Haudagain roundabout. Anyone who lives in the north-east or travels through the area, as I do, appreciates the roundabout's importance and the difficulties that motorists and heavy goods vehicles and the freight industry must contend with.

I assure Mr Baker that we are working closely with Aberdeen City Council on improvements and additions to the roundabout, which are tied to the redevelopment of Middlefield. The council has carried out a part 1 Scottish transport appraisal guidance assessment and a part 2 assessment is under way. Proposals that emerged from the part 1 STAG appraisal include a single-lane or lane-filter road connecting North Anderson Drive and Auchmill Road through Middlefield. Those proposals and other measures will continue to be considered.

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

To ask the Scottish Executive how the Scottish Prison Service is working with local communities to prevent crime. (S2O-12022)

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

The Scottish Prison Service works directly with local communities and partner agencies to prevent crime in a variety of ways, which include such initiatives as the prison me no way project and the routes out of prison project, which is an element of the choose life initiative. The SPS has been working closely with the new community justice authorities by contributing to the development of their area plans, and it has appointed four CJA liaison managers.

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

Will the minister commend the Prison Service staff who are working with the No-Way Trust and who were in my constituency two weeks ago, working with third-year pupils from Galashiels academy to show them the consequences of offending behaviour? Will she correct what I believe to be an error, which is that SPS staff have to volunteer and take holiday time to work with the trust in helping prevent crime in our communities? Will she address that as a matter of urgency?

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

I am aware of the work of that project. In response to a question from John Home Robertson, who was impressed with the work that was undertaken at a school in his constituency, I have asked my officials to look further into the matter. I will report back to both members in due course.

First Minister's Question Time

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues they will discuss. (S2F-2719)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I look forward to seeing the Prime Minister this afternoon, not least because I will be able to present him with a tie like the one I am wearing, which was designed by the children of Mulbuie primary school in the Highlands—they designed the golden broom tartan for the year of Highland culture. [ Applause. ]

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

The tie looks very nice. We, too, look forward to seeing the Prime Minister this afternoon.

When the First Minister took office, he said that he would always listen to the people of Scotland. When he meets Tony Blair later today, will he tell him what the former First Minister, Henry McLeish, had to say—that Scotland is sick of Labour's "negative", "extreme" and "London-based" approach to politics?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I think that the nationalists might be in for a surprise this afternoon. It beggars belief that Ms Sturgeon is prepared to come here and talk about leaders from London. There is only one group in this Parliament that is led from London, and that is the Scottish National Party.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Is it not the case that the First Minister still does not have the courage to say those things to Alex Salmond's face? Referring to Alex Salmond on 23 November, the First Minister said:

"I will be delighted to debate with him over the next five months."—[Official Report, 23 November 2006; c 29651.]

Is it not the case that, every time the First Minister has had the opportunity since then, he has run away?

When the First Minister sees Tony Blair this afternoon, will he tell him some hard truths? Will he tell him that four out of five Scots are opposed to his plans to replace the Trident nuclear weapons system? In the words of the First Minister, that decision will have a huge impact on Scotland. Will he tell Tony Blair what 100 top scientists, academics, lawyers, church leaders and MPs—many of them Labour MPs—have said today: that if the decision to replace Trident goes ahead, the United Kingdom will lose all moral authority to tell other countries to disarm or to desist from developing nuclear weapons? Or will he simply continue to toe the Trident line, proving that he is just as out of touch on the issue as Tony Blair?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I am sure that there will be a continuing debate on that issue. I will be delighted to talk to the Prime Minister this afternoon about how we take forward our shared agenda, building on the fact that, yesterday, with employment at 76.1 per cent, Scotland had the highest level of employment since records began—and a quarter of a million new jobs since 1997. I will be delighted to talk to the Prime Minister about the fact that, here in Scotland, we are leading the rest of the UK in reducing child poverty; more than 100,000 youngsters have been taken out of poverty since 1997. Here in Scotland, we are also leading the rest of the UK in reducing pensioner poverty; more than 120,000 pensioners have been taken out of relative poverty since 1997.

Those improvements and others are thanks to the partnership between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom and the economic stability that the nationalists could never deliver, but which is here for us in the fifth-largest economy in the world. At the same time, the dynamism, innovation and power of the Scottish Parliament is making a difference here in Scotland, which is leading the UK and, in some areas, the rest of Europe.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I am sure that the First Minister will be happy to tell the Prime Minister what he wants to hear; the question is whether he will have the guts to point out some hard realities in Scotland.

I hope that the First Minister and I agree on the need to give every child the best possible start in life. For that reason, if for no other, will he tell Tony Blair in no uncertain terms that when 250,000 Scottish children still live in poverty, a decision to spend £25 billion on weapons of mass destruction would be absolutely indefensible? Will the First Minister speak up for Scotland when he meets Tony Blair, or will he just go along to listen to his master's voice? [Interruption.]

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I do not want to return to a theme, although I realise that members are enjoying it, but it is a bit rich for a member of the party that is led by the Dick Whittington of Scottish politics—someone who goes looking for the bright lights of London at every chance he gets—to talk about her master's voice.

What Nicola Sturgeon says about the money that she claims would be saved by not having Trident is contrary to her party's stated position. Angus Robertson—in London—who is her party's spokesperson on defence and foreign affairs, made it clear last October, on behalf of Alex Salmond and the whole Scottish National Party, that all the savings the SNP claims would arise from not having Trident would be spent on conventional defence forces. If the party that flip-flopped on a Scottish currency, flip-flopped on a deficit and an oil fund, flip-flopped on public-private partnerships and tried to flip-flop on higher education expenditure is now flip-flopping on defence expenditure, Nicola Sturgeon needs to be more honest in the chamber and say so.

It is absolutely clear that the best way to tackle child poverty in Scotland is, first, to be part of the fifth-largest economy in the world and to have the economic stability and strength of the United Kingdom as our foundation. We are using the powers of devolution to put children first, to give them a chance through education and to ensure that their parents have child care. We are using the resources and imagination that are at our disposal to ensure that Scotland continues to lead the rest of the UK in taking children out of poverty and giving their families the best possible and most prosperous quality of life.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

If Trident is a benefit of the union, it is no wonder that more and more people in Scotland support independence. Is it not the reality that whereas our priorities are health, education and crime, the First Minister's priority is weapons of mass destruction? Is it not the case that the more often Tony Blair comes north to talk Scotland down, the more people are reminded of why they want to see the back of Labour? I remind the First Minister that people are sick of the scaremongering, the sleaze, the illegal wars and the weapons of mass destruction, and that they are deeply disappointed in a First Minister who will stand up to none of that. I suggest that, instead of attacking the SNP, he should concentrate on getting his house in order.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

What matters to me is the fact that the United Kingdom has a minimum wage for the first time. We should be proud of that. The Labour Government delivered that and the SNP did not even turn up to vote for it against the Tories. Scotland has between 30,000 and 40,000 modern apprenticeships, which are funded by a strong UK economy but delivered in Scotland, which is leading the rest of the UK. We have had increases in child benefit and improvements in child care. We have the highest employment rate in the UK and the second-highest rate in the whole of Europe. That is an economic union and devolution dividend for Scotland that ensures that our country is more prosperous than it was and on which we can build a better future for Scotland. Even though that is happening, the SNP will not talk it up, because all it wants to do is talk Scotland down. The devolved Government is not only talking but building Scotland up. We will have a further chance to do so.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-2720)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to Scotland.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Last week at First Minister's question time I asked the First Minister whether he was in favour of introducing road tolls throughout Scotland—whether he will carry out the wishes of the Secretary of State for Scotland and Secretary of State for Transport, who wants tolling on roads throughout the UK. In character, the First Minister entertained us with his usual bluster and waffle, so I will try again: is the First Minister in favour of tolls on Scotland's roads?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Last week I said that there were no plans to have even a pilot project in Scotland. However, the Government's debate on road user charging is important. It is worth having that debate if it could lead to a fairer distribution of charging for motorists on our roads and could help rural motorists in Scotland, by the scheme being right. At this stage it is only a debate, and it is right that it should take place.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

It is all very well for the First Minister to pretend that he has made his position on road tolling clear, but he should speak to the Minister for Transport, the self-styled viking. Last week the First Minister told me:

"There are currently no plans to pilot such a scheme in Scotland."—[Official Report, 8 February 2007; c 31953.]

That is fine, but this week Tavish Scott said:

"We need to make it happen more quickly in Scotland."

Is that the official policy of the Lib-Lab pact? If not, will he seek Mr Scott's resignation as Minister for Transport?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

No, and no.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I think that the First Minister's tie has gone to his head. The answer is simply not good enough. The people of Scotland look for and should get clear political leadership. It has been an interesting week. On Wednesday Tavish Scott announced that there will be a new Forth crossing. On Monday he announced that we need to make quicker progress on road tolling in Scotland. The people of Scotland are now expected to believe that one of the announcements is Government policy and the other is not. The coalition Government is shambolic. The Scottish Conservatives oppose any additional nationwide charges for using Scotland's existing roads. The public want to know what the position of the Lib-Lab pact is.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I hesitate to say that Annabel Goldie is tying herself in knots, but the position is absolutely clear. The UK Government has begun a debate on road user charging. In my view it has done so quite legitimately, because of the technology that exists in this country today, because motorists have genuine concerns about the way in which they are currently charged to use Scotland's roads and to own and use their vehicles, and because we have international obligations on emissions and a commitment in Scotland and in the United Kingdom as a whole to tackle emissions. We need to take a radical look at how motorists will be charged in the future. It is right and proper to begin that debate, not least because the Conservatives introduced motorway tolls in the United Kingdom when they were in government and it is incumbent on the rest of us to decide what to do with the system they introduced.

As I have made absolutely clear in the chamber, there are no current plans to pilot road user charging in Scotland. The Executive has no position in support of road user charging or against a debate taking place on the issue. The point that I made last week—that we in Scotland have a particular interest in the matter—remains. That interest is in rural Scotland, where road user charging would have to be implemented very carefully so as not to have a detrimental impact on those who have to use their vehicles to get about their area, because they have no public transport alternatives. I make that point clearly, as a sensible injection into the discussion. I hope that we can get away from posturing on the issue and look 10 years ahead, and that the political parties in Scotland and throughout the UK will adopt a position that encourages genuine debate and leads us to a conclusion that may be sustainable beyond one party being in power.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

There are two constituency supplementaries.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

Is the First Minister aware that the court of the University of Glasgow decided yesterday not to admit any undergraduate students to the Crichton campus in Dumfries in September? Does he recognise and value the particular contribution that Glasgow University makes to the courses on offer to students in Dumfries? Will he do whatever he can to facilitate negotiations between Glasgow University and the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council with the aim of enabling Glasgow to retain its presence at Crichton?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Ministers are committed to the Crichton campus on at least its current scale and to encouraging and enabling discussions to take place towards ensuring that the campus has a continuing, viable and increasingly successful future. In fact, this week, the Deputy First Minister spoke to the funding council and others to keep the discussions on the right track.

However, we live in a country where politicians do not instruct universities what to do, so, initially, the decision on student places is for the University of Glasgow—I want to make that clear—but we are determined that any reduction in student places via Glasgow University must be taken up by other universities to ensure that the provision of higher education in the south of Scotland at least remains at its current level.

As Elaine Murray will know, part of the complication in the decision is that the nature of the courses offered by Glasgow University is not always available from the other university that is currently active on the campus. That is why sensible discussions have to take place to ensure that we get the right provision in the future. We are absolutely determined that there will be provision and that the number of places will at least remain at their current level.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Will the First Minister update the Parliament on the announcement today by Diageo plc of a £100 million investment to expand its Scotch whisky operations in Scotland, including a preferred location at Roseisle on Speyside for a new malt distillery? When he meets the Prime Minister later today, will he buy him a dram to celebrate the decision?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I would be delighted to do that. I congratulate Diageo. This is the biggest investment in the Scotch whisky industry for many years, and it will result in new jobs in Speyside, Fife and Glasgow. There will be £100 million investment in total, which will include the establishment of a brand new malt distillery on Speyside and significant expansion, particularly at Leven. That is good news. It is a great investment by Diageo, which is to be congratulated and supported in making the announcement today.

Jean Turner (Independent, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Executive capitalises on the experience of, and rewards, the public sector workforce. (S2F-2721)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Recent pay modernisation has ensured pay policies are fair and consistent and provide incentives for staff to join and stay in the national health service. Throughout the public sector, employers are encouraged to provide incentives for performance, and in many areas reform has delivered more rewarding career structures.

Jean Turner (Independent, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

I would like to draw attention to the nurses in the health service whose experience is important considering all the changes that are taking place. Many think that the agenda for change has been an agenda for misery—nurses with 20 to 40 years' experience have found themselves being downgraded. They are in financial misery and feel extremely undervalued. How can the First Minister capitalise on those nurses' experience and turn around their lack of morale?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I must say that I do not recognise that picture. There are always strains and tensions when a new pay structure is implemented, but there is no doubt among the nurses I have spoken to that the more flexible pay structure and arrangements in the health service give them new career opportunities and new opportunities to develop their skills.

Alongside that, we now have nearly 20 per cent more medical consultants, 12 per cent more qualified nurses, 23 per cent more qualified allied health professionals and nearly 10 per cent more dentists than we had at the time of devolution.

There have been significant improvements in the health service in Scotland during the Parliament's lifetime. We must recognise that the health service ultimately survives and thrives on the hard work and skills of the workforce. It is vital that we do all that we can to encourage and support those who work in it.

Jean Turner (Independent, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

That sounded good, but the First Minister and I must speak to different nurses. Many nurses have told me that they feel undervalued. If a nurse with 43 years' service can find that their pay has suddenly been docked by £200 a month, which can affect their pension, a message will be sent to nursing staff coming into the service that sincere and hard-working people who are constantly upgrading their skills through personal development plans are being undervalued. Nurses have told me that it could take two years to review decisions that have been taken. How can the First Minister help such nurses in the unfair situation in which they find themselves?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I would be happy to ensure that the Minister for Health and Community Care provides Jean Turner with a detailed outline of the various measures that are in place.

The commitment to improve the knowledge and skills of nurses and other health service professionals is absolute and is in place as a result of the actions of the devolved Government. How individual nurses are affected by the agenda for change is clearly a matter to be dealt with by the arrangements that have been put in place. People will have concerns about individual cases, but appeals mechanisms exist to deal with those concerns. The changes in grading systems, the injection of additional resources, the new career structures and the opportunities to develop and then use new skills is good news for the vast majority of people in the health service—not just nurses—the health service itself and patients. We should not only continue to travel in that direction, we should speed up our pace in that direction.

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

To ask the First Minister what steps are being taken to ensure an effective emergency response in the event of an oil spillage resulting from ship-to-ship oil transfers around Scotland's coastline. (S2F-2729)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The approval of oil pollution emergency plans is a matter that is reserved to the United Kingdom Government, but the Scottish Executive would take a leading role in any response to an actual or potential oil spill incident in Scotland. In that regard, the Fisheries Research Services maintains an all-year-round initial point of contact for Her Majesty's Coastguard, harbour authorities and other interested parties.

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

It has been alleged that last year's clearwater Forth exercise highlighted significant communication difficulties and that if those difficulties were replicated following an actual oil spill they would result in unacceptable delays and confusion in any response. Regardless of whether that is the case, does the First Minister believe, as I do, that to reassure my constituents and other people who live around the Forth, this year's exercise, which is due to be organised and led by Fife Council, should simulate an emergency following a spillage from a ship-to-ship oil transfer operation, as such an exercise has never been carried out?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Those who must deal with emergencies should determine what exercises to undertake as part of the clearwater exercises, which take place each year. Christine May's idea is useful and constructive, but those who are involved at the front line should determine their contingency planning each year. That said, I urge them to consider Christine May's suggestion as one of the options for this year.

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

Is the First Minister aware that there has been a fair degree of cross-party consensus on ship-to-ship oil transfers and what the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development, Sarah Boyack, said at the Environment and Rural Development Committee meeting last week? She stated:

"it is up to Forth Ports to decide whether to apply for a licence."—[Official Report, Environment and Rural Development Committee, 7 February 2007; c 4101.]

Is he also aware of what the Minister of State at the Department for Transport stated on 25 July 2006:

"As this is for a devolved purpose, it is the responsibility of the Scottish Executive to determine whether a licence would be required for ship-to-ship transfers in the Firth of Forth"?—[Official Report, House of Commons; 25 July 2006; Vol 449, c1308W.]

Will the First Minister clarify the situation? Is it for the Scottish ministers or Forth Ports to make a decision? Who is right?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

As I have not seen the quotation from the United Kingdom minister, I would be happy to provide Bruce Crawford with a written response to his question.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

On 17 January, the First Minister's Government submitted legislation to the Environment and Rural Development Committee that could have given ministers the power to make a decision on ship-to-ship oil transfers. Instead, the First Minister chose to leave that decision to Forth Ports plc, an unelected, unaccountable private company that has a direct conflict of interest. Is it not the case that the First Minister is more interested in resurrecting previous speeches about the environment than putting in some hard work to govern Scotland, to put in place the right legislation and to protect the environment?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

That is certainly not true. The devolved Government can be very proud of its record on the environment. The fact is that Scotland's recycling rate has increased from 6 per cent to 25 per cent. We have not only set the most ambitious targets on renewable energy in the United Kingdom but we are marching towards meeting those targets and we have the potential to go further. Not only are we delivering the existing generation of renewable energy but we are supporting world-leading technology in wind and wave power that we hope will lead the rest of Europe and the world—rather than fall behind as we did on wind power under the Tories.

There is a host of other areas in which we have set ambitious targets for dealing with carbon emissions and so on. This devolved Government has a record on the environment that is absolutely in touch with the issues that matter to the people of Scotland and the future of our children for generations to come. We will continue to take that approach.

Andrew Arbuckle (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Has the Scottish Executive discussed—or will it—with the applicant for the proposed ship-to-ship oil transfers whether it will consider moving to the inherently safer and better-resourced location in Scapa Flow?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

That is a matter for the appropriate authorities and agencies. Of course the agencies of our devolved Scottish Government are involved in making appropriate representations on this matter and advising on it. To suggest otherwise is wrong. It would not be appropriate for us to get into a situation where we dump on or encourage the use of different locations for this sort of activity. It needs to be dealt with on a proper, scientific basis and that is exactly what will happen.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

To ask the First Minister what measures the Scottish Executive is taking to reassure consumers at home and abroad that Scottish poultry is safe. (S2F-2731)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Food safety is a matter for the independent Food Standards Agency. The agency has been active in the media, repeating its advice that an outbreak of avian flu does not pose a food safety risk for consumers. It has also posted the advice on its website. We support the FSA's efforts where it is appropriate and helpful to do so.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

The First Minister no doubt shares the alarm expressed by many people that the UK apparently continues to import meat products from Hungary despite the fact that that was not supposed to happen. In the words of the UK Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, it happened only because of a "lapse in biosecurity".

Is the First Minister aware of the strong feeling in the Scottish farming sector that while farmers in Scotland have bent over backwards to prevent disease and promote biosecurity on their own farms, the same cannot be said for UK Government departments, which are failing to control the very complex import and export routes for meat products, particularly from countries that have a history of animal disease? Will the First Minister investigate those very serious concerns and protect the interests of Scotland's farming communities?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

It is inappropriate, on this matter as on so many others, for the nationalists to try to turn an issue about safety into a constitutional issue by making it into a matter of Scotland versus the rest of the UK. It is entirely inappropriate to seek to turn the discussion in that direction.

The issue is about how we deal with avian flu and other food safety problems. The best way to do that is to work in partnership not only with farmers and other food producers here in Scotland but with those south of the border who are faced with such outbreaks and challenges. We also need to ensure that there is a consistent approach throughout the European Union and, if possible, beyond. That is precisely why the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department works in partnership with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. In that relationship there are times when communication can fall short of the standards that we would expect, but that is why we learn from every incident. We in Scotland have taken a particular strength from the way in which we have dealt over the years of devolution with issues such as the initial foot-and-mouth outbreak six years ago and the more recent incident in Fife last spring. That expertise is helping the rest of the UK to handle its problems more effectively.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

To ask the First Minister what the total cost has been of providing legal aid and compensation to people serving prison sentences for claims under the European convention on human rights since its incorporation into Scots law. (S2F-2723)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Since 2000, the total cost of legal aid and compensation in such cases has been approximately £2.3 million.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

To judge from comments that have been made elsewhere, there might be some surprise at the low level of funding that the First Minister suggests. That makes me wonder whether other costs are hidden elsewhere.

I point out to the First Minister that the European convention on human rights would be better labelled in Scotland as the European convention on prisoners' rights. I point out to him the shambles in our bail laws, in slopping out, in the telephone messages issue and in voting rights for prisoners. When will he bring sanity back to our justice system?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Bringing back some consistency between the questions and the supplementaries might be more of a challenge.

Phil Gallie is surprised that the total for claims is low because the figures have, at least by implication, been exaggerated elsewhere. In this country, where people have a legal right to go to court and there is a legal aid system in place, it is right and proper that people should have the chance to apply for legal aid and that their applications should be treated consistently through the normal processes independently of the Government and ministers. That is what happens.

By far the greater part of the sum I mentioned is legal aid payments. In some cases, people will have won their case; in others, they will not. Access to justice is important. It would be very dangerous to start picking and choosing who has access to justice.

Point of Order

Chris Ballance (Green, South of Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Last Thursday, the Parliament voted down the Executive's proposal that the Parliament

"commits to a replacement crossing across the Forth and calls on the Cabinet to commit to preparatory work to start immediately".

Yesterday, the Minister for Transport, Tavish Scott, said:

"Cabinet agreed today to take forward the replacement crossing. Work will continue to assist a final decision ... on where the crossing will be".

In making that announcement, the minister clearly acted directly contrary to the will of Parliament as expressed in a decisive vote in the chamber. He has also behaved in a deeply disrespectful way to members of the Parliament, who voted against the proposal just six days before. Presiding Officer, I seek a ruling from you at decision time on whether the minister is in breach of rule 3.1 of the ministerial code of conduct, which requires that

"The Scottish Executive should be accountable to the Scottish Parliament",

and of rule 7.3 of standing orders, which requires that members show respect to members of the Parliament.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

I have just received notice of this point of order. I will reflect on it and, if appropriate, I will comment at decision time.

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

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

To ask the Scottish Executive how many new schools have been built since May 2003. (S2O-12060)

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

On 29 January we announced the achievement of our commitment to the renewal of 200 schools since 2003. That includes 110 new-build schools.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

The minister may be aware that Dumfries and Galloway Council intends to announce the preferred bidder for its public-private partnership schools building programme next month, and that the contract will be signed in the summer. Does the minister share my concern that, if Alex Salmond becomes First Minister in May and pulls the plug on PPP, instead of construction starting in the autumn, plans for new schools in Heathhall, Lockerbie and Moffat in my constituency will have to be shelved?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

The possibility of Alex Salmond becoming First Minister is fairly remote. However, in the unlikely event that that happened, Elaine Murray would be right to be concerned. Contracts under our plans—and under the plans that are under way in Dumfries and Galloway—would be cancelled.

Peter Peacock wrote to Fiona Hyslop and the Scottish National Party to ask how its projects would work, but there has been no reply. I have written twice, I think, since then, but there has been no reply. Perhaps Elaine Murray's powers of persuasion might enable us to get the information that so far has been refused.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The Minister for Education and Young People, in a personal capacity as a Labour candidate, may have written to me, but I have not received any such letter. The minister has continued to talk about such a letter in committees in the Parliament, so I took the trouble to write to him not only at John Smith House but at Victoria Quay, and to e-mail him, to explain the Scottish futures trust as proposed by the SNP. If the minister had any courtesy or respect, he would acknowledge that.

It is essential that we replace the school estate in Scotland. Under the SNP, the school building programme will progress—but we will introduce a not-for-profit Scottish futures trust. Is the minister aware that in his constituency, if a better interest rate had been achieved from the market for procurement, it is probable that two extra secondary schools, like Gleniffer high school, would have been built? That could not happen because of the excess profits that the minister's Administration is wasting because of PPP finance.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

That is just absolute nonsense. The SNP's plans are not only uncosted but unproven. We have no way—and nor does the SNP—of knowing whether those plans would work. Many questions remain unanswered. The SNP's proposals are asking people in Scotland to take a great leap in the dark. Like many others things about which the SNP is trying to kid the Scottish electorate, it will be not only a leap in the dark but a leap into danger.

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

To ask the Scottish Executive how many social workers there are and whether the figure has increased in recent years. (S2O-12024)

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

There were 4,855 whole-time equivalent social workers employed by Scotland's local authorities in October 2006. That is 25 per cent more than the 3,873 whole-time equivalent social workers employed by local authorities five years ago.

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I thank the minister for that most encouraging news—an increase in the number of social workers of 25 per cent is valuable. Does the minister plan to continue the fast-track graduate recruitment scheme? If so, what will be the timeframe? Does the minister agree that that scheme is part of an overall package for social work, and that, if the social work sector wishes to advance, it should value its own profession and commend itself to the general public whenever possible?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

The fast-track scheme was a particular response to past difficulties in recruitment. It has been successful in bringing new blood into the profession, but many employers have said that it is time for a new approach.

We continue to support post-graduate routes into social work through a bursary scheme. That scheme has supported 320 new students this year—and that figure too has gone up 25 per cent over the past three years. As part of our implementation of "Changing Lives", we are talking to employers about new approaches to social work recruitment, in the context of recruitment issues that have arisen in recent years. To take up Euan Robson's last point, "Changing Lives" is designed to focus the social work profession in a modern way. It is based on valuing and supporting the work that social workers do for Scotland.

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

I note the welcome increase in the number of social workers by 25 per cent over the past five years. Does the minister agree that, as welcome as that increase is, the issue is not just about absolute numbers, but about the job that social workers are doing? Does he agree that social work cannot be and is not a stand-alone profession and that the key to effective social work practice is proper interagency working, so that it is not only social workers who are responsible for that effectiveness but everyone who is caring for vulnerable people, who must all work together?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I absolutely agree with Scott Barrie and could not have put that better myself. I am well aware of Scott Barrie's background in social work and of his knowledge of the issues. He will be aware, as will everyone in the chamber, that the challenging "Changing Lives" agenda is designed to modernise the way in which social work operates, to ensure that it is much more client focused, that as little time as possible is spent simply shuffling paper around and that as much time as possible is spent engaged in action, in partnership with other professionals, that will make a difference for, among others, Scotland's children.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Does the minister agree that, however much success he has with recruitment, much of it is vitiated by the failure to retain staff, particularly in children and families social work? How does he envisage the Executive addressing that problem?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I am not sure that a major problem has been identified with retention in the profession. However, I agree that the issues of retention, recruitment, training and the valuing of social workers are central to how we deal with the matter.

I do not want to be complacent. It is true that there are differing levels of availability of social work vacancies across Scotland and that there is still work to be done with regard to recruiting more social workers into the profession and on focusing on the work in order to make it a more enjoyable profession than it has been in the pressured days that we have gone through.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

To ask the Scottish Executive what role surveillance technologies have in schools. (S2O-12069)

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

Local authorities are responsible for the delivery of education in a safe and secure environment for both staff and pupils. It is for authorities to decide what technologies best support the achievement of those objectives.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

The Executive has made it clear, not least in the Communities Committee this week, that it favours a completely unregulated approach to the development of those technologies, notably fingerprinting systems, which will be the first such technology to be rolled out in Scottish schools. However, is the minister aware of the strong cross-party concerns on those issues in Westminster? Is he aware that a written answer in Westminster said that

"the British Educational Communications and Technology Agency ... is revising its current guidance on data protection to include specific guidance on biometric technology"?—[Official Report, House of Commons, 5 February 2007; Vol 456, c 628W.]

Will that new guidance apply in Scotland? If not, why not? If so, is the Scottish Executive seeking to influence it?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

Patrick Harvie might have been at a different meeting of the Communities Committee than the one that I was at, given the reference that he made to fingerprinting technology. However, there was a discussion at that meeting about anonymised systems for school meals payments.

We have made it clear that the issue is a matter for the schools to determine. We have made clear what we expect to happen with regard to good practice and we have made clear how we expect the law to be applied. Nothing has changed between Tuesday and today that I can add.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

Will the minister accept that, ever since the outrage at Dunblane, sensible security is extremely important in schools for teachers and pupils and for parents, when they visit the schools? Does he agree that a safe and secure school environment is an essential requirement?

Will the minister accept that, where closed-circuit television operates, it is an extremely effective deterrent against a variety of crimes, including fire raising?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton is absolutely right to put safety and security within the context that he mentioned. Not only would we be shocked and horrified if something were to happen that we had done nothing to prevent, but we would all be held to be guilty of neglect. It is incumbent on us to take steps to ensure that technology that is relevant and appropriate is used to encourage a safe and secure environment in our schools.

I appreciate the contribution that CCTV can make in town centres and outside schools in diminishing vandalism, and so on. However, we do not recommend CCTV as a measure to monitor or reduce indiscipline in schools. There is a different context there, and a number of other measures can be used to alert parents to the fact that their child has not turned up for school. Albeit that mistakes can sometimes happen—I heard of one such case today—we should do what we can to ensure that our children are well protected.