Scottish Parliament, 4 September 2008

351 contributions from 84 members. The official report.

Official Report 4 September 2008

Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament Act 2006 (Breach)

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Good morning. The first item of business this morning is a debate on motion S3M-2442, in the name of Keith Brown, on behalf of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, on a breach of the Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament Act 2006.

I call on the convener of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, Keith Brown, to speak to and move the motion.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

Members should excuse my breathlessness. Traffic from the Forth road bridge was very slow this morning.

I speak in support of the motion, which relates to the committee's findings on a complaint against Wendy Alexander MSP. The full details of that complaint are set out in the report that the committee published on 10 July 2008, which also includes a detailed report on the complaint by the Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner. It is important to remind members that the committee is unaware of any complaint made to the commissioner until the commissioner reports to the committee at the end of stage 2 of the complaints process, and that his investigation is entirely independent of the committee.

In summary, the complaint was that the member failed to register in the register of members' interests within the required timescales 10 donations above £520 in value that were made to her campaign for the leadership of the Labour group of MSPs. Paragraph 6 of the schedule to the Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament Act 2006 requires that members must register any interest if the member receives or has received

"a gift of heritable or moveable property or a gift of a benefit in kind and ... the value of the gift, at the date on which it was received, exceeds 1 per cent of a member's salary on that date ... and ... that gift meets the prejudice test."

Section 3(2) of the act states:

"An interest meets the prejudice test if, after taking into account all the circumstances, that interest is reasonably considered to prejudice, or to give the appearance of prejudicing, the ability of the member to participate in a disinterested manner in any proceedings of the Parliament."

The act requires that interests are registered within 30 days of the date on which the member acquires that interest.

The Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee considered and agreed the following findings of fact made by the commissioner. Between 15 August and 14 September 2007, the member engaged in a campaign to be elected leader of the Labour group of MSPs in the Scottish Parliament. Donations towards the cost of that campaign were received from individuals and organisations and paid into the WA campaign account, to which the member was not a signatory. Ten of those donations were of a value over the registration threshold of £520 for gifts. They were banked between 31 August and 5 November 2007. Although the member did not have direct ownership or control of the campaign funds, she had a beneficial interest in them. Contrary to a claim that was implied in the complaint, the campaign team was not a company or partnership. The member made no entry relating to the relevant donations under gifts in the register of members' interests within 30 days of their receipt. The member sought and received written advice from the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee clerks on 8 November 2007. That advice was to the effect that registration of the donations in the register of interests was not required. The advice was sought after the deadline for registration of around half of the donations had passed.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

On the advice that the Parliament's lawyers gave Wendy Alexander, could you tell the Parliament—

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

You should speak through the chair, please, Ms McNeill.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

Will you tell the Parliament whether you requested to see—[ Laughter. ] I apologise. Will the member tell the Parliament whether he asked for the parliamentary advice to be published? If not, why not?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

From my recollection, the committee did not ask for the advice to be published, but we asked to see it. We were told what the advice was, but only verbally, not in writing.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

Will the member take an intervention? I would like to clarify something.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

I must make progress. I am sorry.

On 1 February 2008, when the Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner's investigation was not yet complete, nine donations were registered voluntarily in the register of interests; the 10th donation was registered under sponsorship.

The committee noted the commissioner's and the member's views on whether the prejudice test had been met. It then considered the commissioner's conclusion that the member's

"failure to register as gifts in the Register of Members' Interests, within the appropriate timescale, eight of the donations to her leadership election campaign constituted a breach of section 5 of the Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament Act 2006 together with paragraph 6(1) of the Schedule."

In reaching its view, the committee considered all the evidence that was set out in the report, and agreed, by a majority of five to two, with the commissioner's conclusion. During its deliberations, the committee considered the key issues of the definition of a gift or benefit in kind; what is meant by receiving a gift; the financial threshold; and the prejudice test.

Having reached a majority view that the member had breached the requirements of the 2006 act, it considered written representations from the member before it decided whether to recommend sanctions to the Parliament. It considered a number of mitigating factors that were highlighted in the member's written representations together with the evidence in the commissioner's report, and agreed by a majority of four to three to recommend sanctions for the breach of the 2006 act. We noted that the member had sought advice from the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee clerks on 8 November, albeit that that was after the deadline for registering some of the donations. We also noted her comments on her previous compliance with respect to registration and that she had, in fact, exceeded those requirements in the past, albeit that we found her previous diligence incongruent with not having taken timely advice and action in respect of the donations in question. The committee also noted the procurator fiscal's comment that there was a degree of uncertainty surrounding the interpretation of the relevant provisions and that the member could not be held responsible for that. In addition, it noted that it and its predecessor committee had not provided advice on the categories of registrable interest.

We considered the available sanctions that are set out in sections 15 and 16 of the 2006 act. Only the four committee members who had agreed to recommend the imposition of sanctions discussed sanctions. The committee agreed by division—four for, with three abstentions—to recommend that Wendy Alexander MSP be excluded from all proceedings of the Parliament for the first Wednesday that is a sitting day following Parliament's agreement to the sanction.

On behalf of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, I move,

That the Parliament notes the 6th Report, 2008 (Session 3) of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, Complaint against Wendy Alexander MSP, and agrees to impose the sanction recommended in the report that Wendy Alexander MSP be excluded from all proceedings of the Parliament for the first Wednesday that is a sitting day following agreement of this motion.

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The convener of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee has talked in detail about the committee's report to the Parliament. I associate myself with his remarks and will make some comments in support of the committee's deliberations.

We have an absolute responsibility, enshrined in the law, to register our interests. We cannot deviate from that responsibility. It ill becomes any member to seek to avoid that responsibility or to seek to lay it at the feet of others, especially if those others are committee clerks or MSPs' staff, who do not have the opportunity to defend themselves in public.

In the past, members have found themselves in breach of the rules as a result of their own actions or through no intended fault of their own. The delineation between those members—of all parties—has been between those who have had the good grace to accept responsibility for their breach, apologise to the Parliament and accept any sanction that has been imposed, whether the breach happened as a result of their actions or the actions of others, and those who have not had the good grace to do so.

In the case that lies before the Parliament, which weighed heavily on the committee before the recess, there can be little doubt that the member at the heart of the report has still not accepted responsibility for her actions or those that were taken in her name, and that she still seeks to avoid any sanction. I would be pleased to be proven wrong if the member tells members that she is willing to accept responsibility for, and any consequences of, the events that have been reported.

In considering the commissioner's report, I found enlightening the clerk's note at appendix 6, about a chat with the member. In my dealings with the clerks about the registration of my interests, there has always been a rider at the bottom of communications from them to the effect that their advice is their best interpretation of the rules but that it is the member's responsibility to ensure that they comply with the law and any other rules. In that context, the clerk's advice to the member that

"any donation could be considered as a gift and therefore it would be required to be registered if it exceeded £520 and met the prejudice test"

was clear, but the responsibility still lay with the member and not the clerk.

The standards commissioner's report makes it abundantly clear that the rules had been breached on several occasions before the member approached the clerks for advice. I refer to the note to paragraph 16 of the commissioner's summary of his interview with the member. That note also indicates that the dates that were submitted to the Electoral Commission as the dates on which donations were received were not the true dates on which the donations were received, which indicates at the very least a laxity in record keeping.

The findings of fact in the commissioner's report are not in dispute. In the member's letter of 13 June 2008 to the committee clerk, she accepted the factual findings, with the exception of a slight quibble over the observation that a fair-minded person would consider that the gifts may influence her actions. For the record, I agree with Wendy Alexander that that is a judgment rather than a statement of fact, but I agree with the commissioner's judgment that the prejudice test was met.

The recommended sanction of a one-day suspension can in no way be said to be onerous. Considering the importance of the probity of members of the Parliament and therefore of the Parliament itself, I have no hesitation in recommending that Parliament endorse the committee's findings and recommendations.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

The Parliament has waited the entirety of the summer before debating the report from the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. I welcome the opportunity for the Parliament to have its say and to determine the matter. In considering the complaint about Wendy Alexander by a Scottish National Party researcher, I will focus on two issues. First, I will examine the robustness of the report and the consequences for our procedures and, secondly, I will consider the implications for all members of the Scottish Parliament.

The central question is whether the donations should be considered as a gift and should therefore have been registered. The committee accepted three key points: first, the member was right to seek advice from the clerks; secondly, the clerks gave clear and unambiguous advice to the member; and, thirdly, the committee accepted that the uncertainty surrounding the interpretation of paragraph 6(1) of the schedule to the Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament Act 2006 was not a matter for which the member could be held responsible. The committee rightly concluded that, because of the ambiguity in relation to registration, there was no breach. Christina McKelvie was a member of that committee and cannot distance herself from that key conclusion today.

It being the case that there was no breach, there can be no sanction and, to be frank, the committee misdirected itself on the issue of timing. I want to be absolutely clear about that. If the committee did not find that there was a breach on registration, it could not find that there was a breach on timing, because timing is irrelevant. If one pays close attention to the 2006 act, one will find that section 5(2) states:

"Within 30 days after the date on which the member acquired that interest, that member shall register that interest"

with the clerks. However, the member understood that the interest was not registrable. The clerks and the Parliament's lawyers advised that it was not registrable and the committee accepted that the situation was ambiguous and did not find against the member on that point. If the Parliament's lawyers were asked today, they would tell us exactly the same thing—the interest was not registrable. Therefore, timing has absolutely nothing to do with the matter.

There are lessons to be learned. I trust that, as a consequence of the report, the Parliament's procedures will be reviewed. I invite you, Presiding Officer, and the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body to consider those procedures, because the report has profound and far-reaching consequences for all MSPs. Indeed, Presiding Officer, we have exchanged letters on that point. On 22 August, in a letter that you placed in the Scottish Parliamentary information centre, you advised that members should continue to have confidence in the advice of the clerks. I do have confidence in them, but it is clear that the majority of the committee members do not and instead prefer the opinion of a Queen's counsel. In the same letter, you note that members should consult private legal advisers. We could end up with at least three separate pieces of legal opinion, which would be a bit like pick and mix at Woolworths. Whose opinion will the committee prefer—my private lawyer's, the clerks' or a QC's?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Will the member take an intervention?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Not at this stage.

The committee is not a court and it should not determine points of law. The interpretation of law is properly a matter for the courts. I am astonished that, on the one hand, legal opinion for the standards commissioner was published in full, yet nothing at all has been published from the Parliament's lawyers. Despite the attempt at an explanation by the committee convener, I find that to be an unacceptable and glaring omission.

We need clarification on several matters. We need to know about the status of advice received from the clerks and the provision of private legal advice for members. We need guidance for members who are involved in party elections and clarification of whether the procedures are compatible with the European convention on human rights. There is a considered view from leading civil law firms in Scotland that the process that was followed may be in breach of article 6 of the ECHR, as the committee may not be considered to be a fair and impartial tribunal in determining a member's civil obligations. That has profound implications that the Parliament must consider carefully. I urge you, Presiding Officer, to ensure that that happens.

Wendy Alexander has paid a high price for a report that some commentators have described as partisan. Some members may regard what they have done as a political victory, but wiser heads will reflect on the consequences for the Parliament and for democracy. Let the wiser heads in the Parliament dismiss the report, which is unfair, unjust and, frankly, plain wrong.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

It is surely the Parliament's duty to judge its members by the Parliament's rules and not by those of any other body. With the greatest respect to the members of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, of which I am one, the committee's decision in the case was wrong and a member of the Parliament has suffered an injustice and therefore an unfair slur on her parliamentary record. That is unfortunate, not only for the member concerned—Ms Wendy Alexander—but for every member of the Parliament.

The standards committee must surely demonstrate a stature that is higher than that of any other committee because of what it does or may be called on to do, which is to sit in judgment on the conduct of other members. It must be self-evident from the committee's conduct that it has attained the highest levels of fairness, natural justice and professional objectivity. It must be seen to be free from partisan whipping and members must make up their minds according to the evidence, rather than be told what line they should take.

The committee members should do as they would be done by, which is most likely to be achieved if the committee reflects substantial parliamentary experience. However, it has been pointed out by the press and others that all those who voted in favour of sanctions, including the convener, were new members who were elected in May last year. I mean no disrespect to them, but how many members would feel comfortable to be judged by a committee that is so lacking in parliamentary experience? Party leaders and managers should bear that in mind when appointments to the committee are made in future. I know that I shall make myself unpopular by saying this, but there was a distinct scent of partisan alignment on the committee, which should not have been there. I am proud of the fact that I based my judgment purely on the evidence that was before me, without anyone from my party telling me what I should or should not do. That is how the process should be carried out but, regrettably, it was not. I am sure that most members believe that the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee must be above blemish.

It was wrong to recommend imposing sanctions on the member, and the time taken to produce a result, because of incessant filibustering in private committee sessions, did not allow the Parliament to vote on the matter before the recess. The sword of Damocles was therefore left hanging above the member's head for an unnecessary two months. I suspect that that was a major factor in the resignation of Ms Alexander from the leadership of her party. It disturbs me that in a country allegedly famous for justice and fair play, an event of this kind has been allowed to happen in our Parliament. Lessons must be learned.

From day one, I was convinced that there was no case to answer and that although a breach might have been committed, it was as a result of the member falling foul of a flawed system rather than her personal conduct. The member made every effort to register the donations. She took the advice of the Parliament's lawyers and the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee clerks who advised that there was no need to register the donations. Admittedly she was a week late in doing so, but that was as a result of her belief that there was no precedent for registration in a leadership campaign. I questioned the lawyers and the clerks who all told me that they would have given her the same advice whenever she had asked that question.

It is a sorry state of affairs if any member of this Parliament cannot have confidence in the advice given by the Parliament's lawyers and the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee clerks. Who else is a member meant to ask? Should he or she employ a Queen's counsel at vast expense? I do not think so. I do not think that many of us would feel obliged to do that or, for that matter, could afford to do that. I do not believe that justice has been done and that is why, during the committee sessions, I argued and voted against any sanctions on Ms Alexander. For the same reasons, I will vote against the motion set before us today.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Today's short debate has a lot of political mileage behind it, to say the least. In speaking for the Liberal Democrats, I say that this ought to be a parliamentary debate informed and motivated by judgment, a sense of proportion and individual consideration. I agree very much with many of the comments in that regard by Jamie McGrigor. However, my personal view is that there is a presumption of support for the committee report, provided that the reasoning is sound, and a presumption that the member is acting properly unless the reasoning to the contrary is sound.

Liberal Democrats have a free vote today, which is proper.

Marlyn Glen (Labour, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I am very sorry; not in a four-minute speech. We have a genuinely free vote, which is not the kind that leads miraculously to everyone in one party freely voting one way and everyone in the rival party freely voting the other.

I will say a brief word about my thoughts on the report. Much of it raises no contention, as has been said. It is agreed that Wendy Alexander received donations to her leadership campaign from several people and it is accepted that those donations were not registered in the register of interests in the time allowed. One of the defences is that they were not gifts because they were raised and received by the campaign team. The commissioner and the committee were entirely right to reject that argument, but I struggle to understand the committee's conclusion that the uncertainty that they say surrounded the interpretation of paragraph 6(1) of the schedule to the 2006 act is not something for which the member could be held responsible. If that is so, what is the offence?

The report then says that the circumstances gave the appearance of prejudice to a fair-minded and impartial observer. I am unhappy about that conclusion. The committee rightly held that the commissioner had made a judgment and not a finding of fact and I have struggled to find any evidence of the commissioner's basis for reaching that conclusion. The committee rightly considered and formed its own view, but apparently only on the basis of the size of the donations. I would have thought it necessary to consider all the background circumstances, which include the vital fact that all the donations came from known Labour Party supporters and donors. Would anyone really be surprised that the Labour Party's Advocate General for Scotland, or the appointee to general secretary of the Labour Party, or Mr Willie Haughey or GMB Scotland were among the donors? Would the non-registration of such donations really lead an informed member of the public to think that Wendy Alexander was prejudiced in her ability to take part in a disinterested manner in parliamentary proceedings? I am not entirely sure, but I tend to the view at present that the committee's reasoning is inadequate and flawed on that point in relation to most, if not all, the donors.

I do not accept the excuse about legal advice. We all know that the clerks can only advise and that the ultimate responsibility lies with us to satisfy ourselves. If in doubt, register. I do not accept, however, that that means that we should take separate legal advice. There is no doubt in my mind that Wendy Alexander would have been extremely wise to register the interests and avoid the problem.

Assuming that the chamber is satisfied—there are some question marks about that—that there was a breach of the rules, the registration issue carries a sense of being an afterthought. It is certainly a side product of the separate furore about the Electoral Commission and I suspect that it was also an afterthought by Wendy Alexander. The whole affair has contributed to her resignation as leader of the Labour Party. Some members take the view that pressing the matter to a conclusion has an aura of vindictiveness. On the other hand, Parliament and the public are entitled to expect full transparency in financial matters, but there is a case for drawing a line under this matter, which has produced so much grief for Wendy Alexander.

I offer my thoughts as impartially as I can manage and I intend to listen to the rest of the debate before deciding on my vote. I return to the point with which I began—it would be meet for members of the Parliament to rise to the occasion, to listen to the debate objectively and to try to form our own conclusions. If members have not even read the report, they should consider whether they ought to vote on the motion this evening.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

As a member of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, I would like Parliament to know that I regret the way in which the matter has been handled. To allow a complaint to drag on for almost 10 months is unacceptable to the member involved, to the complainant and to the Parliament as a whole. The committee should not have needed to seek Parliament's approval to meet during chamber sitting times and the matter should have been concluded before Parliament rose for the summer recess.

I understand that this is the first time that a parliamentary committee's report on a complaint about a member has been published showing division. I regret that we find ourselves in that position; it does not reflect well on the standing of the committee. I was honoured to be asked by my group to serve on the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. In previous parliamentary sessions, members of the Standards Committee served us and, through us, the people of Scotland well. Previous committees also had difficult and detailed complaints to deal with, but they were able to show fairness and impartiality while always taking a non-partisan approach. I am not confident that the current committee has achieved that same high standard in all aspects of the report.

I will spend my remaining speaking time discussing a few facts of the case. It is a fact that in the past Wendy Alexander registered personal donations or gifts made directly to her in the register of members' interests. In relation to the donations made to the Wendy Alexander election campaign, it is a fact that the member did not register donations made to that campaign fund on the parliamentary register prior to February 2008. It is a fact that she did not register the donations because she did not receive the money personally and had no access to the bank account therefore could not spend the money. In her opinion, the donations were not gifts to her.

The committee had evidence to show that Ms Alexander had diligently registered gifts in the past. That showed me that she was well apprised of parliamentary rules on the matter. It is a fact that when questions were raised she took advice from the parliamentary clerks, who in turn took advice from parliamentary lawyers. The advice—another fact that is not disputed—confirmed that Wendy Alexander did not require to register the donations as gifts or election expenses. That was very clear legal guidance that concurred with the opinion and advice on which members are entitled to rely.

A complaint was lodged asking the standards commissioner to investigate a failure to declare and as soon as he said that in his view the donations were registrable, the member took action to register the donations in the appropriate register. We know that the standards commissioner reported the matter to the procurator fiscal at the appropriate time. The procurator fiscal, acting in the public interest, looked at the case, but took no legal action against the member because there was uncertainty and because the member had sought advice from our parliamentary clerks.

In his report, the standards commissioner advised that he could not take mitigating circumstances into account—the clerks' conclusion could not affect his conclusion about a breach according to his independent judgment. However, we as a committee could take those factors into account and members accepted that the clerks' advice was unambiguous. In paragraph 90 of the committee report, the committee also accepted that the member could not be held responsible for the uncertainty surrounding the interpretation. The whole committee accepted those facts, but some members still felt that sanctions should be imposed on the member.

During questioning at the committee stage, parliamentary lawyers confirmed to the committee, in response to a question by Jamie McGrigor, that they would give the same advice again. In light of that, I can conclude only that some members of the committee were not open-minded in this case and were not prepared to consider all the facts. Therefore, I could not support the imposition of sanctions. I ask that members consider all the facts when voting tonight, err on the side of fairness and justice and reject the committee recommendations and report.

Dave Thompson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

This was a difficult and complicated complaint to deal with, but I believe that the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee handled it fairly and quickly.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

rose—

Dave Thompson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

It came to its decision at the end of June; it did not take the committee 10 months to deal with the case. Cathie Craigie well knows that the clerks received the report from the standards commissioner only on 9 June. It was placed before the committee on 19 June and the committee concluded its deliberations just seven days later on 26 June. The commissioner may have taken longer, but the committee certainly did not.

The committee, in fact, completed its final report one week after that, on 4 July, which was just over three weeks after the complaint was received.

Therefore, accusations that the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee dragged the matter out are nonsense. Jamie McGrigor's accusations of filibustering are a scandal. The only ones who delayed things were the Labour members, who refused to accept reality and the facts before them.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Central Fife)

On Jamie McGrigor's comments, will Dave Thompson confirm what is in paragraph 62 of the report, which is that Jamie McGrigor agreed in committee with the commissioner and the majority of the committee that Wendy Alexander was in breach of the 2006 act, and that where he did disagree was on the sanctions? There is no doubt, according to paragraph 62, that he agreed that Wendy Alexander was in breach.

Dave Thompson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Jamie McGrigor certainly did vote with the four other members of the committee that a breach had occurred. His tone has changed; he has been got at. He has allowed partisan party politics to get in the way of the truth. [ Interruption. ]

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

rose—

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

rose—

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order, order.

Dave Thompson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I can honestly say that I approached this complaint in exactly the same way as I have approached all other complaints: in confidence, with an open mind and a willingness to make a judgment on the facts. The committee's deliberations were not helped, by the way, by speculation in the media, which could have come only from someone in the know. I was angry and upset that the finger of accusation was pointed at the committee, including me, because of the actions of probably one individual. I do not know who they were.

George (Labour, Lothians)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I distinctly heard Mr Thompson say that Jamie McGrigor had been "got at". In other places—I know that some people do not like me quoting other places—that would be considered unparliamentary and an unwarranted slur on the character of Jamie McGrigor. I ask you in all seriousness, Presiding Officer, to ask Mr Thompson to do a very small thing: to withdraw that slur against the character of Jamie McGrigor.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I do take that seriously, Mr Foulkes. Thank you for it. I am not happy with the terminology, but I am also clear that Mr Thompson has not broken any of the parliamentary rules in using that particular terminology. However, I think that he wants to think very carefully before he continues along that line.

Dave Thompson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

What I think all members need to remember when considering this report is that the facts are not in dispute. The committee's report was based on a report by the independent standards commissioner, which was backed up by a QC's opinion. I will not go into the detail of our deliberations, but I will say that we looked long and hard at the issues, and came to—

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Thirty seconds, Mr Thompson.

Dave Thompson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Thirty seconds—oh, goodness. That is what happens when you take too many interventions, is it not?

When it came to the sanctions, I believed that there were mitigating circumstances, including the fact that the member had asked the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee clerks for advice, albeit well after the deadline for registration of the gifts. The member stated in her letter to the committee that she had registered much smaller voluntary donations in the past, which begged the question why she did not register these donations.

If the Parliament does not support the committee's recommendation, it will give out a clear message that failure to disclose thousands of pounds of donations warrants nothing more than a slap on the wrist. It will encourage avoidance of the rules and show that this Parliament supports one law for the desperate drug addicts and another for the privileged politician.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I want to make two things clear before I start. First, neither this case nor its handling has done Parliament much credit—there should be no place in this debate for personal accusations or for self-satisfied expressions on anyone's face. Secondly, like other members, I am not speaking on behalf of my party. There is a range of views in my party, so these will be personal comments.

We have in the past accepted internal disciplinary processes. We have unanimously appointed members to run those internal processes and have given them our trust to do that fairly. We have also in the past unanimously supported disciplinary recommendations that were far more severe than what is being proposed today. For that system to have any legitimacy, we must recognise that we are a Parliament—a political institution. We need to be realistic about that.

We also need to be clear about whether we have confidence and trust in the people whom we appoint to do the job. I am not aware that any member has proposed that there be a motion to remove members from the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, so I infer from that that we have continued trust in the members who currently serve us in that way.

I am not aware of any new substantive argument that was not available to the committee when it made its decision or debated the issue. Given that, I do not at the moment see any clear reason that is sufficient to overturn the recommendation. I take no pleasure in saying that, any more than I did when we imposed more serious sanctions in the past.

Marlyn Glen (Labour, North East Scotland)

Does Patrick Harvie take into account that the committee's decision was not consensual but was a divided decision, which is extremely rare? In fact, it has never happened before.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I acknowledge that. Nevertheless, the recommendation has been made by the committee and we must debate it in those terms, as we do with any other recommendation from the political committees when there is a dissenting view.

I want to address a wider issue before I finish. In the regulation of political life, we have created many layers of process and machinery, and of legislation and rules, not just in Scotland but throughout the United Kingdom. We have the Representation of the People Act 2000, the Political Parties Elections and Referendums Act 2000, the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Act 2000 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000. We also have the Electoral Commission, the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the Scottish Parliament Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, the parliamentary standards commissioner, the "Register of Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament", the standing orders and the "Code of Conduct for Members of the Scottish Parliament". In addition, we have the rulings of our Presiding Officer. Through all those, we have robust and rigorous layers of media and public scrutiny.

Why have we got all those? It is because we, or our predecessors, put them all in place, largely with a view to restoring or building public trust in the system. It is blindingly obvious that that has failed—we have ended up with a system that is so complex that it must be hard for anybody to spend more than a few years in this job without making an error and having it exposed in the media, which often misrepresents the matter.

We sometimes say of industries that they need not more but better regulation. What we have done with ourselves is just pile ever more regulation into the system and make it unmanageably complex. There must be a longer-term look at that. That said, I believe that for the Parliament to overturn the committee's recommendation today would do further damage to public trust in the system that we have in place. For that reason, and that reason alone, I will support the committee's recommendation.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

This debate is unwelcome, unnecessary and unfortunate. Once more, the standards system that the Parliament introduced to protect the public, preserve trust in the institution and help to maintain MSPs' integrity has been used to undermine those goals. A nasty and politically motivated campaign has culminated in a split committee and a partisan report.

The Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee split four to three on whether to uphold the complaint and impose sanctions. That is the first time we have ever had anything other than a unanimous recommendation from the committee or its predecessors on how to deal with a complaint against an individual member. In case anyone was in any doubt, I checked the files and went through every report: they have all been unanimous until now.

I was on the Standards Committee and the Standards and Public Appointments Committee for several years, so I know the determination with which members from all parties tried to reach agreement on such cases, which are the most difficult of matters. Our first duty is to protect the public and the reputation of the Scottish Parliament itself, but it is also important that the standards system is not politically abused. We are all damaged when any member's integrity is called into question, and any supposed short-term political advantage that is to be had from trying to bring a member down is hugely outweighed by the long-term damage that is inflicted on all elected politicians in the corrosively cynical world in which we live.

I have read the committee's report. I must admit that I had to reread it to understand what Wendy Alexander was found to have done wrong and why the committee made what I regard to be a severe recommendation on sanctions. I do not accept the fundamental argument that she should have made a declaration on the parliamentary register, because we all have to separate our parliamentary and political work.

The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 exists to regulate the conduct of political parties and elections. From my time on the Standards and Public Appointments Committee, I remember discussions that led to the Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament Act 2006, which established the register of interests. The committee wanted to keep the two systems as distinct as possible and recognised that having two systems with different disclosure thresholds could lead to confusion and may hinder transparency. Any actual or possible need for overlap was flagged up clearly. One such example is the requirement to disclose any individual donor who contributes more than 25 per cent of an MSP's election expenses.

However, neither I nor even Ms Alexander was alone in regarding the disclosure rules in that light: no previous leadership election had used the parliamentary system to register donations, so it is clear that most members felt similarly. More important is the fact that the clerks to the committee did not believe that the donation should be registered. They, in turn, took advice from the Parliament's lawyers, who confirmed that there should be no registration and, therefore, that there was no breach of any code.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Will Ken Macintosh give way?

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

I am sorry, but there is not enough time in the debate.

Given the media speculation over the matter, Wendy Alexander sensibly took further legal advice, which again confirmed the widely held view that no declaration was needed. Even the standards commissioner was not sure either way when he first looked at the case. He took advice—for the first time, as we all now know—and was offered a different opinion but, even after that, when the matter was referred to the Crown, the procurator fiscal said that it was a matter of some ambiguity.

I do not accept that the leadership donation should have been declared but, if one does, it should at least be regarded as a late declaration. Some members of the committee seem to believe that the breaking of the 30-day rule deserves suspension; some of us are more aware of human frailty and the oversights that we can make. I had a cursory look at two of the 10 or so volumes of the register of members' interests and found half a dozen late registrations that broke the 30-day rule by Andrew Welsh, Michael Matheson, Fergus Ewing, Linda Fabiani and Bruce Crawford. For clarity, I say that I hold those members in the highest regard and believe them to be members of integrity. However, I also believe that we should regard late registration simply as a mistake and not as something to be punished by sanction.

Politics can get personal, but members of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee need to exercise their judgment. Most members will be able to do what some members of the committee seem to find difficult, which is to put their party allegiance to one side and see the allegations for what they are: they are at best political mischief-making and, at worst, a despicable attack on someone who is trying to represent her constituents and party in public office.

I ask the Parliament to reject the divided and discredited report.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

The Parliament is not sovereign and, therefore, must expedite its procedures according to the law of Scotland, its customs and practice. That means that, when Parliament sits in judgment on one of its members it must act and, most important—as Jamie McGrigor pointed out—it must be perceived to act as an impartial and unbiased tribunal. From the start, that principle was tainted in that the perception is that the complaint against Wendy Alexander originated from an SNP researcher who shared a common interest with, and a direct line of communication to, Wendy Alexander's political opponents on the committee.

In its report, the committee also admits that there is ambiguity as to whether Ms Alexander contravened the Parliament's rules on the declaration of interests. Scots law dictates that the committee must, therefore, give the benefit of the doubt to the accused person and should dismiss the complaint against her. That much is crystal clear, so the committee should be thanked for its work and no further action should be taken on the complaint against Ms Alexander. We should be guided in the matter by the procurator fiscal.

However, the experience has shown us some unsatisfactory and disturbing aspects of our procedures. Those must be addressed. At the very least, an examination must be made of the standing of the legal advice that is given to members directly or via committee clerks. I feel sure that the Parliament can rely on you, Presiding Officer, to set that in train in the interests of clarity, fairness and, above all, public trust in the procedures and probity of the Scottish Parliament.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

That thoughtful speech from Margo MacDonald should weigh heavily on many of our minds.

I have read the report. Like other members, I have also previously been found to have breached the code of conduct for members, but the Parliament placed no sanction on me. The members whom Ken Macintosh mentioned were found guilty of the same breach of the code of conduct and the 2006 act as Wendy Alexander, but no sanction was placed on them by the Parliament, the committee or any previous committee. If we now say that a member who is late with a registration by one week will be suspended from the Parliament, we are setting ourselves a very high standard and bar. Members need to reflect on that. That concerns timing. If we look closely at the 2006 act, we find that, for timing to come into play, there must first be a breach of the act.

There are three key paragraphs in the committee's report that deal with breach. A breach would have occurred if paragraph 6(1) of the schedule to the act required the member to register the donation. Paragraph 23 of the report states:

"The Committee agrees that paragraph 91 reflects the member's and the Commissioner's judgement as to whether the prejudice test is met, rather than being a statement of fact"—

a point that Robert Brown dealt with clearly in his speech.

At paragraph 16 of its report, the committee sets out why the Crown Office told the standards commissioner that a prosecution would not follow: there was a degree of ambiguity on whether paragraph 6(1) of the schedule had been breached.

Paragraph 90 of the report states:

"The Committee therefore accepted that the uncertainty surrounding the interpretation of paragraph 6(1) of the schedule ... was not a matter for which the member could be held responsible."

If the committee accepts the finding in paragraph 90 that Wendy Alexander could not be held responsible for the ambiguity that surrounds paragraph 6(1) of the schedule, it follows that she could not be guilty of a breach of the code and timing does not come into play. Timing can come into play only when the code has been breached. Therefore, if the committee has accepted clearly in its report that the ambiguity around paragraph 6(1) of the schedule

"was not a matter for which the member could be held responsible",

it cannot say that she should still have registered the donation when she was not guilty of breaching the code in the first place. Committee members have condemned themselves by their own words and their partisan politics.

I was a member of the Standards Committee in session 1 and had to make difficult decisions. I hope that l laid my politics at the door. If we were to ask the former First Minister, Jack McConnell, whether Labour members of the Standards Committee in 1999 and 2000 dealt with him as well as any other members, I think that he would say that they did. As members of the Parliament, we have a responsibility to act above party politics.

If members thought that the campaign was not partisan and politically motivated, Christina McKelvie's speech this morning will have set that in context, as will the outrageous slur on the character of Jamie McGrigor, for whom I have the highest regard. I disagree with him politically, but to say that he has been got at outside the committee or the chamber is a disgrace, and the member who said that should be prepared to stand up in the chamber and say, "Sorry. I made a mistake in the heat of a debate and I take it back because the member came to the chamber and made his points in good faith." I hope, Presiding Officer, that members will take the matter seriously, and that you will take seriously the points that have been made. The Parliament is bigger than any of us who sit in the chamber right now. The principles that we employ and put in train now are far more important than we who will be here until 2011: we are putting in place procedures and practices for the Parliament that should be beyond party politics. Unfortunately, what we are debating today and the manner in which it has been conducted are not beyond party politics. It draws this place down, does nothing for its reputation with the public, and does nothing to enhance the status of politicians or this place. We should reject the recommendation for all the reasons that members have outlined. I hope that Parliament will do exactly that at 5 o'clock.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

It is with no pleasure at all that I stand up to speak today.

I must say first that the Scottish National Party members will absolutely have a free vote on this issue at 5 o'clock. There is no question whatsoever of there being any direction or recommendation, and I say that as the party's chief whip.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I thank Brian Adam for making that clear. I have sat through the entire debate and have not done so merely to pass the time. I have listened to the debate closely—it has been pretty unedifying. I am not prepared to vote against a committee report or to impugn people in the heat of the chamber. However, I make it clear that I am not content that the motion is not in two parts. Wendy Alexander has suffered enough personally and politically, so I make it plain to Parliament that I will abstain.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

I thank Christine Grahame for making her personal position clear.

This is my personal position. I have listened carefully to the debate and I have looked at the report. At the start of her speech, Jackie Baillie quite properly suggested that we ought to deal with the matter robustly. However, we should also deal with it very carefully along the lines that Patrick Harvie described. We should not lightly dismiss the findings of our independent standards commissioner, although that is not to say that the standards commissioner will get it right on every occasion.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Will the member give way?

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

With respect to Miss MacDonald, I have already given way once.

The standards commissioner is not going to get it right on every occasion, so it is the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee's duty to challenge and explore all possibilities. As well as the standards commissioner not always getting it right, it is also true that the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee might not get it right, but we should not overturn the recommendations of an independent standards commissioner and, indeed, the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee lightly. On that, I agree with Patrick Harvie.

Advice was sought and given, but we have only heard part of the total content of that advice. It is extremely unusual to have any written advice. I have never come across it in the time I have been in the Parliament, and I served on the Standards Committee and the Standards and Public Appointments Committee for almost a whole session. I never came across written advice from the clerks, so I do not understand why it was given. However, on every occasion on which I was involved with the Standards Committee clerks, there was a rider that the member has a duty to make their own decisions.

Jackie Baillie also called for a review of procedures. A couple of points were also made about timing and whether late registration ought to be considered to be sufficiently serious that it requires sanction. Ken Macintosh obviously has some personal experience of that—I fully sympathise. I served with him on the Standards Committee, to which he made a significant contribution. For an error in judgment that was not in any way prejudicial, he paid a particularly high price.

However, the distinction between this case and others of a similar nature that have been heard by the committee is that, in this case, there was no admission that a breach took place, however inadvertent it might have been. Now, we have the standards commissioner saying that there was a breach, and the committee saying so by a vote of 5 to 2. Irrespective of the manner in which Jamie McGrigor put his case today, he voted in favour of there having been a breach.

We have a duty to consider the matter extremely carefully at 5 o'clock. It might well be that the 30-day rule—I think that I am using Ken Macintosh's words—trips members up, rather than it being the case that members make conscious and deliberate decisions to flout the law. That issue does not lie in our hands, as Margo MacDonald rightly pointed out. It is not a sovereign matter, but is under the control of the Scotland Act 1998. If that act is to be opened up, I suggest that members who have some influence might want to consider having the 30-day rule reviewed.

I believe that the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee and the standards commissioner considered the matter objectively. I resent the implications that any committee member dealt with it in partisan way, and I certainly will be supporting the standards commissioner and the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee in their recommendations at 5 o'clock.

Hugh O'Donnell (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

Presiding Officer, as you and other members will know, this speech will be my final one as a member of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. It would almost certainly have been so even prior to the portfolio reshuffle by my new leader, Tavish Scott, although having my fox shot quite so dramatically was a bit of a surprise. I guess that is the nature of new brooms.

I thank my committee colleagues across all parties for their support. I particularly thank the officials who have helped to guide me through some of the technicalities and sometimes difficult decisions that we have dealt with during the past 14 months or so.

On the issue at hand, it is almost inevitable that, given the profile of the member in question, such an emotive subject would become a party-political football. It is even more understandable because of the original source of the complaint and the motivation behind it, as well as those who are allegedly behind some subsequent complaints. Those people should reflect on that if, indeed, they have any kind of moral conscience beyond party-political advantage.

We who are privileged to be elected here serve our country and the Parliament ill if we encourage the use of our standards process for low political ends—we merely confirm the perception that we are venal and self-serving. Equally, if we seek to circumvent the legitimate process of accountability and transparency simply to protect the identities of donors, we are equally guilty of cheap political sleight of hand that deserves to be exposed and, if it is against the rules of the law, we deserve to be penalised appropriately. I know that the committee will revisit some of the issues that have been raised by other members; indeed, it had already agreed to do so.

For me, there is no doubt that Wendy Alexander, like any one of us in similar circumstances, is culpable and responsible for the breach. Notwithstanding the somewhat unworthy—

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

Will the member take an intervention?

Hugh O'Donnell (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

No, I will not; I am sorry.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Explain paragraph 90.

Hugh O'Donnell (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

Notwithstanding some fairly unworthy attempts to blame officials or to play semantic games with the meanings of words such as "gift" and "benefit", I would like to hear anyone argue successfully against a speeding ticket on the ground that a policeman they spoke to suggested that it might be okay.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Explain paragraph 90.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Hugh O'Donnell (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

The only situation in which that would be an acceptable argument would be if it were used as a plea in mitigation.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

Will the member take an intervention?

Hugh O'Donnell (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

I have already said no.

The committee took full account of mitigation in the judgment that it made.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Will you be good enough to confirm whether the member is winding up on behalf of the committee and dealing with points that have been made in the debate, or whether he is introducing new items that members will not have an opportunity to discuss?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Mr O'Donnell is winding up on behalf of the committee but, in doing so, he is quite entitled to refer to points that have been made during the debate.

Mr O'Donnell, you now have less than two minutes left.

Hugh O'Donnell (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

I suggest that every member should read the full report; I very much doubt that everyone has. It was through reading the full report, following the chronology of events and listening to the evidence that I came to my conclusions.

That said, blame—although not responsibility—for the entire situation goes much wider than the member in question. Those who came up with the cunning plan—which even Baldrick would have been embarrassed to propose—to keep Wendy away from the money should perhaps look at their own behaviour and consider to what extent they are at fault for the situation that emerged. Of course, all those considerations relate to how we fund political parties across the UK.

In conclusion, for my part, I base my views of the case on the evidence as I saw it, rightly or wrongly. If they have not already done so, members will draw their own conclusions about the whole sorry saga and some may even get the chance to vote accordingly. I support the committee's report and its recommendations, and I ask other members to vote accordingly.

Children's Services

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-2480, in the name of Fiona Hyslop, on getting it right for every child. [ Interruption. ] I ask members who are leaving the chamber to be quiet, please.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

We now move from a debate on standards in the Parliament to one on the standards that we expect to be met when support is provided to meet the needs of vulnerable young children.

I am delighted to open the debate on the getting it right for every child programme. I hope that there will be a measure of consensus and that we all share the same fundamental aim, but it is right that we discuss, scrutinise and challenge how we achieve that aim.

Of course, getting it right for every child builds on previous work. I acknowledge the previous Administration's development of the programme, which we are pleased to take forward. Naturally, there are changes of emphasis to reflect the new Scottish Government's strategic approach. We are focusing strongly on practical development, implementation and testing. In line with the concordat, we emphasise working collaboratively with local government and other organisations. We want to encourage local determination of how outcomes are achieved. I hope that we can all agree on the direction of travel.

I regret the amendment in the name of Rhona Brankin, which I do not intend to accept. Although it has the implied merit of agreeing with the motion, it seeks to undermine it. Labour might not like it, but at the start of this school year thousands of children are in smaller classes than they would have been under the previous Administration. There is no evidence nationally of reductions in the number of teachers of children who require additional support for learning. If there is such evidence at local level, any constituency MSP is quite entitled to raise that with ministers in the normal way.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

rose—

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

There is no evidence nationally of cuts in the number of health visitors, either. A pilot—which I understand was initiated by the previous Administration—is being conducted as part of the review of nursing in the community. Government ministers are open-minded about the results of that review and about any decision that they will take in the future. In addition, this Government is the first under devolution to take action to support kinship carers.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I want to move on to the substance of the debate.

Scotland faces big challenges.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

No, I will not at this stage.

More than 14,000 children are looked after by local authorities. We know that, all too often, the support that is offered to looked-after children is not reflected in improved outcomes. We need to translate our aspirations into practical reality. That will require the senior management of all relevant public bodies to be committed to the common approach. Awareness and training of all staff who are involved with children and of adults who work with parents and carers—for example, in situations in which parents' misuse of drugs or alcohol impacts on children—will also be necessary. A common language will have to be used across services to underpin a shared assessment of children's needs and risks, and to ensure a common understanding when more than one agency is involved. In addition, of course, the child must always be at the centre, and children and their families must be involved in the process as fully as possible. That is the essence of our approach.

To achieve that shared approach, the Scottish Government is working in partnership with local authorities and other service providers at local level. A range of services are being brought together to work through how to achieve positive change. The early years and early intervention framework that we are working on collaboratively with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and other partners will be a key aspect of our approach.

Early intervention means responding to need when signs emerge rather than waiting until that need reaches a threshold at which action is thought to be justified. The pathfinders emphasise how we can work more efficiently and get better-quality information that can be shared securely so that the best decision can be taken in the interests of the child. I am pleased that we have been joined in the visitors gallery by several representatives from the pathfinder projects and from other bodies that are testing out the new approach. The voluntary sector will be a key player in the policy.

It is not just in the pathfinder projects and among learning partners that the getting it right approach is being adopted on the ground. Over the summer, I met 11 local authorities, often with their community planning partners, and in every case we spent time discussing the getting it right for every child framework. Developments are taking place across the country. They include work on integrated assessment from Dumfries to Shetland; a system in Dundee for supporting children who have particularly complex needs; and the work by Children 1st to link the family group conference service that it provides for half of Scotland's local authorities with getting it right principles.

What does all that mean in practice? I will give a few more detailed examples from the pathfinders. First, work has been carried out in the Highland area on referrals from the police to the reporter. Careful screening of referrals has led to a fall of around 70 per cent in the number of cases that go to the reporter. That does not mean that children are not being supported; it just means that their support needs are being met much more quickly as a result of direct referral to the relevant agency.

A second example is from a domestic abuse pathfinder site. A woman was threatened by her former partner, who was immediately arrested. The next day, the police passed the information to the pathfinder's multi-agency group, which collected more information on the family. It identified that the school was concerned about one of the children, who had previously been performing well but who had been absent for some time. The school was unaware of the family situation. The multi-agency group was able to make appropriate contacts in the school aware of the position, discreetly and securely, and with the consent of the mother and the child. The process took a week. The child has now returned to school and has been provided with additional support from school staff and the local Women's Aid children's worker to ensure that the transition back to school works.

Rapid and responsive support to vulnerable children in need is what our policy can and will deliver in practice. As that last example suggests, for practitioners the policy is about ensuring that a timely and integrated approach to meeting the needs of the whole child is adopted across all relevant agencies, and that there is appropriate involvement of children and families in decisions that affect them.

The pathfinders are showing the way and testing what is needed. That process has involved business process mapping to streamline procedures; agreement on a common way of recording concerns and on protocols for exchanging information; the provision of clear leadership commitment and the governance structures that are necessary to support the change at the top level of government; the building of awareness and training to promote the new approach; and management of the transition.

We are on a long journey together. We all need to understand how our actions contribute to the outcomes for individual children and how, collectively, we can make a difference for children. To help that process to work, the Scottish Government is building a learning community to help practitioners to exchange lessons and experiences.

Today we have published on the web a guide that sets out the practice model that is being tested in the pathfinders. The guide describes the emerging practice model that supports getting it right for every child, which will help practitioners to examine children's needs in the round and to identify how outcomes can be improved by the whole community working together to provide additional support. It is wholly child centred—it is not the preserve of any particular service. It can operate in a single-agency setting to plan for children's needs. It will support interagency or multi-agency activity to ensure a common approach to needs and risk assessment. It will help to structure the way in which information about a child's needs is captured, recorded and shared, which will feed into the development work that is being done under the eCare framework for secure information sharing across Scotland.

I know that members such as Richard Simpson have concerns about data sharing. In that regard, the commitment on the part of all the partners involved in funding and supporting data sharing is absolutely critical. Harriet Dempster, the director of social work in Highland Council said:

"Each agency is modernising its own system and developing better means to share information when this is necessary to protect vulnerable children. While new technology will always present challenges, effective communication is down to people working well, and we are all very committed to that here in the Highland partnership. The initial funding from Government to establish the partnership has been very helpful, but it is important that it becomes our normal business. Accordingly, all agencies have recently agreed to continue to support the partnership."

That is evidence of the commitment that I have seen. As I said, I have spoken to chief executives across Scotland about their commitment to this agenda. The issue is about ensuring that the information about a child's needs is captured, recorded and shared in a better way.

The web publication of the guide builds on the development work and helps shift the getting it right for every child programme into the implementation phase. We encourage all agencies that work with children to consider how the guide and model might be incorporated into interagency work with children, to ensure a common approach to needs and risk assessment. The model is generic, but does not exclude more specialist assessments where necessary, for particular needs and risks. It expects information obtained from those specialist assessments to be viewed alongside other analysis, so that all relevant issues are taken into account and action is tailored to address the individual child's needs.

Separate, but closely linked guidance on corporate parenting, which has been developed with key partners, has also been placed on the website today. The publication is called "These Are Our Bairns: A guide for community planning partnerships on being a good corporate parent", and it will be fully launched next Tuesday. It focuses on getting it right for a particular group of children for whom Scotland has seldom got it right in the past. It demonstrates how everyone can work together to provide children with the help that they need when they need it, in a way that is centred around children's needs, not the needs of services, in order to make a real difference to children's lives and improve their future chances in life.

The Government has a national responsibility for those children who are in need. We know that, in the past, Scotland has not served those children as well as it could have. Collectively, we can shape up and ensure that this country is in a fit position to support children's needs in the future. There is a shared commitment across the chamber and across the country to doing that.

That is the key to the getting it right for every child approach. It is concerned with the needs of every child, including looked-after children and any and every child who needs that extra support. Getting it right for every child is about getting on and doing the right thing for all Scotland's children and helping them all to fulfil their potential.

I move,

That the Parliament welcomes the continuing support for the Getting It Right For Every Child programme, initiated by the previous administration; acknowledges the significant progress in pathfinder activity, both in Highland and for children and young people experiencing domestic abuse, exploring how best agencies can work together to record and share information as necessary to inform effective decision making around children's needs and to redesign services to reduce overlap and bureaucracy; welcomes progress in developing the eCare Framework to support positive practice change across all services and the plans to develop a safe and secure environment for exchanging information where necessary and for a particular purpose, respecting both data protection legislation and the privacy of individuals, and supports continuing activity to develop understanding and awareness of implementation of Getting It Right For Every Child and how services can best work to improve outcomes for children and delivery of the national outcomes.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate the getting it right for every child programme. As someone who, before becoming a politician, worked for many years with vulnerable children and their families, I am absolutely passionate about the need for us to get it right for every child in Scotland.

I also welcome those people in the gallery who have been involved in the pathfinder programmes, and thank them for their hard work and commitment.

I am proud to have been part of the previous Government, which initiated this work. Many of us who have been involved in joint-agency approaches over the years have experience of bringing together various agencies at a range of integrated planning meetings. We did so in a well-meaning way, but, in some cases, we realised to our horror that we had created an environment that could be incredibly intimidating for children and families and contained unintentional barriers.

The child and the family must be at the heart of the programme. Getting it right for every child is a big challenge for the agencies involved. It requires them to examine their practices openly and to break down professional boundaries that have existed for years. It also requires practitioners and organisations to ensure that children, young people and families know that they are not just passive recipients of decisions that are taken by the so-called experts. I include myself in the system that has, in the past, not always worked for the benefit of children and families.

The focus on improving outcomes for children, young people and their families, based on a shared understanding of wellbeing, is critical.

I would like to focus on some of the other core components of the programme, beginning with ways of maximising the skilled workforce.

From my experience, including my involvement in delivering the then Scottish Office-funded inclusion modules, I know that we have been attempting to break down barriers to joint working between young people, parents, health, education, social work, the police and the voluntary sector for many years. Therefore, I ask the minister whether she believes that pre-service education for the various practitioners, including the police force, reflects the getting it right for every child approach. I have some issues with that, and would be interested to hear whether she thinks that meaningful work is now going on in that area.

My other concern in this area is how we develop common approaches at the pre-service level if the delivery of getting it right for every child varies across local authority boundaries. We know that one of the challenges around the additional support for learning legislation, and its precursor in the recording system, is the wide variation in implementation across different local authorities.

I believe that, in a country as small as Scotland, there is a real danger that the discrepancies between local authorities in how children, young people and families are supported can be barriers to getting it right.

With 32 councils of widely varying sizes, it is almost inevitable that decisions will be driven by the resources that are available. I know that smaller councils face huge challenges in supporting children with complex additional support needs, with parents feeling that they have no option but to take their case to the additional support needs tribunal.

I know that the Government has been considering the issue of additional support needs tribunals, and yesterday signalled its intention to legislate, but I think that we are still some way off finding a solution to the resource challenges.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The member makes an important point. There is a big issue about how local authorities support children, particularly those with residential needs. When I have been speaking to the local authorities across the country, I have said that that is one of the areas in which we can work co-operatively to ensure that the children who need support in their own council area can get it. We need to work collectively to ensure that we have a proper system that meets the needs of the child but which is not exponentially expensive for local authorities.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I look forward to hearing what the minister's solutions are. My party is examining the issue closely.

The concept of the lead professional is absolutely essential for the implementation of the getting it right for every child approach. I welcome the approach that has been taken by the Highland pathfinder, which involves ensuring that there is a named person for every child, from the community midwife and health visitor, through the primary head or depute, to the pupil support teacher in the child's secondary school.

That brings me to our amendment. When we were in government, we set the getting it right for every child programme in train. I could not argue with the sentiments that are expressed in the motion, although I am disappointed that the Government has chosen not to legislate at this stage. I have looked at all of the policy and practice documents, and I have seen the good work that is being developed by the pathfinders. However, when I look at what is happening on the ground in education and children and family services in many areas across Scotland, I see that the number of key professionals in the programme, such as pupil support teachers, is being reduced in many local authorities, including Scottish National Party-led Aberdeen City Council.

We believe that health visitors play a vital role for children and families in the early years and are concerned that there are threats to their numbers. That worry is shared by many of the agencies that work with vulnerable children.

We know that good parenting gives every child the best start in life. However, in SNP-led Edinburgh, there have been cuts to the sure start programme and the council has recently decided to cut some of social work's most experienced managers.

Ruth Stark, of the British Association of Social Workers, said:

"Lord Laming, in his report on the fate of Victoria Climbie, highlighted the importance of the support and guidance needed by frontline child protection staff from senior managers and practitioners ... Their skill and expertise is vital in keeping our children safe. Given the similar findings of the Caleb Ness Inquiry in Edinburgh, it is extremely short-sighted of the Councillors in the City of Edinburgh to be discarding this high level skill and expertise in child protection work and leaving their frontline staff in a very exposed situation."

We do not think that that is acceptable.

We also know that, despite the Government's promises to reduce class sizes, they are going up in many council areas, including SNP-led Renfrewshire. The Government has refused to fund nursery places for vulnerable two-year-olds, despite successful pilots. I am delighted that Mary Mulligan will propose a member's bill to do just that. I know that it will be warmly welcomed.

We are all aware of the terrifying statistics that show that more than 60,000 children are living in families with drug or alcohol-abusing families. We also know that many grandparents step in as carers to support their families. They deserve our support. Last year, the First Minister promised financial support for kinship carers. Where is it? Many grandparents across Scotland are still waiting for that kinship care support.

What has happened to the £34 million that was Scotland's share of the money from Gordon Brown, for which the families of disabled children campaigned so hard? Ministers have repeatedly said that the £34 million has been included for the families of disabled children in the local government settlement. The minister should try telling that to the many families who have not seen a single extra penny of that money.

I am proud of the work on getting it right for every child that we started in Government, and I welcome the fact that it is continuing under this Government. However, actions speak louder than words. That is why we have proposed an amendment to the Government motion. Like many parents and professionals, we think that the Government is in danger of getting it right for every child on paper but not delivering change on the ground. With cutbacks and instability in jobs and service delivery, the Government has failed to prioritise spending on education, children and families. The minister talks a good line but she is in danger of failing to get it right for every child in Scotland.

I move amendment S3M-2480.1, to insert at end:

"and therefore voices its concern at the impact on vulnerable children of rising class sizes, cuts in the number of health visitors and cuts in the number of teachers of children with additional support needs, and calls on the Scottish Government to honour its pledge to pay kinship carers allowance to grandparents."

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Let me make it clear at the outset that the Conservatives fully support the need to improve services for vulnerable children in Scotland and the need for a united approach throughout the chamber.

Although the focus of this debate must necessarily be the scrutiny of the accompanying documents that set out the Government's proposals to improve services—two documents, one of them substantial, which incidentally did not appear on our desks until 4.30 yesterday afternoon, half an hour after the time for lodging amendments—some other issues need to be identified to have an overall perspective of improving the opportunities for our children. I will address those later.

In my speech yesterday, I was critical of the Government's education policy in other areas, but I want to make it clear that getting it right for every child is crucial because of the following key principles, three of which are successfully embedded in the pathfinder schemes: the local development of policies, dependent on the needs of the particular local community; improved communication between the different agencies involved in caring for vulnerable children; much greater consistency in the team that looks after each child; a reduction in the bureaucracy that accompanies the whole process; and an end to the wide regional variations in the quality of care that is offered.

The most frequent complaint that we hear—I am sure that this is true for many MSPs—is that a child is passed over to too many different individuals in the process of their care. That factor can create confusion and sometimes raise questions of trust for the child and for the parents or guardians. That is why it is so crucial that a lead professional is identified when several different individuals or groups are involved. It is good to see that that principle is at the heart of the Government's proposals.

We also warmly welcome the Government's consultation process to look at reform in the children's hearings system—a system which has not been short of its critics in recent times, despite the fact that it has traditionally brought many benefits to our Scottish justice system. It is undoubtedly in need of reform, principally to ensure that its workings are much more efficient, but I hope that the Government will also accept that the reform process, as well as the developments set out by Fiona Hyslop this morning, can be strengthened if we adopt other measures too.

Before the recess, Annabel Goldie made clear our commitment to having the courage of our convictions to examine other issues on the parenting front—suggestions that are not always very popular. She made it clear that we need to show both compassion and determination when confronting the fact that a large number of parents in society today genuinely find it difficult to pass on parenting skills to their children because they themselves were the children of parents who did not possess those skills.

In 2003, the number of children referred to the children's reporter on the ground of lack of parental care was more than 16,000, and by 2006 that figure had increased to 19,500. When we consider, as Rhona Brankin mentioned, that many of those children suffer neglect because of drug or alcohol abuse, we cannot shy away from confronting the problem head on. A national debate is needed on the subject.

I want also to stress our commitment in the Conservative party to policies at United Kingdom level that will encourage families to stay together and allow parents real choices when it comes to deciding what is best for their children. Family breakdown now costs the UK £20 billion a year, and if we do not have that underlying support through the UK tax and benefit system, the policies over which this Parliament has control will probably be much less effective. We believe that the foundation of the family unit is based on the institution of marriage, and it is vital that we end the perverse financial disincentive against couples who to choose to marry. The working tax credit received by couples should reflect that, and there should also be a transferable tax allowance for married couples.

In the previous session, the Education Committee and the Parliament both held important debates on the two issues of kinship care and child protection. As the minister will acknowledge, they are difficult areas of legislation but nonetheless important when it comes to proper care for our most vulnerable children. We are very supportive of the Government's ambition to improve support for kinship and foster carers, despite some of the complexities that such legislation involves. Such carers are hugely important, given that both kinship and foster care can often—though not always—provide a more stable environment than when children are placed in residential establishments. We will also do everything that we can to support the Government on the difficult issue of child protection.

I have no doubt that there will be much scope for controversy in other areas of policy debate, but I hope that we can reach a consensus on the basic principles. We would be letting down our children if that was not the case.

I have one serious word of caution. The services are both expensive and time consuming, given the specialist nature of professional care that is required. In a time of economic downturn—in all probability, recession—there will be even stronger temptations for local councils, which are largely responsible for the services, to make cutbacks. Councils are already facing severe difficulties because of other policies. The figures are plain to see, and it would be all too easy for exactly the same to happen with child care services, too. That is a very stark message if we really are to get it right for every child.

Hugh O'Donnell (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

I am happy to contribute to this important debate. I am particularly keen to ensure that the support mechanisms for our most vulnerable young people and their families are robust, effective, well resourced, valued and—probably most important—understood by everyone involved.

As Rhona Brankin mentioned, the work of the previous Administration—including, I seem to remember, my colleague Robert Brown—in taking this work forward and tackling the issues was the genesis for much of the work that this Government is now taking forward. That is to be welcomed. The changes that enshrined co-ordinated support plans and various bits about additional support needs and support for learning in new legislation, and indeed the consultation responses to the draft Children's Services (Scotland) Bill before the election, indicated broad support for the direction of travel.

Sadly, as we heard from both Rhona Brankin and Elizabeth Smith and have heard anecdotally from across the country, there are clear indications that the Government's good intentions are not necessarily supported by the financial wherewithal. I have received a couple of calls from constituents in various areas in the region. I have heard that children with cerebral palsy are suddenly finding support services cut and that a council has allegedly suspended the recruitment of special needs teachers and other ASL staff. However, there is little point in my saying much more about that issue when it has already been more than adequately addressed by previous speakers.

Instead, I will concentrate on specific issues that are more relevant to the motion and to the Labour amendment.

As other members have said, GIRFEC is about the children and about ensuring that all those involved are charged with rolling out and participating in the joined-up approach that has long been needed if the whole process is to be a success for the most important participant—namely, the child.

Three areas in particular need to be clarified in more detail, so I hope that the cabinet secretary will address these in her closing remarks. Certainly, the Highland pathfinder pilot looks positive and encouraging, but more detail needs to be provided if the pilot is to be replicated or, indeed, trusted widely. Therefore, I look forward to the detailed national guidelines that will be issued by the Government. However, it is more than a little unfair to ask members to engage with the issue in a knowledgeable way when we receive the literature so late in the day. Quite frankly, that is just not helpful.

First, there is a need for a change of culture within all the agencies that are responsible for delivery. That presents some interesting challenges, many of which Rhona Brankin alluded to. The various agencies need to recognise the valuable contributions, knowledge, understanding and expertise that all the other professions bring to joint working and information sharing. Everyone comes to the issue from a different perspective. In my view, for such a culture change to be effective, we need to go beyond simply holding training days, seminars, in-service days and others sorts of continuing professional development for those who are already in the professions. We need to begin with how and what people are taught within the higher education and further education institutions that are responsible for turning out such professionals. There will be little value—and probably little success—in the new approach to working with children if those entering the professions do not understand or value the work of the other contributors. Such a culture change could be substantially achieved as part of the initial training process. That could minimise the areas of potential conflict that might be due to people's differing professional backgrounds.

Those who have any knowledge of systems—computer or otherwise—know how difficult it is to get something that is fit for purpose for all users, but eCare and the pilot project in Highland seem to offer a way forward. Agencies are rightly and legally protective of the information that they hold and disseminate about our children. Like many, I have concerns about centralising that amount of information in one place, given that we know how good Government is at not holding on to information. There must also be no room for an arbitrary "information is (my) power" attitude to disseminating information. We need to be careful to ensure that that is clear. However, from the briefings that I have had, GIRFEC looks very positive.

Thirdly, there needs to be a willingness to share good practice across and among agencies including, as Rhona Brankin mentioned, the 32 local authorities. There is no need to reinvent the wheel, although the size of the wheel might need to be changed depending on the local authority. That needs to come across very clearly.

In conclusion, the principles underlining GIRFEC are right, but I urge the Government to ensure that the challenges that it sets for all the professions are met and supported. It will simply not be good enough for such a progressive step to be damaged by the Government, which has already shown, in other areas of activity, its willingness to pass the buck, but not necessarily the bucks, to local authorities.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Before we move to open debate, I advise that two members have not yet pressed their request-to-speak buttons, so I am not sure whether they want to speak.

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I am pleased to take part in today's debate as an SNP back bencher. Like others, I congratulate members of the previous Administration—Labour and Lib Dem alike—on introducing the getting it right initiative. Working across agencies and sewing them together to ensure that they address the needs of children was a move for which we waited too long. I am pleased that the initiative came to fruition and that the current Government has signalled its intent to keep up the momentum. Previous and current ministers should be lauded for their actions.

Of course, the cross-cutting work that the initiative encourages has its mirror—and, in part, its operational effectiveness—in the concordat between the Scottish Government and Scotland's local authorities. Therefore, we should also ensure that the councils get the credit that they deserve for helping to deliver the vision of a safe and supportive childhood for all. All young people should have access to the tools that they need to lead a successful and fulfilling life. I believe that the strategy helps towards that.

Children's services have been taken down a new track with the pathfinder projects, which we are likely to hear more about over the next wee while. The Highland model, which involves the reshaping of service provision across the spectrum, is likely to refresh thinking on service provision across the country. However, it is to be hoped that service provision, reaching from new born through to school transition, does not create a bureaucratic box-ticking culture. I hope that the minister will ensure that the national guidance takes that into account.

Interestingly, the database that could be built from that operation could offer social researchers an invaluable asset if the data can be suitably anonymised and protected. I urge ministers to consider whether that might be possible, especially given that some of the lessons that could be learned could be used to improve the life chances and educational possibilities of future generations.

As well as the pathfinder in Highland, four other pathfinders were set up to address the needs of children who are caught in domestic abuse situations. One pathfinder was in Falkirk, where the council has worked in partnership with Central Scotland Police, NHS Forth Valley, the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration and Falkirk and District Women's Aid to find the right path and the correct tools for intervention to enable the child who has lived with domestic abuse to set out on the road to recovery. Having fully engaged with the ethos and forward-planning aspects of getting it right, Falkirk Council will help to set out the future plans and guidance for rolling out the scheme across the country.

I do not mean to miss out the other councils that are also delivering on the new agenda, but I know a little bit about how Falkirk Council is going about things. With Central Scotland Police in the lead and council efforts coming from a range of departments, including education services and housing and social work services, the pathfinder project in Falkirk is ensuring that the principles that underpin getting it right are being enhanced. Under a programme that started at the end of 2006, Falkirk Council is integrating the new ways with enhanced services, including a new integrated children's services plan, an assessment framework for children and young people, and the development of a locality model for the delivery of children's services. Such progress, along with the advances that are being made by other councils, will feed into progress in helping children who have suffered as a result of being exposed to domestic abuse.

While the other four pathfinder projects improve how we deal with the domestic abuse aspect, the Highland model should improve all-round care. We should remember that getting it right for every child is about ensuring that we do what it says on the tin and cater for every child. That is why yesterday's announcement on corporate parenting guidance was so welcome—although such guidance on its own is not enough—as was the Minister for Public Health's announcement of record levels of funding to help to give children the best start in life by encouraging them to start eating healthily at an early age.

The announcement in yesterday's legislative programme that the children's hearings system is to be reviewed and updated as appropriate will also be welcomed, not least by some of my former colleagues. Over the years since Kilbrandon's first report, much has changed. Our system of justice and protection for young people has been lauded and copied, but we must ensure that it is as good as it can be. The price of that is not quite eternal vigilance but regular review. The review will be a start, but getting it right means that we must keep going, keep learning and keep developing the ground around the subject.

No child is an island, but all children are individuals. That was recognised by the previous Administration and has been built on and encouraged by the current Administration. We must keep moving forward.

I am pleased to be able to support the motion in the name of Fiona Hyslop.

Marlyn Glen (Labour, North East Scotland)

One of the unintended challenges of having wide-ranging debates of this nature when there has been no advance statement on the documentation that underpins the debate is that important things might be missed out. I will concentrate on getting it right for every deaf child, and on children and young people who are affected by domestic abuse, to ensure that those two areas are not missed out.

Getting it right for every child means delivering what every child needs when they need it. That is a worthy aim, but a massive task. There is a long list of attributes for children to attain, to which I add "happy". A child may unfortunately be unhealthy, but they can still be helped to attain happiness. We all want to give children the best possible start, but some children have great challenges in their lives.

Towards the end of the previous session I, along with many other MSPs, signed up to Mary Mulligan's motion on getting it right for every deaf child, which endorsed the call of the National Deaf Children's Society for national best practice guidance for multi-agency professionals who work with deaf children in their early years. We need to learn from best practice. The NDCS knows that in England and Wales there is guidance on how to provide an effective support network, which focuses on developing the deaf child's access to language and communication and on breaking down any barriers before he or she reaches school age.

In Scotland, there is currently no such national guidance. I urge the minister to consider that, given the universal newborn hearing screening that was introduced in the national health service in Scotland in 2005, we are missing an opportunity to provide deaf babies and toddlers and their parents with access to the best possible support. Getting it right for every deaf child means ensuring the best possible outcomes for every deaf child in Scotland from the moment of diagnosis.

Getting it right for every child means addressing their individual needs, whatever those might be, with the same due care and attention. I mentioned the huge challenges that some children face. Those challenges sometimes arise from birth and sometimes are due to particular circumstances, but children's needs must be met however they arise.

It has at last been acknowledged that there are huge implications for children in families in which there is domestic abuse. Perhaps that one piece of the jigsaw will mean that everyone will now recognise the essential nature of tackling domestic abuse and putting a halt to violence against women. Gender-based abuse can sometimes seem endemic in our society. Yesterday, I spoke to a woman from Zimbabwe who works with the organisation FRAE Fife. She said that she was shocked at the widespread abuse of women in Scotland. She had expected better, but, sadly, we know the truth. I welcome the continued commitment to and funding for work to tackle abuse, which has been a priority for the Parliament right from its inception.

It is essential that we break the vicious cycle for children who grow up in abusive families. Scotland must continue to examine closely how women are treated, and the Government must produce effective proposals to reduce men's violence against women. If that does not happen, our children will continue to need the protection, provision and prevention that the national domestic abuse delivery plan outlines. We can learn from the outcome of the pathfinder pilots. I welcome the fact that the findings of the domestic abuse pathfinder projects have been incorporated in the plan. Progress is being made, but we need to ensure that work with victims and their families and—very importantly—with perpetrators remains high on the agenda.

An example of good practice is the work of Dundee Women's Aid, which employs three children and young people's workers and a co-ordinator, who all deliver specialised support in the form of refuge, follow-on, outreach and preventive work. They have developed excellent services in line with the getting it right for every child criteria, with the aim of giving immediate help to identified children. However, they acknowledge that many children are still missing out and that many voices remain unheard.

There are still gaps between local authority services and voluntary services. The co-ordination and commitment of joint working with local authority children's services needs to be driven by senior management. Funding issues are often a concern, as they often create challenges and barriers. One main issue is how local authorities can incorporate those specialist services within their core service without adequate funding and legislation. If the vision that has been set out here today is to be a core part of service delivery, legislation is necessary to ensure that it remains a priority even under tight economic circumstances.

I welcome the proposed improvements in information sharing, but it has to be done in an extremely sensitive and careful way. We have to make progress cautiously, whether in introducing electronic communication—e-care—or the human papilloma virus vaccination programme, which is welcome. It was promised that the number of school nurses would be doubled, but so far only their workload has increased. The HPV vaccination scheme involves much more than just giving another jab, therefore school nurses need to be trained to deal with young people and to answer their questions.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

That was a manifesto promise by the SNP. The numbers, which were given in a parliamentary answer to me, went down between 2005 and 2007, from 300 to 220. [ Interruption. ] Not only were the figures not going in the right direction in 2007, when the current Government took power, but they are currently going in the wrong direction—they are not doubling.

Marlyn Glen (Labour, North East Scotland)

That concern is shared—and should be shared—on all sides of the chamber.

All those measures must be introduced extremely carefully with joint management, and they need to be properly funded. I welcome the progress that has been made, but I urge caution. I support the amendment.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Elizabeth Smith got the context right in speaking about the challenge that we face with regard to the numbers of children and young people who need care and protection, and who come into contact with services because of that. It is perhaps a tribute to the work that is already carried out by social work and other services throughout Scotland that that situation has not so far fed into what many of us thought might be a time bomb, in terms of the sheer number of people who are accused of criminal offences and go through the criminal justice system. I do not agree with Elizabeth Smith's remedies for that. The debate is for another day, but the idea that families can be encouraged to stay together by the sort of tax concessions that the Conservative party suggests is fanciful in the extreme.

I read the motion and the accompanying documents—which, as other members have mentioned, appeared fairly late—with considerable interest, but also with some practical concerns. As Hugh O'Donnell mentioned, I had some responsibility for the area when I was a minister, although as a minion to my colleague Peter Peacock, who was personally committed to the area and whose contribution should be recognised by the Parliament as moving in the direction of travel that we are discussing today.

The entire radical programme that the Liberal Democrats and Labour initiated when they were in government included school and education renewal, child-focused services, the social work review of GIRFEC initiatives, and additional support for learning. That seems, particularly in retrospect, to have been timely, comprehensive, forward looking and capable—I use the word advisedly—of causing a step change in the outcomes for many disadvantaged children. Leaving aside the contentious issues of teacher numbers, the scandalous number of teachers who cannot get a job and the stalling of the school building programme, it is fair to say that the current Government has continued to support much of that work, not least in the GIRFEC area. I am pleased that it is doing so, and I am happy to acknowledge the personal contribution of the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning and the Minister for Children and Early Years in that process.

I pay tribute to the work of the pathfinder projects and the other good work to which the cabinet secretary referred. It is important that rapid and responsive action takes place when issues emerge with regard to young people. The principles were all agreed on—I do not think that there has been any dissent in the chamber about the principles underlying the GIRFEC process— but we will have to tease out the practice a little bit. My concern is that the documents that have been submitted for the debate are extremely densely worded, to such an extent that I found their purpose as a focus of meaningful action and change to be rather obscured.

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The documents are meant to be not substantive policy documents but illustrations to assist members. The subject matter is complex and difficult, so we are bringing forward the publication of the website documents, such as the guide for professionals on getting it right for every child. We are advancing the publication of a document that we are launching next week on corporate parenting. I apologise if members took umbrage at the late delivery of the documents, but we were trying to be helpful.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I am grateful to the minister for that explanation, which puts the matter in context. However, it raises a further matter, which is the context of today's debate, the background to it and what the Government is telling us about the progress with GIRFEC and the five pilots that the former Scottish Executive initiated. What valuable lessons have been learned from the process and how can they be extended throughout Scotland? It is important that we know the Government's intentions for funding the process and how it will support the work that is developed throughout Scotland. I ask the minister, when he sums up, to give us some insight into how success in the area, which is difficult to achieve, can be measured and monitored effectively so that there is a check on whether the process is achieving the results that we want.

I have three concerns about the process. First, the worthy objective of multi-agency working should not obscure the need for the individual professional who is most in contact with the child to take personal responsibility for making things happen. Secondly, the objective of focusing on the child should not be undermined by a plethora of agencies engaging with the child but not affecting his or her situation as they should. Elizabeth Smith rightly spoke about a problem of which we are all aware—the number of people who engage with young people in such situations. Thirdly, there is a worrying sense of process, recording and the writing of action plans, which can absorb resources that should be focused on real change for the child. I hope that the minister will assure me that the formal process is not excessive and will not obstruct a step change for children who need it.

I confess that previously, as a layperson, I took the view that the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration stood at the centre of the web, taking an overview and directing the traffic, as it were. When referrals to the reporter were increasing in a seemingly inexorable fashion, I was presented, as a minister, with requests for more funding. I discovered that 80 per cent of reports to the reporter did not lead to referrals to the children's hearings system but were, in effect, referred back to services. I became convinced that part of the secret of success was to release unnecessary and costly process from the system, and we set in motion steps to achieve that.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

You have one minute.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I am glad that the upward trend appears to have been reversed. I hope that, as a consequence, the reporter can concentrate resources on the serious and complex cases that require compulsory input while other children are swiftly and directly referred to the support that they need.

I am sorry, Presiding Officer. Do I have a minute left or did you say that my time was up?

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

You have 45 seconds.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Thank you.

Looked-after children are at the heart of what we as a society need to do for the most disadvantaged young people, so I welcome the elaboration of the concept of the corporate parent in the paper to which the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning referred. I well remember being struck by the words of the social work inspectorate that there is nothing inevitable about poor educational outcomes for looked-after children.

In closing, I will touch on a couple of points. First, we should not be bureaucratic about the cut-off point being 18, which is mentioned in the documentation. Many young people need support way beyond then. I know that the cabinet secretary is aware of that. Secondly, it remains necessary to listen to those people who have left care and to have in the process ways in which we can respond to them and ensure that their voices are heard. We must ensure that our work is centred on children's needs and the needs of services. We are agreed on that objective, but let us not lose track of the practical implications of doing that on the ground throughout Scotland.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I have thoroughly enjoyed this morning's debate, which has been constructive for the most part. I particularly thank Elizabeth Smith and Robert Brown for their fascinating speeches, which added something to the debate.

I will focus on kinship care, which is mentioned in the Labour amendment. I have spoken on the topic before, and I have fully endorsed the Scottish Government and Scottish local authorities' joint commitment to introduce payments to kinship carers of looked-after children on a par with the payments to foster carers. I acknowledge that "looked after" has a legal definition and that other kinship carers will not qualify. I am glad that the Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities acknowledge that and are considering a variety of other ways to provide the support that such carers need.

There has been a giant stride forward for the 2,000 or so kinship carers of looked-after children, 500 to 600 of whom are in Glasgow, the area that I represent. I must say, however, that many of them will not fully believe that there has been such a stride forward until they see hard cash in their bank accounts. I will return to that point later. It is certainly true of the kinship carers in Glasgow, including the kinship care group in north Glasgow, which I have met several times, and the national kinship care network that was established recently. However, we are building up trust with kinship carers.

Given the years of inaction and delay from politicians, it is little wonder that expectations are high and that impatience exists. I hope that those expectations will be met before too long. It is only right that support is provided because, in the role of corporate parent, local authorities would otherwise have to place many children with foster parents or in residential care. It is widely acknowledged that, where kinship care is possible, it is far more beneficial for the child, the wider family and society as a whole.

I realise that, when we reach the point at which a kinship care arrangement is necessary, something might already have gone wrong. GIRFEC is about identifying problems and providing support way before kinship care arrangements are necessary. I take that fully on board, but, as I have been involved with kinship care, I wish to develop that point.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Does the member agree that, pending the results of the free school meals pilots, the Government should absolve kinship carers from being tested for the provision of free school meals, which still happens in some areas?

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

The Scottish Government is actively reviewing ways in which to increase school meal provision and entitlement. I look forward to the successful pilots being implemented fully throughout Scotland as soon as possible.

In discussing the implementation of kinship care payments, I will comment on the Glasgow experience. Initially, I found the situation disappointing. The local authority was not ready to deliver. It was unprepared and there was a dispute about funding the kinship care payments commitment. As many members know, the Scottish Government gave £4 million to provide a range of services for kinship carers, including money for training and a national information and advice service for kinship and foster carers through Citizens Advice Scotland. I am sure that we all welcome that. However, the figure was seized upon not just by the administration of Glasgow City Council but by some Labour politicians in the Parliament, who wrongly claimed that the commitment to kinship care payments was not being delivered. That is not the case. The £4 million figure was wrongly used as a headline figure for paying for delivery of the commitment. To clarify, in a joint statement, the Scottish Government and COSLA said:

"The Scottish Government and COSLA have agreed that sufficient resources have been included within the total financial settlement for local authorities to meet the commitment."

The money exists and it should be used for the intended purpose.

Rather than use kinship care as a political football, I asked for a meeting with Steven Purcell to discuss the matter. At the meeting, I and Councillor Phil Greene—the SNP council group spokesperson on kinship care—had constructive talks with Steven Purcell about delivery. The result was that a sub-group was convened to prepare for delivery. I hope that kinship carers will benefit soon.

Glasgow City Council could have moved much more quickly to deliver for kinship carers in the city. Payments could and should have started by now. However, rather than stand on the sidelines and grumble about it, which would not have achieved anything, I tried to be constructive and proactive in my approach. I ask all members who have an interest in kinship care to do likewise. They should contact their local authorities and have constructive discussions with them about achieving delivery.

There are wider issues in relation to supporting kinship carers. Scottish ministers are trying to discuss with United Kingdom ministers the fact that the complexity of the UK benefits system has an impact on kinship carers. The issues of child benefit and income maximisation for kinship carers need to be worked through. I hope that UK ministers will appreciate the approach that Scotland is taking on kinship care and work constructively with us. Again, that is something that all politicians in the Parliament can try to support.

The kinship carers whom I have met provide a vital service for the children they care for, their families, the wider community and society in general. They deserve gratitude, respect and dignity, and we are moving in the right direction in that regard.

Earlier, I described developments in kinship care as a giant stride forward. I expect some local authorities to deliver very soon. As I have said, I believe that local authorities have received funding to do so.

I do not know whether members have seen the film "Jerry Maguire"; if not, my next reference will be lost on them. However, I think that many kinship carers now find themselves in the position of the character Rod Tidwell, as played by Cuba Gooding Jr, who said, "Show me the money." Kinship carers are saying the same thing to local authorities.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Our joint ambition to deal with what is a massive problem in Scotland is obvious, and many of us have sometimes taken the opportunity provided by debates on this subject to express our frustration at a lack of speed, focus or clarity in dealing with the issues. I did that with my own ministers in the previous Administration and, indeed, I will do it again this morning.

I welcome the proposal in the programme for government that was outlined yesterday to review and update the children's hearings system, and I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the 2,800 volunteers who serve on children's panels. The panels' capacity is certainly significant, and those people do what they can to deal with the many, many children who come before them. Indeed, having spoken to the people who serve on the panels in Inverclyde, I am well aware of what they get out of their involvement.

I also welcome the minister's support for those volunteers in a press release that was issued some weeks ago on a consultation covering the recruitment of more people for panels. After all, those ordinary people can bring their own experience to bear in helping children who are in real difficulties.

According to the same press release, in 2006-07, 56,000 children were referred to the reporter. That figure, of course, has to be seen alongside the 60,000 young people who have to live with drug abuse and the resulting break-up of families. There is no doubt that the problem is massive, and no Government or Administration will be able to deal with it without addressing the thorny issue of providing resources at a local level or recognising the role that foster and kinship carers can play. Without those people, we would be in an even bigger mess.

I do not underestimate the task ahead; in fact, it bears down on resources and the ability to address the problem. Many on the front line are struggling to deal with those who have already presented at the children's panel and are in dire circumstances. Indeed, because resources do not seem to be available, local government, police, the health service and others are being prevented from carrying out their own duties and providing risk assessments of children who have not yet become statistics and are still living with parents who are abusing alcohol and drugs. The needs of those children are not being met and the risks are not being evaluated. All that we can do is wait until they appear before a panel or until they—tragically—become the subject of a fatal accident inquiry.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Duncan McNeil cuts to the heart of the issue. We cannot use crisis management to support children's needs. The fact is that all children need support. However, some have not yet hit our radar screen, and this process is meant to anticipate where support might be needed to ensure that all children's needs are recognised. The challenge, as the member makes clear, is huge, but that is what our focus must be.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I agree with the minister that the getting it right for every child programme is a massive job that requires resources at a local level. However, I am not confident that those resources are readily available to allow those who are in the front line to identify the children in question and to deliver the necessary services. Those people are already burdened with the scale of the problem elsewhere.

That brings me on to kinship carers who, as Bob Doris has made clear, do a good job. Last December, we welcomed the fostering and kinship care strategy as a worthy ambition, although I remember at the time asking where the funding would come from and who would get it. The fact is that my local council in Inverclyde cannot identify any new moneys in its budget to deal with kinship care. Of course, I will take Mr Doris's tip and speak to the council again on the matter.

Grandparents and members of the wider family are doing the job now. In fact, they are trading off their benefits to do so. The benefits stay with the addict and then go to the drug dealer. By intervening at an earlier stage, when social work should be intervening, other family members sacrifice their own benefits and exclude themselves from the support and benefits that we want them to have. Again, the problem is massive, but I understand that some of the issues are being dealt with.

In addition, as we made clear in last December's fostering and kinship care debate, the benefits system works against those who are deemed to be carers. We all recognise the role that is played and the commitment that is shown by kinship carers, and we acknowledge what they do for society by looking after children, but surely we cannot offer them money for providing such care on the one hand if it means that, on the other, we reduce their overall household income.

Politicians in local government, in the Scottish Parliament and in the UK Parliament face a massive task in getting it right for children in Scotland. However, those children need the help, focus and support that we owe them.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

Getting it right for every child lies at the heart of our country's future economic and social wellbeing. We must deliver the best possible life chances for all our children, from the most gifted to the most challenged, and have systems in place to deal with not only the most troubled young people and families, but children who might temporarily find themselves in difficulty. For example, a young person might suffer from the consequences of having to care for a parent who is suddenly taken ill. I echo Robert Brown's comments and acknowledge his contribution to this work.

The publication of "Getting it Right for Every Child" was one of the most commendable achievements of the previous Scottish Executive, which recognised that the project would be challenging and long term. The SNP Government is therefore to be congratulated on taking forward the agenda. There are certainly signs of progress on effective joint working and information sharing in children's services, which have involved a great deal of hard work across a range of professions. Training is crucial, and I echo Hugh O'Donnell's points about the need for such matters to be embedded in initial professional training.

The key objective of the getting it right for every child programme is to ensure that children get the help that they need when they need it; as a result, our focus must be on the individual child's experience—in other words, the child's life and the services and support that they require. Although getting it right is aspirational, the programme has to be delivered on the ground, which is why the pilot projects across Scotland are so important and why the work on delivering the information technology and administration back-up is necessary as we move towards implementation. Another critical aspect is proper deployment and planning of the workforces that will help to deliver this worthy aspiration.

However, as we have seen time and again at our surgeries and in our postbags and e-mail accounts, the reality is very different for kids and young people with special needs who need additional support for learning or respite care. Parents still feel that they are up against the system, because, often, even if a need is acknowledged and accepted, it is still quite likely that there will be budget problems or that professionals will not be available to provide the necessary services and support. That is the reality. We do not want to be harbingers of doom and gloom, but we need to take a reality check of the difficulties on the ground that we face as we take forward our aspiration to get it right for every child.

We accept that it is not all about funding; we can do things better. That is central to the pilot schemes that we are taking forward. We can spend to save with more informal and earlier interventions, so that we do not have to get to the crisis point, which we know is how things are often handled at the moment.

When we hear proposals that health visitors will not be able to make routine checks on babies and children in Glasgow because of the pressures of caring for the most at-risk children, we are concerned. When we know that here in Edinburgh and throughout the country we cannot find the thousands of extra foster carers who we need to care for children in need, we voice our concerns. When we know that 15,000 pupils who do not have English as a first language are being let down because there is a shortage of specialist teachers, we have to speak out. That does not mean that we underestimate in any way the challenge that the Government faces or that we do not see ourselves as party to finding the solutions to those problems.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The member raises an important point about health visitors. I reiterate the Government's view that the health visitor service is a universal service. "Health for all Children 4" and the current review were initiated under the previous Administration. I share the view that we should have universal access to health visitors to help our early years framework and the getting it right for every child model.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

I welcome the minister's comment, which might well help allay the fears of general practitioners and parents in Glasgow and throughout Scotland, given that many professionals are concerned about the review that is under way.

Many members, including Elizabeth Smith and Robert Brown, have spoken eloquently about Scotland's most disadvantaged children—those who are born into poverty, disability, danger and neglect and into homes in which the next fix is more important than the next meal. It is essential that children who are born into particularly difficult circumstances be given the same chances as those who are more fortunate. There should be early intervention, so that the safety and protection of the child is put above all other considerations. As the cabinet secretary said, the early years and early intervention agendas are crucial to getting this right.

We should be particularly supportive of the dedicated people who give their time to care for these children. Many members have spoken about kinship carers, who, as Bob Doris said, need to see hard cash in the bank. We need to try to find a way through the morass that Duncan McNeil talked about, so that we can make this happen.

I join the Government in welcoming the progress that has been made in developing the eCare framework of partnerships for electronic information sharing. It is crucial that information can be shared where necessary. That is the absolute bedrock in ensuring that we have the correct care plans and the best possible support for children in place.

We must find constructive ways to deal with young offenders. The children's hearings system in Scotland is unique. It recognises that children who offend and those who require care and protection are equally deserving of being considered children in need. That is crucial. We welcome the news that there will be legislation to modernise the system.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

No, I cannot.

We have a number of questions about the implications of having a centralised single national body instead of the 32 advisory committees. Part of the strength of the existing system is the involvement and input from local people who know the local circumstances. I seek assurances about how we will retain that strength. Will the new structure be backed by the greater financial and administrative support for hearings to tackle the needs that Duncan McNeil set out eloquently? Will there be a new focus on family issues and family conferencing and an expansion of the disposals and options that are open to hearings?

The Scottish Liberal Democrats remain supportive of the getting it right for every child programme, the progress that has been made to date through pathfinder activity and pilot projects and the continuing work to develop more effective joined-up services that support each and every one of our children. I hope that the Government will ensure that the key partners involved have the resources that they need to get this right for every child.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

This has been a good debate. We have had fine and well-informed contributions from throughout the chamber. I particularly appreciated the well-informed speeches from Robert Brown and Duncan McNeil, who both spoke with great authority about the issue.

The debate has been generally consensual. However, there were two points of division with which I should deal at the outset. First, I reiterate the point that Elizabeth Smith made, which a number of other members backed up: when we have a debate such as this, it really is not helpful to have publications that would inform the debate arrive at our desks so late in the day. I appreciate the explanation that Mr Ingram gave, but I hope that ministers will reflect on the matter for future debates. If we are to have a properly informed debate, Opposition spokesmen and back-bench members throughout the chamber need time to consider documents properly. I hope that ministers will take that on board for the future.

The second point of division was the Labour amendment. I have a lot of sympathy with the amendment and with many of the points that Rhona Brankin made in her speech. The cabinet secretary might think that everything in the garden is rosy, but that is patently not the case. There are problems throughout Scotland. Rhona Brankin pointed out a number of examples of cuts in provision locally.

Rhona Brankin made a good point about the huge cost burden on councils in providing for children with complex special needs and severe learning difficulties. I can certainly think of a number of constituency cases that I have pursued. I am sure that that is the case for all members in the chamber. Margaret Smith made that point in her speech. I can think of a number of cases in which parents have come to me to seek help when they are involved in an energy and morale-sapping fight with local authorities to try to get adequate services and support for their children.

In some ways, we can sympathise with the local authority officials and directors of social work who have a budget within which they have to try to operate. There is no extra cash available, so the director of social work has to try to manage his resources. We often end up in the unfortunate situation in which the appearance is given that the council simply does not care about the needs of the children concerned. Parents in such a situation can get extremely depressed and frustrated and, of course, it is the youngsters who end up losing out. There is no easy answer to that. It is all a question of resources.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I hope that the member appreciates the efforts that we have made to help support parents in particular. Adam Ingram announced support for parents' advocacy and further support for parents in cases that they might want to take forward with councils. Situations should not have to be resolved in the courts, but we have made efforts to ensure that parents are supported in those circumstances. An announcement on that was made in recent weeks.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that intervention and welcome her reassurance. Of course, the worst thing that can happen in the situations to which I referred is that the parents have to resort to court action, which becomes an added pressure and an added drain on resources. Anything that can be done to avoid their having to go to court is extremely welcome.

The question of resources is fundamental and it cannot be ignored. It will be expensive to get it right for every child—there is no point in pretending otherwise. That is a real challenge when money is tight. The cabinet secretary's colleague Mr Swinney is always telling us that he operates within a tight financial settlement. We understand that. The situation is not likely to improve, given the current economic circumstances. Tax receipts coming into the Treasury, such as from corporation tax and stamp duty, have already fallen dramatically. It is likely that in the next five years there will not be substantial uplifts in the amount of cash coming to the Scottish Government. Therefore, the current situation is not likely to improve. The minister has to be careful not to overpromise in relation to what the Government can deliver in this area.

I turn to a couple of points of consensus. A number of members mentioned the Highland pathfinder scheme, which is all about sharing information at an early stage. I do not think that there is any doubt that that has been a great success. Of the 250 children who came to the attention of the police in the past nine weeks, only 53 required to be referred to the reporter. That saves resources in the long run and it makes perfect sense. Practitioners report that they have saved a significant amount of time; they have freed up time that was previously spent writing reports. If we manage things properly, we can save resources and ensure that they are targeted more effectively.

Elizabeth Smith raised a point about parenting skills. We all know that there are parents who are not well equipped to bring up children. Having become a parent not that long ago, I am probably not best equipped to talk about such issues. In some cases, there are second or third generation children who simply do not have parents with the skills to be able to parent properly. We need Government action in that area. However, we do not need the Government to come in with big boots on and create a whole set of new programmes. Excellent work is already being done by the voluntary sector. Off the top of my head, I can think of two organisations—Care for the Family and Barnardo's—that run excellent parenting classes. We should consider supporting the voluntary sector in providing information, recognising that the lack of parenting skills lies at the root of many of the problems that young people face.

I commend to the cabinet secretary the nurture group project at Hill primary school in Blairgowrie, which I visited recently. The nurture group was established for youngsters with difficulty at home—not youngsters with educational difficulties, but those with social difficulties due to their home environment. Some of them might be from homes where their parents are suffering from addiction to alcohol or drugs, where there is worklessness, or possibly where there has been family breakdown. The nurture group seeks to replicate in the school a caring home environment, whereby meals are provided, homework support is given and out-of-school activities are offered. It is about providing youngsters with social skills and building their confidence if they are not getting the necessary support at home. The intention is to take children into the unit for a short time—a maximum of one or two years—so that they can then go back into the school main stream. So far, the nurture group is showing tremendous success. When I visited the school, I was extremely impressed with the commitment of the staff who were involved in the project. I am sure that they would welcome a ministerial visit, if the cabinet secretary or her colleagues have time. It is an excellent example of making a real difference, which is exactly what the debate is about.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

I truly welcome the opportunity to debate this subject. The way in which the debate has been conducted so far shows how important many of the issues are to members throughout the chamber. As other members have said, the debate has been consensual, and I wish to allay any fears that the cabinet secretary might have that I will spoil that. I will, however, return to a couple of issues that must be raised.

The reports that we are debating were a little late in coming to us. I appreciate what Mr Ingram said about that—the reports were brought forward—but perhaps we should have moved back the debate a little to allow ourselves time to get a good grasp of the reports. From the little that I have been able to grasp of them so far, I think that they are useful.

My main concern about the consensual nature of the debate is that we have been here before, having previously agreed on what our priorities should be. There are still major challenges, which we need to address.

Like other members, I will refer to the continuing consultation on the children's hearings system, which should bring about an amalgamation of support services. I welcome that—of course I do, given that it was my colleague Peter Peacock who set the consultation in motion, as Robert Brown mentioned. I was puzzled when I heard it being announced at the beginning of the summer, because I thought that it had in fact been announced back in January—however, I will gloss over that.

My understanding was that the consultation was important to ensure a sufficient number of people to serve on local children's panels. My colleague Duncan McNeil has paid tribute to those people. One aim was to ensure that panels are not hampered by operating in fairly small local authority areas. Another was to streamline training and other support arrangements for travel expenses and so on. If that is the current thrust of the review, I welcome it.

I hope that we can ensure that there is still local input into the children's hearings system, so that we do not lose its benefits. Margaret Smith referred to that. I support what the cabinet secretary proposes, but we must continue to monitor how the system is operating. Hearings operate under fairly pressured circumstances, and not just because of the increase in referrals. We need to be sensitive to how we manage the situation.

In the previous session, much was made of the dropping of a section of the Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Bill that related to information sharing. The cabinet secretary is very much aware of that, having been a member of the Education Committee when the bill was being considered. That was probably the right thing to do at the time, but we are all aware that each time there has been a failure in child protection, information sharing has been at the top of the list of contributory factors. No one doubts that the issue is difficult to tackle, and I am sure that none of us wishes to ignore the rights of the child or young person to have their privacy respected, but I and other members know—the cabinet secretary faced this issue as a member of the Education Committee—that we can get round the matter only by legislating. I was therefore a little disappointed yesterday that there was nothing in the programme for government on legislating on the issue.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The responses to the "Draft Children's Services (Scotland) Bill Consultation" from the professionals, including COSLA, the Association of Directors of Social Work and Glasgow City Council, strongly recommended that we should not rush to legislation on the matter, and that we ought to use the available information and learn the lessons from the pathfinder project. We are listening to the professionals in not legislating.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

I think that other professionals would recommend that we need to legislate. The cabinet secretary's motion mentions

"respecting both data protection legislation and the privacy of individuals".

That wording suggests to me that there is a way out—a way for practitioners to explain why they might not share the necessary information. The only way to get round that is by submitting the proposals to the scrutiny that they would have to undergo if they were to become legislation, making their provisions clear to people so that they are protected. We will continue to debate that matter.

Yesterday, I asked the First Minister about a number of policy issues affecting children and young people. We know that the best way to protect our children is to ensure that contact is maintained with them; children are at most risk of harm when they are hidden away or unprotected by the community and services. Two of the services that I mentioned yesterday are particularly important. There has been some discussion today about the health visitor service, and I appreciate what the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning has now said on the matter. I am concerned, however, that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing told us that it was up to health boards to decide on that service. I would hope to have a national service. I appreciate that pilot projects are going on; I hope that the outcome of those pilots will recognise that the health visitor service should be standardised throughout Scotland, and that different health boards should not be making proposals to withdraw health visitor services—particularly at this stage, before the pilots have even reported.

The other issue that I raised with the First Minister yesterday—unsuccessfully—was nursery provision for vulnerable two-year-olds. I have just spoken about the need for contact. Contact with vulnerable children can be maintained and their welfare monitored in a non-stigmatising way through nurseries. Judging from the examples that I have seen of that approach working, the nursery place and the care that is provided there for the child allow for support to be given to the mother and, in some cases, the father, too. The biggest influence on a child's life comes from their parents.

As Elizabeth Smith and others have said, we need to provide the right services to parents to help them raise and nurture their children.

Perhaps this is a debate for another day, but the provision of nursery places for vulnerable two-year-olds has allowed for support to be given to parents, too. I and many other members were disappointed that the Scottish Government abandoned the programme for nursery places for vulnerable two-year-olds before the pilots had even been evaluated.

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

That is not correct.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

You say, from a sedentary position, that that is not true, but Glasgow City Council seems to be the only authority that is now able to run with that programme. Perhaps the minister will be able to answer that point.

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

rose—

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

I cannot let you intervene at the moment, minister. Perhaps you could address the point in your winding-up speech.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The member should not use the second person.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

Sorry.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

You are now in your last minute.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I hope that the Minister for Children and Early Years will be able to say that he is reconsidering the matter.

This has been a useful debate, in which other issues have been raised. The cabinet secretary's comments on looked-after children were welcome, as were my colleague Marlyn Glen's remarks about provision for deaf children—not just because she talked about the motion that I lodged. Many members, in particular my colleague Duncan McNeil and Bob Doris, mentioned kinship care.

There is much agreement on some issues, which is why there is frustration that the results that we want are not necessarily being delivered in practice. We have touched on a number of issues that are worthy of a debate in their own right. I see that the cabinet secretary is nodding and I hope that we will have an opportunity to debate such issues. The cabinet secretary and other members are right when they say that if we get it right for our children we will make a big contribution to Scotland.

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The subject of the debate is not the easiest one to grapple with, and I congratulate all members who made constructive speeches. Like Robert Brown, I pay tribute to the work of Peter Peacock—I also pay tribute to Robert Brown's work—in getting the ball rolling on the getting it right for every child programme under the previous Administration.

I will try to respond to issues that were raised. Rhona Brankin's point about pre-service education was valid. It is obvious that multi-agency training is key. Work is going on to identify the core competences for pre-service training and we are discussing with the universities and colleges how to incorporate the issue into workforce development.

I thank Elizabeth Smith for her supportive comments and I agree with her that parenting skills—and the lack thereof—are a central issue. Indeed, the issue is central to the development of our early years framework, in which we will tackle, for example, pre-school provision and early years provision for vulnerable one and two-year-olds. That work is being actively developed with COSLA and other partners and we will be in a position to bring our proposals to the Parliament later this year. I hope that we will all have a chance fully to debate issues to do with parenting, family support and so on.

I reassure Hugh O'Donnell that the approach in Scotland is not to create a central database. Information will be held and controlled by agencies and data will be brought together only when required. We are not going down the road that has been taken in England. There will have to be justification for access to information, and databases will not be open to being searched without there being a clear reason for doing so.

I hope that the cabinet secretary answered the points that were made about legislation. It would be a big mistake to legislate too early—we have made some mistakes in the Parliament in previous legislation. It is important that we work through the pathfinders and learn all the lessons that we need to learn. I am not ruling out legislation. However, we are not in a position to introduce a bill and we have not identified areas in which legislation would be appropriate at this stage.

I agree entirely with Duncan McNeil's analysis and with what he said about what requires to be done. I welcome all members' assistance in that regard and I hope that we can build a consensus in the Scottish Parliament on the way forward, in particular on difficult issues to do with the benefits system, in relation to which we could work jointly on our approach to UK ministers.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

As usual, the minister is only too keen to have a pop at Westminster. Does he acknowledge that many kinship carers in Scotland are still waiting for money from the Scottish Government?

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I was not having a pop at Westminster; I was trying to suggest that we need to work out how the benefits system dovetails with our plans. We need to negotiate constructively with Westminster. I think that Bob Doris answered the relevant questions about kinship care. If Rhona Brankin had listened to Duncan McNeil's speech, she would have found that it was much more constructive than her own speech was.

I say to Marlyn Glen that we need to address broader issues to do with male violence against women, to improve outcomes for children who are affected by domestic abuse. The national domestic abuse delivery plan for children and young people is just one of the measures that we are taking forward. We have allocated more than £40 million to take the wider agenda forward during the next three years. Of course, we are learning from the pathfinders in that context.

The getting it right for every child programme is the foundation for work with all children and families. It builds from universal health and education services, to change the way in which adults think and act to help all children and young people to grow, develop and reach their full potential. It is the means by which we can shift the emphasis in the provision of children's services from crisis intervention to prevention and early intervention—a number of members pushed for such an approach in their speeches.

In simple terms, the getting it right for every child approach is how practitioners and professionals across all children's and adult services will work together to meet children's needs. It overcomes interdisciplinary barriers and eliminates wasteful duplication and bureaucracy, thereby releasing resources, to ensure the outcomes that we want for all our children. It is building a common approach throughout Scotland, although local needs and circumstances will shape approaches locally. The getting it right for every child approach is the methodology that delivers—and the thread that stitches together—all our various substantive policies: the early years framework, the curriculum for excellence, the youth framework, health for all, and the better health, better care action plan.

However, as members are aware, there is no simple, quick fix. Transformational change does not come easily but requires a raising of awareness, a redesign of how practitioners go about their business, multi-agency training that is based on common language and processes, and the fostering of trust and understanding across services and with children and families.

The pathfinder experience has involved lengthy discussions, testing, refining and the reappraisal of how wholesale change can be managed. That has always been challenging and at times it has been frustrating, as progress has been slow and planned activity has had to be rescheduled or scrapped. However, as time has gone on, results have become increasingly encouraging and positive. It is exciting when children and families report that they understand better what is happening and why. It is exciting when individual agencies experience the benefits of different ways of working, which mean that help gets to a child earlier. It is exciting when a health visitor can identify a need for social work support and can commission the resource directly, without being required to refer to line managers or another department. It is encouraging when a police officer at a domestic abuse incident can capture information that better informs the school, social work services, or whoever is best placed to give support, so that the children are helped more quickly and effectively. It is exciting when agencies can work together to decide how they can best help a child and then go ahead and take action, minimising bureaucracy and—more to the point—getting the child the right help much earlier, within a day or so of the decision.

Much remains to be done. The formal evaluation of the pathfinder process and the impact on individual children's outcomes will not be available until next year. However, the early signs are promising. What we have achieved so far is the development and testing of a practice model that can be applied by any practitioner, whatever the child's circumstances. We have developed a common approach to recording information and assessing risks and needs.

We have begun, with the University of Edinburgh, to map out how we can systematically measure improved outcomes for individual children, not just in relation to their needs but in relation to how services are working together and what the experiences of the child and family have been. Much more needs to be worked through and developed into an evaluation model that can inform performance, but we are on the way.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — General Questions

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee West)

To ask the Scottish Government what action was taken during the summer recess to advance the national conversation. (S3O-4015)

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

The national conversation continued to build momentum over the summer. The First Minister and the cabinet secretaries took part in public events that were attended by hundreds of people in Dumfries, Inverness, Pitlochry and Skye. Public enthusiasm for those events confirms that Scotland's constitutional future cannot be separated from the issues that people and communities face each day. The issue of how Scotland should be governed in the future is now firmly established at the heart of public and political debate.

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee West)

During the recess, the Scottish National Party directly connected with people to seek their views on Scotland's constitutional future. I was very encouraged by the responses that I received in my constituency of Dundee West and in John Mason's Westminster constituency of Glasgow East.

What other national conversation events have been held in 2008? What does the Government intend to do in the near future?

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

I am glad that Joe FitzPatrick was encouraged during the summer by the responses that he received.

A goodly number of national conversation events—around 17 already—have taken place this year. Those events have involved young people, the churches, voluntary organisations and many more organisations. I am glad that Labour members have turned up to take part in at least two of the events. Obviously, we encourage such participation by members across the chamber.

In the near future, there will be events in Cumbernauld, Inverness, Uist and Perth. Indeed, Fiona Hyslop and the First Minister will hold an event shortly to hear the views of young people. I assure members across the chamber that Government ministers are fully engaged in the national conversation and will continue to be so right up until the referendum in 2010.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

Can the minister provide statistics on how many contributors from the floor there were at the events and on how many such contributors mentioned independence? If he cannot do so now, will he revert to us in writing?

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

The issues that people raised at most of the events, particularly the Cabinet events, showed the stark reality of our ability under the current devolution settlement to tackle the problems that they face with rising energy and food prices and fuel costs and with the downturn in the housing market. All those issues relate to the powers that have been established for the Parliament.

On 12 March, Cathy Jamieson—I do not think that she is in the chamber—took part in a discussion with Stewart Maxwell that was attended by around 50 people. In May, I was involved in an event with Malcolm Chisholm—a discussion with the churches at Ingliston that was attended by some 200 people. It is not only Government ministers who are involved in the discussion; Labour members, too, are involved.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

Just answer the question, Bruce.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

I answered it.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

To ask the Scottish Executive what funding support is available for traditional community-based Scottish arts to ensure that our culture survives into the future. (S3O-4038)

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The Scottish Arts Council is, of course, the main national funding source for the arts. Its current funding system was launched in 2006.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

The Scottish Arts Council has refused funding applications for some groups and is carrying out a review of the sector, and traditional community-based arts groups are worried that they may simply disappear. Does the minister acknowledge that what makes community-based Scottish arts groups significant is people's aspiration to participate in our traditional culture and not simply be spectators?

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Absolutely. I disagree with nothing that Sarah Boyack said. Later today, I will meet representatives of the Traditional Music and Song Association of Scotland, the Scots Music Group and the Scottish Traditions of Dance Trust. We have talked about the issues before. Since the Parliament was reconvened in 1999, members of various parties have expressed concern that there is no guarantee of funding for Scotland's unique indigenous arts and traditional culture. It is essential that we discuss how we can guarantee that uniqueness in our communities in future. The Government, with the care that it has for the traditional arts, will have that discussion.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

In light of that answer, does the minister agree that monetary support for the traditional arts from the Scottish Arts Council ought to be provided on the basis of their ability to promote the vitality of our living traditions? Given the omission of the traditional arts from the previous Administration's national companies programme, is it time to investigate whether a national company or agency should be set up to progress those arts?

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The Scottish Arts Council is having discussions with those who were not successful in that flexible two-year funding round. The Government wants to promote the very best of Scotland and the uniqueness of its traditional culture. I am not convinced that the national company model that we have for other forms of art in Scotland would be appropriate or would celebrate the diversity and the wonderful traditions of our culture. However, it is the Government's responsibility to protect our traditional cultures and we are very willing to have that discussion.

Cathy Peattie (Labour, Falkirk East)

Does the minister accept that decisions must be made now? Does she understand the concerns of those who are involved in the Scots language and the traditional arts regarding funding? I am glad that she is meeting people today, but will she come outside with me this afternoon to meet folk who are involved in the traditional arts and listen to them?

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

It is bizarre that it is only now, nine years after the Scottish Parliament was reconvened, that we have for the first time a Government that is listening and recognising the problems and willing to do something about them.

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what support it is giving to sport in Lanarkshire. (S3O-4025)

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

The local authorities are the main providers of sporting opportunities in Lanarkshire. The Scottish Government is committed to working with them and others to ensure that we achieve the twin ambitions of the national strategy for sport: increasing participation and improving performance.

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Will the minister join with me in congratulating New Lanarkshire Ltd, North Lanarkshire Council and South Lanarkshire Council on securing the international children's games in 2011? Can he assure me that the Scottish Government will support the games?

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I am delighted to congratulate everybody who was involved in the successful bid. It is marvellous that the international children's games are coming to Lanarkshire and Scotland. I met John Scott, the chief executive of New Lanarkshire Ltd, and Karen Shaw of New Lanarkshire Ltd in August 2007. I met John Scott again in March this year, along with Richard Smith, the secretary general of the international children's games. The First Minister and I provided messages of support for the bid and the First Minister recorded a message of support as part of the bid process.

We are investing substantial sums in Lanarkshire in support of sport across the region and to ensure that the area is ready for the international children's games in 2011. Members will be pleased to hear that, through sportscotland, we are investing about £7 million in the Ravenscraig regional sports centre, which is due for completion in 2010 and which will be central to the success of the games.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

To ask the Scottish Executive what discussions it has had with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and local authorities regarding the First Minister's announcement of 19 August 2008 on housing investment. (S3O-4056)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The Scottish Government had a number of discussions at political and official level with COSLA and representatives of local authorities in advance of the First Minister's announcement on 19 August. Further discussion is continuing.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Following pressure, the First Minister announced on 19 August that £100 million would be provided to tackle the housing challenges. That was welcomed, but there are issues with the detail. The announcement was made ahead of £40 million of the money being confirmed. I do not know whether that concerns you, but will you confirm where we are in relation to that £40 million—if it is there—and how much of the £100 million will be available this year? Will you detail the process by which local authorities throughout Scotland can access the portion that is available this year to ensure fair distribution throughout Scotland?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

All members should have received a memo from me this morning asking them not to refer to one another other than by their proper names or titles.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I confirm to Johann Lamont the words that the First Minister used in the speech that he delivered at the Donald Dewar memorial lecture on 19 August. He said that a package of up to £100 million would be available, £60 million of which was already identified and absolutely confirmed within the central Government budget. We made the point in that announcement that £40 million of the development was subject to discussions with local government under the arrangements in the concordat. We could not have been clearer in our explanation of the nature of that resource.

Funding support in the form of accelerated spending will be made available during 2008-09 and 2009-10 to meet the challenges faced by the housing market and to support affordable housing. That is the right thing for the Government to do. We will, of course, co-operate with local authorities in the development of how the resource will be spent and allocated to ensure that we make a constructive contribution to tackling the economic difficulties that are faced by the housing sector in Scotland.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

In the interests of clarity, will the cabinet secretary confirm that all local authorities will receive their fair share of that allocation?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The resources are aimed primarily at supporting the development of social housing, which will be developed through registered social landlords. We aim to make the maximum impact with the available resources, and the allocations will be discussed with our local authority partners. I assure Mr McNeil that those discussions will fully involve local authorities as part of our open approach to discussions and debate on all such questions involving our local authority partners.

Dave Thompson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Government what progress has been made on the replacement of public-private partnership funding schemes. (S3O-4030)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Work on developing the Scottish futures trust is progressing well. Subject to the agreement of the Parliamentary Bureau, I expect to update Parliament on progress next week. We expect that the Scottish futures trust will be established formally as a company shortly and I will keep Parliament properly informed of the details.

Dave Thompson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Is the minister aware that actual inflation rates, as opposed to the optimistic 2.5 per cent rate on which Highland Council predicated its PPP school building programme at the outset, have already meant that the annual cost of the scheme has virtually doubled, with £15.8 million paid out in 2006 rather than the £8.6 million annual charge that was estimated in 2001? Is he aware that the programme is mortgaging the council to the hilt for 30 years and jeopardising the development of education services in the area?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

It is clear that there are a number of concerns about the efficiency and value for money of private finance initiative contracts. The example that Mr Thompson cites is alarming because it illustrates the degree of pressure that such changes to the inflation rate will have on the finances of local authorities, which have long-term financial commitments to meet in relation to PFI schemes. That is why the Government is motivated to secure greater value for money from the capital investment programme, which is one of our principal motivations for establishing the Scottish futures trust, which has at its heart our determination to deliver more effective value for money from our investment programme.

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

I cannot hear the letters PPP without thinking about the deplorable state of Wick high school in my constituency. Will the minister agree to meet concerned parents and teachers from that school within the context of what he has said to see how resources could be targeted to a particularly needy problem such as Wick high school?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I am sure that my colleagues in the education portfolio are in regular touch with local authorities and other groups about school refurbishment and new school construction. Those aspirations lie at the heart of the Government's proposal for the Scottish futures trust. If Mr Stone will forgive me, I will leave it to my education colleagues to consider his request for a meeting, but the Government is determined to ensure that we have a vigorous programme of investment in the school estate, which is what we are currently delivering.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what additional training has been offered to Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education inspectors following the death of headteacher Irene Hogg in the Scottish Borders. (S3O-4018)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

HMIE invests in a thorough programme of continuing professional development for all HM inspectors to ensure that inspections are conducted professionally and constructively and that they lead to improvement for children and other learners. The member will be aware that the majority of inspections include a current practitioner as part of the inspection team, and important aspects of HMIE's programme of development extend to those team members.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I thank the cabinet secretary for her answer. Is she aware of the additional training that is being undertaken by HMIE inspectors, reportedly at a spa in Pitlochry, which is designed to train them to reduce stress on teachers, following the tragic death of the headteacher in the Borders? Does she agree that that is bound to add weight to the calls for a fatal accident inquiry into the headteacher's death, which followed widespread concerns about the methods that are used by HMIE inspectors, which have been relayed to me by teachers across Scotland subsequently?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The issue of a fatal accident inquiry is a matter for the legal authorities. I understand that a report is currently with the procurator fiscal.

HMIE has been developing a new approach to school and pre-school inspections since September 2007. The new models were piloted in April this year and, following intensive staff development for inspectors, associate assessors and lay members, they have been fully implemented from the start of the current term. The inspections are shorter and more proportionate, and they reduce the burden and bureaucracy on schools. In addition, much more emphasis is being placed on a school's self-assessment. The new approach increases professional engagement between inspectors and staff, and further supports effective partnership working to bring about improvement.

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

Does the cabinet secretary agree that perhaps a long-term response to the tragedy that occurred in my constituency would be to take forward what Parliament has already voted for this year, which is a revised set of conditions and support for our school leaders in primary and secondary schools, who do outstanding work under huge local pressure, especially when inspections are about to be carried out?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I agree with the member that effective leadership in our schools is of paramount importance, and I pay tribute to the many headteachers who deliver that in our schools today. I reiterate the importance of acknowledging that there is a new inspection regime, which has been piloted since April and which is now in place from the current term. It has been welcomed so far by headteachers and professionals across the education system.

Christopher Harvie (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether numbers are available for people suffering from autistic spectrum disorder, based on recent case studies of specific areas, that would allow for a detailed breakdown of the numbers and severity of cases. (S3O-4019)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

Information on the number of people with autistic spectrum disorders and the levels of needs are primarily of importance to local agencies with a responsibility for planning and designing services to meet the needs of the local population.

The Scottish Government issued policy and practice guidance on commissioning services for people on the autism spectrum in April. It emphasised the need for local areas to have good-quality shared information about current and future demand for the services and supports that people with autism may require. It included positive evaluations of successful models of services to address the range of needs.

Christopher Harvie (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Has consideration ever been given to setting up one or more pilot projects—or to commissioning university resources to do so—to ascertain details such as numbers, age and severity, as it has been estimated that such problems might affect around 1 per cent of our population and might even be regarded as an epidemic?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

Research projects are, of course, going on. For example, the Medical Research Council has funded such projects and has committed more than £3 million to new research, but it is not particularly focused on the issue of prevalence. I would certainly be happy to reflect on that further and write to the member with further details.

First Minister's Question Time

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

First Minister's questions will be taken today by the Deputy First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon.

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

I have to ask the question that is in the Business Bulletin , but I am sure that the Deputy First Minister will be capable of answering it.

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-953)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

As colleagues may be aware, the First Minister is attending a private funeral today. Later today, I and my fellow ministers will have meetings to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland.

Colleagues may also be interested to know that the First Minister will host a reception tomorrow night in Edinburgh castle for all Scotland's Olympians. On that note, I know that the chamber will want to send its very best wishes to our Paralympians for the start of the Paralympics on Saturday.

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

I am sure that the whole Parliament sends its best wishes to all those who are involved.

Alex Salmond's tax plans have been roundly rejected by nearly every organisation that responded to the consultation on them. As he is ignoring the result, why did he bother consulting?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

In case Cathy Jamieson has forgotten, I remind her that surveys of public opinion show that 88 per cent of the Scottish public want to see the back of the unfair council tax and its replacement with a fair tax that is based on ability to pay. The debate in Scotland is simple: it is between those who continue to defend a council tax that is deeply unfair and deeply regressive and which hits the poorest hardest, and those of us who are proud to propose an alternative that is fair, progressive and based on ability to pay. The local income tax would lift 85,000 people in Scotland out of poverty, including 15,000 children. It beggars belief that the party that alleges to be the party of social justice would oppose such a plan and, instead, defend the unfair council tax.

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

Surely, if consultation meant anything at all, the Scottish National Party would dump the local income tax proposals. I remind the Parliament who Alex Salmond has decided to ignore: the Scottish Trades Union Congress, the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors, Unison, the Federation of Small Business, the National Union of Students and the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland—the list goes on. The tax plan has been rubbished by an array of respected organisations that have Scotland's best interests at heart. Surely they cannot all be wrong. Why does Alex Salmond not admit that he has it wrong and dump the plan now?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

We will continue to discuss our plans with all those organisations and more as we progress the bill, but I remind Cathy Jamieson that there was a pretty big consultation in Scotland last May. It was called the Scottish election. In that election, the Scottish people voted for the SNP and our plans to get rid of the council tax and replace it with a fair system. [ Interruption. ]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

The party that presided over 60 per cent increases in the council tax was roundly booted out of office. That is the kind of consultation that I like.

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

Many people who voted in that election thought that they would get lower class sizes and £2,000 house-buyer grants and that student debt would be abolished. Of course, none of that has come to pass.

The SNP's local income tax would simultaneously make Scotland the highest-taxed part of the United Kingdom, damage the economy and force councils to slash services. We know that Alex Salmond is a devotee of Margaret Thatcher's economic policies, but now we see that he is also a devotee of her tax tactics. She introduced the Abolition of Domestic Rates etc (Scotland) Bill, paving the way for the poll tax—a damaging and divisive personal tax that caused chaos in Scotland. It is some irony that the SNP is now introducing an abolition of council tax bill and paving the way for another damaging personal tax that, just like the poll tax, will make hard-working families pay more while the wealthiest pay less.

It is difficult to imagine anything worse until we involve the Liberal Democrats. They want 32 different tax rates: one for each council. Will Nicola Sturgeon give an absolute guarantee that that will not happen now or in future?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

Cathy Jamieson mentioned Margaret Thatcher. I will say something about her.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

That will do, thank you. Order.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

Margaret Thatcher saw the need for change. I admire her. She is a conviction politician. I am a conviction politician, just like her. That is what Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, said on 5 September just last year.

There is a question for Cathy Jamieson and her Labour Party colleagues. Labour has defended the unfair council tax for eight long years in the Parliament. It has presided over 60 per cent increases in the council tax. Of course, over the summer, we heard all three candidates for the Labour leadership say that the council tax is wrong, unfair and past its sell-by date. Unfortunately, not one of those leadership candidates has any alternative to the council tax. The SNP Government has an alternative—the local income tax, which is fair, progressive and based on the ability to pay. I challenge anyone who believes in social justice to vote for the proposal.

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

I notice that the Deputy First Minister was not able to answer my straightforward question. If she cannot answer that one, I have to ask her whether she is then leaving the door open for the SNP to do a back-room deal with the Liberal Democrats that could mean that a small business that employs three people—[ Interruption. ] This is a very serious point.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order. I would like to hear the question, even if no one else would.

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

Such a deal could mean that a small business employing three people would have to deal with the red tape of three different tax rates, and a larger corporation would have to deal with up to 33 different rates. Is Nicola Sturgeon's message to Scottish taxpayers that they should prepare for the highest tax rates in the UK, and is her message to Scottish businesses that they should pack up and go elsewhere?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I point out to Cathy Jamieson that, until John Swinney was able to freeze them, the people of Scotland were paying sky-high council tax rates because of the increases brought in by the previous Labour Government.

The SNP Government looks forward to having constructive discussions with our friends in the Liberal Democrats under the new broom of Tavish Scott—I hope that I do not have to change that assessment of him in a few minutes. The SNP believes in building consensus in the interests of the Scottish people.

Let there be no doubt that there is a clear divide in Parliament between the Labour Party, which wants to continue the unfair council tax, and members on these benches, who believe in social justice and in lifting people out of poverty and who want a fair and progressive tax that is based on the ability to pay.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I do not know what I am reeling from more: the prospect of Nicola Sturgeon as First Minister, or of her having constructive discussions with the Liberal Democrats.

To ask the Deputy First Minister when the First Minister will next meet the Prime Minister. (S3F-954)

I assume that it will not be in Glenrothes.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

We might have to wait and see about that, but I can safely say that the First Minister would be delighted to meet the Prime Minister in Glenrothes, if the Prime Minister can find the courage.

The First Minister has no plans to meet the Prime Minister in the near future.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Yesterday, the First Minister proclaimed with unabated bravado that he has found £281 million to subsidise his unfair, unworkable and totally discredited Scottish national income tax. By how much could we cut everyone's bills if that subsidy was used to cut council tax? Only when we have the answer to that question can Scotland have a true choice, a real debate and a proper comparison.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

As we move hopefully forward to have constructive discussions with our friends in the Liberal Democrats, we will leave it to the unholy Labour-Tory alliance to defend the unfair council tax. The Government has already taken firm and decisive action to reduce and alleviate the burden of council tax, which is why we took the decision in partnership with our local authority friends to freeze the council tax.

The problem with the Tory plan for the council tax is that although it might involve a one-off cut, after that there is no guarantee about what will happen to a tax that remains deeply unfair. People will be very suspicious of that when they cast their minds back and remember that, under the last Conservative Government, council tax increased by 41 per cent. Granted, that is not as bad as the 62 per cent that the council tax increased by under Labour, but it is still pretty awful.

If it is all the same to Annabel Goldie, we will continue to progress our plans for a fair, progressive tax that is based on ability to pay. On this issue—happily, not on all issues—we will leave her to continue to shore up the discredited Labour Party.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

It is disappointing that among such verbiage there was not an answer to the question that I asked. Most people understand that the problem with the council tax is the amount that they have to pay. That is the problem with many taxes—people are concerned less about structure and more about bills.

The SNP's totally spurious claim is that 80 per cent of Scots households would be no worse off under its plans but, under the plans of the Scottish Conservatives, 100 per cent of council tax payers would be better off; our older citizens would be very much better off.

Let us get real. The Green party will not support the Scottish national income tax. The Lib Dems have had three positions in 12 hours—no change there. Jeremy Purvis said no, Tavish Scott said maybe—perhaps that is definitive for him—and their MP Ed Davey is unconvinced. That is total flip-flop and fluster.

The SNP's proposal is brazen opportunism—it is a con. A local income tax is just not going to happen. Does the Deputy First Minister now accept that the £281 million that she says that she can find would be much better used to cut the council tax bills of every household in Scotland? In these hard-pressed times, we do not need a new tax on work; we need a tax cut for all.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I remind Annabel Goldie that the vast majority of people in Scotland would be better off under a local income tax than they are under the council tax. The replacement of the council tax with a local income tax would lift 85,000 people in Scotland out of poverty; 15,000 children would be lifted out of poverty. She will not find much favour in opposing that.

In the spirit of consensus, I agree with Annabel Goldie's stunning observation that the problem with all taxes is that people do not like how much they have to pay. That is indeed true. People do not like paying taxes, but they want to know that when they have to pay them, they are fair, progressive and based on ability to pay. That is the hallmark of the local income tax.

Annabel Goldie seems to be labouring under the same illusion that Labour has laboured under for far too long—that somehow it is possible to reform the council tax to make it fairer. It is not. Peter Burt said that expressly in his review of the council tax. I repeat that I know which side of the debate we are on: we want a fair tax that is based on ability to pay. The Conservatives are perfectly welcome to continue to support Labour in defending the indefensible. Frankly, that is a matter for Annabel Goldie.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

To ask the Deputy First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-955)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I welcome Tavish Scott to his first First Minister's questions. The next meeting of the Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

On Monday in Campbeltown, I met people who had real worries about the closure of the Vestas wind turbine factory. What is the Deputy First Minister's Government doing to keep the factory open and to save those jobs?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

As Tavish Scott knows, the Government has given extensive support to the plant, which Jim Mather has visited. Constructive discussions are being, and will continue to be, held with the management, and Parliament will be kept updated as appropriate.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

The worldwide head of Vestas said from the start that he would not come to Scotland and would meet only in Denmark. If such a threat to 100 jobs had occurred under any previous Government, the SNP would have been first to demand that ministers took the lead and got over to Denmark to engage with the most senior people in the company. Given that the SNP is in government, why have ministers not done that?

Jim Mather told the Campbeltown Courier:

"For Kintyre to lose 100 private sector jobs would be the equivalent of the Royal Bank of Scotland closing in Edinburgh".

I agree, so why have ministers spent the summer travelling around Scotland promoting independence, when they should have been going round Europe protecting Scottish jobs? When will ministers get across to Denmark and make the high-level case face to face? There is a flight to Copenhagen from Edinburgh at 4.15 this afternoon. Will there be a minister on it?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I say to Tavish Scott that this is a serious matter—perhaps too serious for glib soundbites. [ Interruption. ]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

The Government has given extensive support to the company, and we will continue to do so. Jim Mather is seeking discussions with the management and will continue to work extremely hard to seek a resolution. I am perfectly happy to give an undertaking to ensure that Tavish Scott and all other members of the Parliament will be kept updated on that as appropriate.

This Government has a proud record on renewables. Tavish Scott talked about ministers' activities over the summer, so I will talk about the approval of the Clyde wind farm, which is the single largest wind farm project in Scotland, a new biomass plant at Markinch in Fife, an extension to Crystal Rigg wind farm and the opening, earlier this week, of Scottish and Southern Energy's Glendoe scheme.

Tavish Scott has raised a serious issue, and it will be dealt with in a serious way by this Government.

Nigel Don (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

To ask the First Minister what measures the Scottish Government is taking to bolster the Scottish economy in the current economic climate. (S3F-981)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

The Government has taken early and decisive action to help the Scottish economy in difficult times. In the First Minister's Donald Dewar lecture on 19 August, he announced a package of initiatives to respond to the immediate challenges that are faced by the Scottish economy. That included: bringing forward up to £100 million of affordable housing investment to be spent this year and next, rather than in 2010-11, as originally planned; bringing forward up to £385 million of Scotland's remaining European structural funds allocation; introducing new steps to ensure that Scottish tourism reaps the full benefit of homecoming 2009; and looking at innovative ways of reducing public sector energy costs through bulk purchasing of electricity.

That package of measures builds on the support that this Government has already provided for Scotland's economy since last May, such as the council tax freeze, the reduction in business rates for 150,000 small enterprises in Scotland, the phased abolition of prescription charges and the abolition of the graduate endowment. All those policies are helping to put money back in people's pockets and get Scotland's economy moving.

Nigel Don (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I thank the Deputy First Minister for that extensive reply.

Yesterday, the chief economist at the Bank of Scotland, Martin Ellis, said:

"despite facing substantial economic headwinds, the Scottish economy is expected to expand through 2008 into early 2009".

Does the Deputy First Minister agree?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I substantially agree with that statement. However, I should say that there is absolutely no room for complacency. Scotland's economy is proving to be relatively resilient, but we know from our constituencies that people are feeling the pressure. Family budgets are under severe strain across the country, which is why the Government has taken so much action over the past months to try to relieve that pressure.

We should take heart from the fact that growth in Scotland has matched or surpassed that of the United Kingdom in each of the three past quarters. Our labour market continues to outperform that of the UK and retail sales continue to grow at a much faster rate in Scotland. Those are all encouraging signs, but there is no room for complacency.

I must say, finally, that the efforts to keep the Scottish economy out of recession and ensure that it remains resilient are not helped at all by the depressive, dire comments that were made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the weekend. I would have thought that his job was to help, not to hinder, as he seems intent on doing.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

In your answer to Nigel Don, you referred—

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I remind you—

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I apologise, Presiding Officer.

The cabinet secretary referred to an announcement that was made by the First Minister about £100 million that was to be allocated to deal with some of the housing problems. Can she confirm that that £100 million will be available this year? Can she also confirm that every local authority in Scotland will benefit from that money?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

Duncan McNeil asks that question as if he has stumbled across something that nobody knew. However, when the First Minister made that announcement last month, he was quite clear about the fact that we want to bring forward up to £100 million investment to this year and next year. We made it very clear in the press release and the accompanying document that £60 million of that had already been secured from the Scottish Government's own budgets and that we were in constructive discussions with local authorities about securing the other £40 million. As members have come to expect from the good relationship that this Government has with local government, those discussions are continuing and they are constructive, and I am confident that they will reach a positive conclusion. That is in marked contrast to the negative relationship that previous ministers used to have with local authorities—which was astounding, given that most of the councillors were in the same party as them.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothians)

One thing that the Scottish Government can do is have business impact assessments—a series of nine questions suggested by the regulatory review group—for all legislation. Given the current economic climate, how many of the 15 bills announced yesterday have undergone a business impact assessment?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

That issue is under active consideration by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth, and I am sure that he will respond to the member about it in more detail.

There is little that is more important to this Government, in trying to protect and boost the Scottish economy, than helping business. That is why we have taken the action that we have taken with the small business bonus scheme to reduce or completely abolish business rates for 150,000 small businesses in Scotland. I was glad to have the support of the Conservative party on that policy.

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

In the past nine months, decisions taken by the Government within its own powers have nearly halved the operational budget of Scottish Enterprise, with 260 redundancies; abolished local enterprise companies, with no locally set budgets; and removed support for small businesses from our economic development agency. On 14 April, the chief executive of Scottish Enterprise told Parliament:

"we will no longer proactively support businesses that primarily service local markets."

How will that help the Scottish economy?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

That is a complete and utter misrepresentation of what has happened. In the past few months under this Government, Scottish Enterprise has been allowed to focus much more on what most people would consider to be its core responsibility: supporting business in Scotland. That is what Scottish Enterprise is fundamentally there to do. Responsibility for training and skills now lies elsewhere, and the business gateway is being rolled out across Scotland.

There are some very positive things to say about the support that this Government is giving to business. We will continue to look at what more we can do to support business in the wider economy in what are challenging times. I conclude by saying simply that I wish that the UK Government would do likewise, given that it holds the vast majority of powers in the area.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Executive plans to respond to reports that fewer than one in four of last year's probationer teachers have found permanent teaching jobs. (S3F-964)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

The teacher employment survey that Rhona Brankin refers to was partial and already out of date when it was published. We would not expect every new teacher to be in permanent employment in August. Vacancies occur throughout the year. Indeed, we know that 6,000 teachers are expected to leave the profession this year and that retirements at such levels will continue for the foreseeable future. Since the date of the survey, more than 300 teacher vacancies have been advertised in Scotland. It is also important to be clear that we inherited a situation from the previous Administration in which more teachers were seeking employment than had been forecast. That is why we took early action last June to provide an additional £9 million for 300 teaching jobs. In November, in supporting the concordat, we made provision in the local government settlement to maintain teacher numbers at around 53,000.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

There can be no greater indictment of the Scottish Government's education policy than teachers being on the dole while class sizes are rising. The Scottish National Party is responsible for bringing about the biggest crisis in education since Michael Forsyth was in charge—[ Interruption. ]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.