Scottish Parliament, 7 May 2009

438 contributions from 89 members. The official report.

Official Report 7 May 2009

School Discipline

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S3M-4067, in the name of Elizabeth Smith, on school discipline. We have a little flexibility on speaking times, but it is not measureless.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

At the outset of the debate, I make it clear that it is my firm belief that the vast majority of pupils in our schools in Scotland are well behaved, well motivated and keen to succeed. However, it is sad that some pupils and their teachers have to put up with a small but nonetheless growing minority of persistent troublemakers who make life impossible for everyone else.

It is a source of considerable concern to me that groups such as the Educational Institute of Scotland, the Scottish Secondary Teachers Association and the General Teaching Council for Scotland regard indiscipline in the classroom, particularly violent indiscipline, as an increasing problem for their members. The acting general secretary of the SSTA, Jim Docherty, said just a few months ago that the figures released by the Scottish Government bear no relation to the real situation in classrooms. Ronnie Smith of the EIS has said:

"the issue of pupil indiscipline is seldom far below the surface of the educational debate in Scotland ... the evidence is that the problem is getting worse and consuming more and more of each teacher's time."

It is even more concerning that there is such indiscipline in primary schools. We know that around 40,000 pupils are excluded from Scottish schools each year and that almost half of the exclusions involve the same pupil on more than one occasion. The most worrying thing of all is that physical attacks with weapons increased from 286 in 2006-07 to 366 in 2007-08.

However, the Scottish Government still refuses to allow the publication of the full facts. That is a little surprising, because the now Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning said in a debate on a Conservative motion on education in 2005:

"At First Minister's question time on 20 January, I raised the serious issue of the proposal to end the publication of annual indiscipline statistics and to replace them with a three-yearly survey. A couple of weeks later, the Conservatives woke up, smelled the coffee and realised that the matter should be taken up—I applaud them for doing so. If we regard indiscipline as a serious issue, it is important that regular statistics be produced so that there can be accountability. The production of statistics every three years is not good enough."—[Official Report, 17 March 2005; c 15444.]

Does the cabinet secretary still agree with that?

The statistics are bad enough, but the fact that in 85 per cent of exclusions there is no proper educational provision while the pupil is away from school is worse still. That is staggering and unacceptable by any standards. It is little wonder that many in the teaching profession despair about what can be done.

It is not for me or any other member to comment on the details of specific cases, but the sad events surrounding the Mike Barile case in Dundee threw up a major outpouring of public concern, anger and discomfort because of our inability to tackle the problem. There was a host of articles in the Daily Express, The Courier, The Daily Telegraph and The Scotsman—I have them in front of me—in which former teachers, former headteachers and former pupils said that indiscipline is the biggest problem that we face in Scottish schools. The Scottish Conservatives do not believe that any pupil who is guilty of such behaviour should be allowed anywhere near a mainstream classroom until they learn how to behave. We should learn lessons from the highly effective second chance units that have worked well in several states in America, in Northern Ireland and in Scandinavia, and we should pay strong attention to groups such as the Scottish Police Federation and our armed services personnel. Such groups believe that such policies can go a long way to sorting out persistent troublemakers and getting them to refocus their lives in a positive manner.

To those who think that I am being too harsh and that I have not signed up to the concept of inclusion in Scottish education, I say that inclusion should mean that all our pupils are able to work and learn in a disciplined environment without the fear of the bully or of retribution. If some people do not like that idea, that is tough.

We should not forget the huge range of voluntary sector groups that do much to help troubled youngsters make good. We have a wealth of talent in Scotland in Fairbridge, the Prince's Trust, the eTEN project and in private sector groups such as Spark of Genius, for example. Those groups are often the unsung heroes when schools are unable to find a solution, and we need to do far more to support them. That is why we will support the Liberal Democrat amendment.

That takes me to another issue. Every member knows that the best form of discipline is self-discipline and that that comes when pupils feel fully engaged and supported by a loving and caring family—my colleagues will develop that point—and when they pursue courses that they see as relevant, enjoyable and constructive in respect of what and how they learn. The curriculum for excellence should be well equipped in that respect, but its success will be compromised if there is not also a more extensive co-curriculum for all pupils, no matter their background or academic abilities. Evidence that was given in the recent inquiry by the Health and Sport Committee into health, physical education and sport issues laid bare the postcode lottery that exists with regard to the ease with which pupils can access a range of extra-curricular activities, which are taken for granted in many schools. The Government claims that it is keen to do something about that, but under its watch we are already seeing cutbacks in staffing in music, drama and outdoor education. Those staff are often crucial in running extra-curricular activities, and we should not underestimate the effects of that. If we can harness a child's interests in and outside the classroom, we will go a long way to channelling self-discipline in the right direction.

It is wrong to get too prescriptive about discipline in individual cases, because it should always be a matter for headteachers to decide what discipline procedures should operate in his or her school. However, they must be able to do that without fear of compromise or contradiction from either an overburdensome local authority structure that tends to assume that the one-size-fits-all approach suits everyone or excessive red tape. It should be the duty of national and local politicians to stay out of interfering in headteachers' jobs, but it must also be our duty to debate the barriers that stand in their way and to give our fullest support to the teaching profession in its desire to remove those barriers.

I look forward to the Government's response and to the statement of a coherent strategy that says what needs to be done to tackle the bullies in the classrooms. The Scottish National Party said that it would provide that back in 2005.

I move,

That the Parliament deplores the rise in the number of exclusions from Scottish schools attributable to weapon attacks by pupils; notes the growing concern expressed by teachers and parents that serious and persistent offenders are not being punished appropriately; calls on the Scottish Government to publish detailed information at regular intervals on the level of reported physical and verbal attacks in schools, as called for by the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning when in opposition, and believes that the Scottish Government should devolve more power to head teachers to deal with indiscipline in schools.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

I welcome the opportunity to respond in the debate on behalf of the Government.

I welcome the decline in exclusions by more than 11 per cent between 2006-07 and 2007-08 and congratulate schools and local authorities on their concerted efforts to achieve that. However, like Liz Smith, I am concerned by the increase in exclusions as a result of physical assaults with weapons. Attacks with weapons are plainly wrong. They endanger and distress other pupils, teachers and staff as well as the perpetrators themselves. Apart from the serious physical danger that is involved, they are extremely disruptive to the education of our young people.

Although knife incidents in schools are extremely serious, they are rare. We must remember that the vast majority of our children and young people are well behaved and are a great credit to Scotland. However, the Government takes seriously the knife culture that is prevalent in certain areas of the country, and we are tackling it in partnership with other agencies in various ways. Our positive behaviour team, which receives more than £0.5 million a year, is working throughout Scotland with schools and local authorities to promote a range of approaches to improve relationships and promote positive behaviour, from restorative practices to nurture groups.

The Government-funded national violence reduction unit, which receives £916,000 a year, has promoted programmes on the dangers of knife carrying. It has received further funding of around £80,000 to develop the medics against violence initiative, under which more than 65 senior medical practitioners will go into schools.

At a Government-hosted youth conference on violence and knife crime, we launched the Government's new knife crime youth engagement initiative. We have committed £0.5 million to work with young people to prevent and reduce knife crime, under the new brand no knives better lives.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I totally accept that, but does the Government accept that pupils who carry out such physical attacks should not be in a mainstream classroom until they learn how to behave?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

When an attack takes place with a knife or a weapon, that often becomes a matter for the courts rather than the school system. Any disposal after that is a matter for the courts as well as the school system. We want the minimum possible danger and fear in the classroom, which is what those initiatives aim to achieve.

In the curriculum for excellence, which Liz Smith mentioned, knife crime and risk-taking behaviour are recognised in the experiences and outcomes, under health and wellbeing and religious and moral education. In partnership with the included, engaged and involved steering group and other key stakeholders, the Government is drafting new guidance on exclusion that will consider how we provide more support to children and young people who are at risk of exclusion, particularly those who have been excluded several times.

I agree that we need regular information and evidence on physical and verbal attacks on school staff, and on the reporting of those incidents. I welcome the fact that the behaviour in Scottish schools research for 2009 is well under way. We commissioned the survey in partnership with the Scottish advisory group on behaviour in schools, which I co-chair with the education spokesperson of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. We are committed to discussing the findings with the advisory group to inform future policy on behaviour in schools.

The survey is different from previous surveys and will give an up-to-date and accurate picture of behaviour in schools. A study is conducted every three years but, when the present one has reported, we will be able to better determine whether it provides sufficient information to monitor violence in schools and whether more frequent reporting or publication would add to our understanding of behaviour in schools. I recommend that members read the questions that are asked in the survey, which are different from those in previous surveys and which will elicit far more valuable information.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am grateful to Mr Brown for the information that he has provided on the collection of information. However, when in opposition, his colleague Fiona Hyslop was clear on the issue. There was no doubt about her stance. She said:

"The production of statistics every three years is not good enough."—[Official Report, 17 March 2005; c 15444.]

Why has the SNP changed its mind on that issue?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

The point that I have just made is that the present survey is substantially different from previous ones and will give us a lot more information. As I say, I recommend that members read the questions that are being asked. For example, there are questions about the nature of assaults, such as whether they are racially based and, if violence is involved, what type. The quality of the information that is gathered will allow us to decide on the need to publish on a three-year basis or otherwise. That is the sensible way in which to proceed. However, we are of course open to all views and constructive suggestions and we will listen carefully to the debate today.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

I must make progress.

Headteachers and teachers have significant and sufficient powers to deal with indiscipline in schools, including powers to develop and implement school behaviour policies and to exclude pupils, after consulting as appropriate on removals from the register, as the local authority has a duty to continue to provide education. We acknowledge the previous Administration's move to devolve control and decision making on exclusion by leaving headteachers to decide how to deal with each incident on a case-by-case basis.

Given those measures, and the generally excellent behaviour of our young people—which should be re-emphasised—I am happy to move that the Parliament

"welcomes the 11% reduction in exclusions from Scottish schools from 2006-07 to 2007-08",

which I have mentioned. We should also acknowledge

"that appropriate support should be provided to the small number of children and young people who persistently misbehave".

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Is the minister concerned about comments from the EIS and the SSTA, which have referred to the figures as unreliable and dumbed down?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

That is exactly why we are collecting information on a broader and much more scientific basis, which will be the basis for future decisions. I could read out several quotations from the EIS that do not have the same emphasis that the motion has on the general nature of the problem in schools. The EIS says that such incidents are rare and that teachers generally manage them very well.

As I have said, we should acknowledge that headteachers have considerable power over school discipline through their responsibility for school discipline policies and their devolved responsibility for excluding pupils. We take on board Liz Smith's point that we should always rely on the headteacher in such matters. A headteacher in Glasgow, who will remain nameless, has said:

"School is the place where the positive messages are delivered."

That is an important point. When pupils are taken out of school, they are taken out of the headteacher's control at the same time.

We should agree that the future policy on behaviour in schools should be informed by the survey that is being conducted, which will provide in-depth information. Before members consider pursuing further the aims that are set out in the motion, I suggest that they should read the detailed questions that are asked in the survey, if they have not already done so.

We should welcome the comments in Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education report "Improving Scottish education—A report by HMIE on inspection and review 2005-2008", which in relation to secondary schools states:

"In almost all schools, climate and relationships are constructive and encouraging. While many schools have small numbers of young people with particularly challenging behaviour, any issues arising are usually handled effectively."

Liz Smith said that the vast majority of young pupils and students behave very well, but her motion does not say that, and that is the basis for the amendment in my name. For that reason, I ask members to support the SNP amendment.

I move amendment S3M-4067.3, to leave out from "as called" to end and insert:

"welcomes the 11% reduction in exclusions from Scottish schools from 2006-07 to 2007-08; acknowledges that appropriate support should be provided to the small number of children and young people who persistently misbehave; further acknowledges that head teachers already have considerable power over school discipline through their responsibility for school discipline policies and their devolved responsibility for excluding pupils; agrees that the future policy on behaviour in schools should be informed by the survey currently being conducted by the University of Edinburgh on behalf of the Scottish Government, which will provide in-depth information on this area, and further welcomes the comments in the HM Inspectorate of Education report, Improving Scottish Education 2005-2008, in relation to secondary schools, which states "In almost all schools, climate and relationships are constructive and encouraging. While many schools have small numbers of young people with particularly challenging behaviour, any issues arising are usually handled effectively. Most schools have clear and concerted strategies for promoting positive behaviour"."

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

What do parents want and expect when their child goes to school? Probably top of most families' lists would be for their child to learn to read and write, but the next big anxiety is that their child will have friends and get on with their classmates. No parent wishes to hear that their child is being bullied or to feel that they are not safe in school or are not behaving in class. However, in too many schools in too many parts of Scotland, that is still the major cause of concern for parents.

Labour members are grateful to the Tories for lodging a motion on such an important subject, although we have proposed an amendment that we hope reflects more fairly some of the good work that has been done in recent years and which flags up a clearer direction of travel. We can and should expect the highest standards from our children, but discipline is not the sole preserve of the classroom teacher or headteacher. Discipline begins in the home and we need to work with all who are involved—pupils, teachers, the wider community and, most important, parents—if we are to make progress. I am afraid that it is not enough for the Government to say that it supports positive behaviour, a partnership approach or early intervention—sufficient funds must be in place, too, but unfortunately that is no longer the case.

Although our amendment would delete the part of the Conservative motion on the publication of national discipline statistics, I appreciated the gentle dig from the Tories about the SNP's hypocrisy on that issue. I, too, remember Fiona Hyslop berating her predecessor Peter Peacock when he insisted on moving to three-yearly surveys. I remember her using what I thought was the unlikely and Schwarzenegger-like phrase, "You can run, but you can't hide." Who is hiding now, Ms Hyslop?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

One benefit of being in power is that it allows us to identify a great deal of variation between local authorities. The lack of robustness in the annual statistics was not helpful, as I think Liz Smith suggested. Does Ken Macintosh agree that it is important that we get accurate and consistent information, which is exactly what the current survey is doing?

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

It is good to hear Peter Peacock's words come back from Fiona Hyslop's mouth. At least the cabinet secretary has recognised the error of her ways in moving from Opposition to Government.

I worry that the Tories' answer to poor discipline lies in compiling league tables of indiscipline and—if I am to believe suggestions that I read in the newspapers this week—in private boarding school for the recalcitrant few. There is a whiff of the 1950s about some of the Tory policies. I wonder whether we will hear any of the Tory members say, "Bring back the cane."

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member give way?

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

Ah, yes—or the tawse.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

On the subject of ancient history and rewriting the past, I was interested to read in Mr Macintosh's amendment a reference to

"the significant steps made by the previous administration"

to do several things, including

"the removal of restrictions on head teachers to exclude pupils if necessary".

Will Mr Macintosh remind us who introduced those restrictions in the first place?

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

To go slightly further back, I remind Murdo Fraser that the Parliament and the Labour Government took the important step of promoting inclusion in Scottish education. That has made a big difference, as it has ensured that children from all backgrounds are included. However, we also recognise that inclusion at all costs is not a supportable policy. I was pleased when Mr Peacock recognised that and changed the policy.

I am not sure whether we will agree on the amendments and motion, but we can agree on the nature of the indiscipline problem in our schools. Before I go any further, it is worth mentioning, as Liz Smith did, that most pupils in most schools are well behaved. I suspect that we also agree that the biggest problem is caused by low-level indiscipline, such as cheek and noisy behaviour, which is the most wearing on teachers and distracting for pupils.

There is good practice, too. I welcomed the list of measures from Mr Brown, most of which were Labour initiated—staged intervention, campus cops, restorative practices, buddying or mentoring schemes, to mention but a few—but I worry that the culture is such in some schools that bad behaviour is still played down; it is not ignored, but it is certainly not given the priority by school management and education authorities that it is by teachers, parents and, most of all, pupils.

We know from the work of the three-yearly survey that headteachers have a more positive view of school behaviour than their teaching staff and that parents and pupils have both the greatest levels of anxiety and the strongest desire for tougher sanctions. If schools are not open, transparent and, most of all, supportive, particularly when it comes to dealing with bullying, how can we expect in turn the support of parents in tackling such problems and behavioural issues?

May I just check, Presiding Officer—do I have five or six minutes?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

You were supposed to have four minutes, but I can give you another minute.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

I had noticed the anxious stares and was trying to work out what I had done wrong. Well, to sum up—[ Laughter. ]

We have fallen behind England, where a policy has been introduced that allows teachers to discipline pupils. There are more positive aspects, too. For example, work that is done by organisations such as Afasic Scotland, which has a display in the chamber lobby this week, points up the importance of early intervention. However, if policies such as that, the early years strategy and continuing professional development for teachers are not funded, and if we cannot do all the work that we need to do to promote teachers and to increase, instead of cut, their numbers and those of classroom assistants, we cannot put such policies into practice. It is not enough to mean well; we have to deliver those policies.

I move amendment S3M-4067.1, to leave out from "notes" to end and insert:

"supports all appropriate measures to uphold the rights of teachers to teach and pupils to learn in a disciplined environment; notes the significant steps made by the previous administration to achieve this including the setting up of the Discipline Task Group, the removal of restrictions on head teachers to exclude pupils if necessary, the use of special units, support for teacher training, reduced class sizes and more classroom assistants, and calls on the Scottish Government to address the recent decline in teacher numbers and support staff, including behaviour support staff, and to work in partnership with key stakeholders to put in place a framework for a discipline code in every school incorporating rights and responsibilities for head teachers, teachers, parents and pupils."

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

I welcome today's debate. I stand here as someone who had more than a passing acquaintance, in my youth, with Lochgelly's most famous product. I recall that every time I was belted in school, it was for talking too much—colleagues can make up their own minds on whether corporal punishment is successful and effective.

Discipline is a crucial issue in our schools. Although most pupils behave well, disruption takes teachers away from teaching. The consequences are substantial for those who are excluded and, most important, for their classmates.

We all know that teachers have to deal with a wider range of social and behavioural problems than ever before. Problems of indiscipline at school cannot be separated from wider social change and issues that arise from the challenges of inclusion. Those who are most likely to be excluded are children with social, emotional and behavioural difficulties, those with additional support needs, looked-after children and pupils who are entitled to free school meals. Those are the very pupils who benefit most from education, which is why it is right that they continue to have a right to access education. However, it is also important that we look at the curriculum and the alternatives, whether they are college-based vocational courses, or school or off-site solutions for those who fail to engage and those who cause trouble.

We should be in no doubt about the impact on those who are excluded repeatedly. Having previously been a justice spokesperson, I met young people who have been failed by their families and the system. They are the young men, in particular, who end up in Her Majesty's Young Offenders Institution Polmont. They are the prisoners in our prisons who have a reading age of eight or nine, if they are lucky. Very often, they are young men and women whom a nursery teacher would have been able to point to at the age of two or three and say, "That's the child who may be at greater risk of ending up in those circumstances." That is why early intervention and intensive literacy and numeracy work are so important—so that people understand what is being taught and continue to engage in class rather than drifting away into a very different future.

Although the vast majority of teachers still say that persistent, low-level disruption takes up more of their time, the escalation of violence has led to councils such as the City of Edinburgh Council putting police link officers into local high schools. The latest figures show that 4,831 pupils were excluded for physical assault against another pupil, a further 1,000 for assault against a member of staff and a growing number of others for physical assault with a weapon of one sort or another. However, the vast majority continue to be excluded for persistent disobedience and verbal abuse.

In government, we showed our genuine commitment to addressing indiscipline and disruptive behaviour. We achieved marked improvement through our better behaviour, better learning strategy and the establishment of the discipline task force, which is still in place. We developed a range of initiatives, including staged intervention, behaviour co-ordinators, restorative practices, nurture groups and motivated schools and we funded them all.

It is heartening that the vast majority of teachers surveyed, in the Wilkin study for example, acknowledge that measures are available to promote positive discipline, and that the HMIE 2005 report, which has been mentioned already this morning, made it clear that overall progress was good.

The Scottish Government leaflet that was published last year, "Improving relationships and promoting positive behaviour in Scotland's schools", amounts to a continuation of the work begun by the former Scottish Executive. It is rather galling then, that when in opposition, Fiona Hyslop and others spent their time attacking reviews and initiatives yet all we heard about today from Keith Brown were reviews and initiatives.

Fiona Hyslop was clear about what needed to be done in a press release in 2005:

"Increasing the number of teachers and cutting class sizes is the key to improving discipline in Scottish schools. Today's proposal to increase the number of support staff is all about better management of a bad situation. What we need to do instead is attack school indiscipline at source, and that means reducing class sizes in all of Scotland's schools."

She also said:

"It's teachers we need, and an increase in the number of teachers to give us smaller class sizes. That's what the Minister should be looking at."

We agree, as does the EIS and the GTC.

To quote Barbra Streisand, it was "all so simple then". Is it not a pity that the SNP has so patently failed to deliver either of those crucial policies in Government? Our manifesto had clearly costed promises for 1,000 more teachers to reduce class sizes and improve discipline and a further 250 new and refurbished schools to inspire our children and our staff.

Each and every one of us knows how important headteachers are in shaping the ethos of a school. Research by Moray House school of education has highlighted the importance of the approach of senior management. It found that the attitude of senior staff and heads is the most important factor in explaining differences in exclusion rates between similar schools. In government, we devolved more powers to headteachers, but we believe that that needs to go further to free them from enforced bureaucracy. Headteachers need to be able to address adequately the discipline issues that they face in their schools. Where possible, we need to see timeous solutions in schools. It makes sense for headteachers to make decisions about the children and circumstances that they know best.

I welcome the minister's comments about the complexity of statistics; other speakers have referred to comments by the EIS and others in that regard. Exclusion figures that were released earlier this year showed a decrease, which is to be welcomed, but it is clear that the figures do not show the full picture. Freedom of information requests submitted by the Liberal Democrats have uncovered large numbers of pupils who are removed from classes but are not classed as being excluded from the school roll. My colleague Hugh O'Donnell will cover that point in more detail.

It is vital that children who have been excluded from school are engaged in positive activities that are constructive and which help them back into the education system. We believe that there should be zero tolerance of violence in our schools, because everybody deserves to learn in peace and safety.

In government and opposition, we have supported alternatives to exclusion and we believe that it must be the last resort. We want to see a concerted effort to support local authority, independent sector and voluntary sector schemes to intervene before schools have to resort to excluding pupils. Where pupils are being disruptive, it is vital that action is taken to address the negative impacts on the education of others.

I move amendment S3M-4067.2, to insert at end:

"and further believes that the Scottish Government should engage closely with pupils, staff, the voluntary sector and other partner organisations to improve formal and non-formal learning opportunities for young people to ensure that they are not excluded from education."

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Today's debate is long overdue, given the importance of tackling indiscipline in Scotland's schools. To put the matter in context, it is important to stress at the outset that every child deserves the right to learn in an environment that is conducive to their realising their full potential.

There is no disagreement about indiscipline being

"one of the biggest barriers to teaching and learning in Scotland."—[Official Report, 20 January 2005; c 13733.]

That sentiment was expressed by the now Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning during First Minister's question time in 2005. Despite that, in Scotland today not only are incidents of indiscipline on the increase, they are becoming more serious and violent in nature. Ronnie Smith of the EIS summed up well the full extent of the problem when he said:

"Ask any teacher across Scotland about the most challenging part of their job, and you will receive near unanimity on the answer—the daily grind of maintaining effective discipline in the classroom."

Let us be absolutely clear: it is unacceptable that persistently disruptive pupils are allowed to remain in mainstream classes causing havoc for the well-behaved majority, hindering their ability to learn and making teachers' lives a misery. What is the solution? There is no quick fix, but there is a need to send out a distinct and unambiguous message that persistent and serious incidents of disruptive behaviour, which worryingly increasingly involve a weapon, will simply not be tolerated in Scotland's schools.

That message must be backed by decisive action. In the first instance, it is crucial that the data identifying the number and type of exclusions are published. How on earth can the Scottish Government hope to begin to tackle the issue if it has no idea of the precise nature and extent of the problem?

At a time when the lack of parenting and parental co-operation with schools is sadly all too evident, it has to be acknowledged that part of the problem—and therefore the solution—lies with a minority of parents themselves. Many of those parents had a bad experience of school as pupils and now find themselves with a little bit of power that they are determined to use to undermine teachers and the discipline that schools impose. More work has to be done to address that problem and promote positive parenting.

It is worth pointing out that with the increase in single parent families the presence of community police in secondary school campuses is having a number of positive effects that I can see in the area that I represent in Lanarkshire. Community police provide a male role model, which more often than not is absent from the families of many disruptive pupils; they help to establish a relationship with pupils to deter bad behaviour in and out of school; and they detect community crime early, as evidenced in Coatbridge, where an outbreak of graffiti was quickly recognised by the campus police officer as being the handiwork of a pupil, as identified from artwork and the doodlings on his jotters.

In the time available it is not possible for me to go into more detail about the necessity to remove persistently disruptive pupils from the school environment. As my colleague Liz Smith pointed out, the setting up of second chance units is certainly worth exploring.

I hope that the cabinet secretary will take that on board. If we achieve nothing else from this debate, I sincerely hope that the Scottish Government will ditch its preoccupation with reducing class sizes, which in itself will do absolutely nothing to tackle the disruptive behaviour in Scottish schools that is depriving far too many children of the opportunity to reach their full potential. The situation cannot be allowed to continue. I have much pleasure in supporting the motion.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

Like all speakers today, I firmly believe that we must ensure that our teachers are able to teach in a safe and secure environment. It can never be acceptable for a teacher to be faced with threats of violence or actual violence. I support the many steps taken by Peter Peacock during his time as education minister to tackle indiscipline in schools and to ensure that headteachers had the lead role in combating violence against their staff.

It is important to recognise that the majority of Scotland's pupils are well behaved. While I agree that there is a need for firm and clear behaviour policies in our schools, as well as staff training and support, we also need to concentrate on how to prevent violence in our schools. That is why I will focus the remainder of my speech on a more positive approach to pupil behaviour.

It is widely recognised that early intervention in antisocial and even criminal behaviour is the most effective way to challenge that behaviour. I will highlight an early intervention scheme that seeks not only to challenge and prevent disruptive behaviour but to improve the educational prospects of some of the most disadvantaged children.

Since 2005, North Lanarkshire Council's nurture group pilot has been running in a small number of primary schools. Two of those schools, Chapelside primary and St Serf's primary, are in my constituency in the most deprived communities in Airdrie. A number of children in the schools face complex problems, as indicated by higher than average levels of social work involvement and a relatively high percentage of looked-after children.

The aim of the nurture groups is to focus on early intervention through working with small groups of young children, usually from primary 1 to primary 3, with social, emotional and behavioural difficulties. Such children find certain elements of school life very difficult and exhibit a range of behaviours, including poor concentration, hyperactivity, underdeveloped fine motor skills, and speech and language problems.

The initiative is based on the theory and practice of Marjorie Boxall, a principal educational psychologist in Hackney. Recently, I had the privilege of visiting St Serf's primary's nurture service and was impressed not only by the dedication and commitment of the staff but by the relaxed atmosphere within the designated room. Such rooms usually have a living area, a kitchen area and a table for breakfast and snacks, which enable staff to work with young people on some of the most basic social skills and to provide a safe and relaxed environment in which to learn. Partnership work is also evident, with external professionals such as social workers, educational psychologists and speech and language therapists playing an important role in supporting children during their time in the group.

Headteachers have commented positively on the impact of the nurture groups, not just on individual children but on the whole school ethos. Improvements in the behaviour, attitude and social skills of some children have been evident not only in the units themselves but in the classroom, playground and canteen.

While we all want to ensure that firm action is taken against those who threaten or perpetrate violence in our schools, I am sure that we all agree that it is far better to take steps to prevent violence in the first place. Nurture groups, as demonstrated in North Lanarkshire, can play a part in effecting such a change in behaviour.

The minister made a very brief reference to nurture groups in his speech. When the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning winds up, will she state what she will do to ensure that nurture services are rolled out across Scotland? There is more to being a Government minister than saying that one agrees with something and that one welcomes good practice; one must resource and take seriously the responsibility of one's office. What will the Government do to support nurture services across Scotland?

Ian McKee (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

What disturbs me most about the Conservative motion is that while it is rightly concerned with the increasing number of weapon attacks by pupils—even though it reads as if the concern is with exclusions on that account rather than with the actual assaults—it does little except wring its hands over the issue, no matter what we were told by Elizabeth Smith in her introductory speech. The only positive statements are that punishments should be appropriate, whatever that means in this context, and that headteachers should be given more power to deal with indiscipline. What power? Do the Conservatives look back with nostalgia to the good old days when teachers ruled their classes with a rod of iron?

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member take an intervention?

Ian McKee (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

If the Presiding Officer gives me extra time.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I will not give you extra time: you have up to four and a half minutes.

Ian McKee (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Let me make some suggestions on the Conservatives' behalf. Look at the example from Charles Dickens's novel "Nicholas Nickleby", in which the tyrannical headmaster of Dotheboys Hall school, Mr Wackford Squeers, used the cane liberally and with some effect. The character of Squeers was based on the real life William Shaw, headteacher at Bowes academy in County Durham. Shaw made his pupils wash in a horse trough and sleep five to a bed, and he beat them if they did not kill all the fleas in their beds every morning. He allegedly beat one pupil so hard that he occasioned his death. This harsh treatment seems to have worked as there is no record of any Bowes academy pupil attacking another person with a weapon while that regime was in place.

Those days are thankfully past—perhaps beating culprits to death is going a little far even for those who approve of hanging and flogging.

However, members of the Conservative group who went to schools such as Eton or Fettes may remember, as I do, and wish to reintroduce, although I do not, the beatings with a cane that left bruises that would be of great interest to today's social workers. The rumour was that a silk handkerchief inserted under your pants mitigated the effect of such a beating, but I assure members that that was not true.

Other members of the Conservative party might look back with fond memories to that favourite tool of Scottish teachers, the famous Lochgelly tawse, which Margaret Smith loquaciously proved to be ineffective. I am sure that those members already know this, but I inform other members that they can still benefit an industry in Helen Eadie's constituency by purchasing a tawse via the internet. I will happily give details to other members in private after the debate, if they wish.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

We would be grateful if the member returned to the subject of the debate.

Ian McKee (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Indeed. The cost of tawses varies: it is £100 for a lightweight model, which is suitable for use in primary school to achieve the discipline that the Conservatives so wish for; or, for secondary school, one can buy the magnificent extra-heavyweight three-tailer for £250. They are only available for sale to teachers who wish to keep discipline in their schools according to the Conservative motion, as the manufacturer frowns on what it regards as the misuse of tawses in the adult entertainment market.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Can Dr McKee tell us whether he is recollecting recent suffering induced by all those items of torture or whether he is casting his mind further back? It all seems very familiar to him.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Once Dr McKee has done that, I would be grateful if he returned to the subject of the debate.

Ian McKee (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

After noting the Conservative interest, I looked up tawses on the net last night, and I have the details here if members wish to benefit from them.

Attacks by pupils using weapons never seemed to occur in the days when a Lochgelly tawse was to hand. Is that the disciplinary power that the Conservatives wish to bestow on headteachers in their motion? Let us review the facts: there is a small but totally unacceptable incidence of violence by pupils against their teachers and fellow pupils. The origins of such behaviour lie in society—and the lack of community that was so encouraged by Margaret Thatcher—outside the school, which is where the problem must be tackled.

There is a place for punishment and exclusion, and the rights of teachers to teach and pupils to learn must be respected, but offending pupils also have needs. A high proportion come from fractured backgrounds, and they and we will suffer further if they are simply demonised. No child should be a lost cause; every case is different, and most schools have clear and concerted strategies for promoting positive behaviour. The SNP and Labour amendments positively reinforce those strategies, and I will support them both at decision time.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I am not sure that I can follow Ian McKee's speech. I think that I would be ill advised even to attempt to do so.

Dr McKee's last points were significant, although it is unfortunate that he dwelt on a false debate at the beginning of his speech, which I do not think anybody really wants to talk about. The challenge for him is to square his view with what the SNP is doing in our local communities, and to understand the wider social issues.

I should declare an interest: I am a parent of children in late primary and early secondary school; I was a behaviour support teacher who, in an education support base, and as part of a broader team, latterly worked with youngsters to hold them in mainstream education; and I am someone who seeks to represent the views of constituents, such as youngsters who are bullied or intimidated in schools or who are struggling because they have not got the appropriate support in school.

I was concerned by what appeared to be the minister's tone of complacency. Indiscipline is not just a problem now—it has always been with us—but the test for the Government is whether what it does makes the problem better or worse. I contend that, at the moment, the Government is making it worse.

I find it frustrating that when we talk about school discipline, we want to separate it off and put it in a policy box away from the broader issues. We talk about knife crime in schools, but it is disturbing that the Government is rolling back more broadly its policy on knives and the retail of knives. We cannot separate those issues.

We ought not to talk about indiscipline in schools as if it were one issue. There are issues to do with the appropriateness of the curriculum for some youngsters, and there is an issue around parents who mollycoddle their children so that the children go to school never having been told, "No." That difficulty, which is not specific to poor communities, must be challenged.

Some children who come to school are living in the most chaotic circumstances. We do not know—and neither does the Government, as it has not sought to find out—how many children are living with parents who have an addiction. Do we imagine that those children, who have to learn to be resilient within their homes, somehow come to school able to stay calm and cope with what is demanded of them? I ask the Conservatives to reflect on the fact that for those youngsters, school is sometimes the only security that they have, and the most remarkable journey that they make every day is to get themselves to school. We should be hesitant about saying that we simply expect those children to learn somewhere else. We should perhaps have to take them out of the classroom, but not necessarily out of the building.

Do we imagine that for certain young people, being on the fringes of a young male gang culture in our communities does not impact on what they do when they go to school? I am troubled by the Government's approach to antisocial behaviour. It somehow thinks that getting rid of antisocial behaviour orders for young people is a positive thing, when in fact those orders are about engagement and challenging young people about their behaviour at an early stage.

Some of what is happening in schools reflects the broader concerns. We must ensure that our schools are confident enough to deal with poor behaviour, but we must also consider the causes of such misbehaviour and address it accordingly.

In the past, when young people from poor communities misbehaved, people shrugged their shoulders, tolerated it and said, "So be it." That is unacceptable: those young people deserve to have us challenge their behaviour, and we must recognise the importance of early intervention, early parental involvement and engagement beyond the school. We need to challenge the children's hearings system, the social work system and others to work with schools in addressing those difficult problems.

The Government must confront some of the consequences of its own actions. The council tax freeze, which is a squeeze on funding, means the end of behaviour support, so that children who should be included in mainstream education are denied the support that allows that to happen. There is a focus on bringing down class size numbers in primaries 1, 2 and 3, while our young boys are falling out of the education system in the first and second years of secondary school—and the numbers are going up as a consequence of that focus.

There is a freeze on recruitment and an increase in the use of supply teachers in our secondary schools, which makes life uncertain for young people, stops the continuity of their learning and has an impact on behaviour. The direction project in my constituency, which in the past was supported by youth crime prevention moneys, is now ending its support for five to 12-year-olds because of funding decisions by the Scottish Government, which will have consequences for the ability of those youngsters to sustain a mainstream education and will impact on the quality of learning for young people who desperately need an education.

There has been a reduction in the number of classroom assistants and in flexibility—

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The member should finish now.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I will finish on a final point—there has been a reduction in breakfast clubs, which have nothing to do with eating and everything to do with supporting children in the transition from their homes to school. School and education involve tackling indiscipline, but the broader social programme of funding and resources that the Government provides for communities is critical to addressing the problem inside and outside our schools.

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I had hoped that my self-denying ordinance not to speak on education-related matters would last a bit longer, but when I saw the motion it was a case of haud me back.

The debate has nothing to do with our pupils, teachers or schools, and everything to do with the Tories pandering to the readership of the Daily Mail and promoting the private education sector at the expense of the public one. The record on school exclusions in the past two years, which has built on the foundations that were laid by the previous Executive, has been one of very good progress and is likely to continue to improve. The main reason for that is the enthusiasm with which many schools have embraced the positive behaviour initiative.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member take an intervention?

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I could speak about the issue for 40 minutes, never mind four, so I will not take any interventions.

We can clearly see that there has been a dramatic effect in school communities that have embraced positive behaviour methods. That is happening throughout Scotland, as each education authority has an officer who is dedicated to helping schools to introduce those methods. I cannot praise enough the positive behaviour team in the Scottish Government, who travel around the country offering advice and support. It is not just public authorities that are working on the issue; I congratulate UNICEF UK and Bruce Wilkinson on introducing the rights respecting school initiative, through which children learn that they have rights but also responsibilities to ensure that those rights are respected. The majority of primary schools in Fife are adopting that initiative and are seeing real improvements in behaviour. Schools that have embraced positive behaviour, whether through the rights respecting school model, restorative practice, being cool in school or other methods, are experiencing a calmer, more positive atmosphere, which is more conducive to learning, and, crucially, teachers are reporting that they are much less stressed.

There is no denying that there is some way to go. It is much easier to introduce positive behaviour from day one of a child's school life, but the fact that it is being introduced in secondary schools shows that it can be introduced at a later stage.

If Inshes primary school in Inverness, which welcomes children with learning difficulties, can manage without any exclusions, other schools can do so, too.

We all acknowledge that there will be a very small number of disturbed children who might not respond. Prison governors tell us that as long as there are drugs in our communities, there are likely to be drugs in our prisons. In the same way, as Johann Lamont articulated thoughtfully, as long as children's family members are carrying knives on our streets, there remains the possibility that knives will enter our schools. In such cases, the child concerned must be assessed and treated individually by a number of agencies to determine the best way to deal with their offending behaviour.

Nothing should be ruled out. Headteachers can and should use exclusion, but they must consult local authorities, so that children are not just left to roam the streets and create further mayhem during their exclusion. Removal to a different setting might work in some cases, but, often, it leads to even more resentment and frustration when the individual is removed from their family and friends, and it does not lead to long-term behavioural change. Borstal regimes in modern buildings that are provided by private companies that charge the local authority huge sums are not necessarily the panacea for all ills in this area.

We must always focus on the child's needs and welfare. I urge the Government not to be blown off course by the motion.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

For our children to learn, teachers have to be able to get on with their job and they need support through resources and the school culture and from the community.

Debates around school discipline often seem to focus on problem children disrupting the studies of the well-behaved majority. There often seems to be an implicit assumption that if those problem children were separated from the rest, all would be well, and that the inclusion agenda has caused the problem. However, that analysis is too simplistic. School indiscipline is not always about problem children. Often, it is about problems at home, problems with literacy, bullying, undiagnosed health or learning problems and, sometimes, there are problems with individual teachers.

We should not be surprised that while antisocial behaviour by and against young people has become more of a concern in our communities, it has also become more of a concern in our schools. The statistics are concerning. Although we have seen an 11 per cent decrease in the number of exclusions, we have to be assured that that has happened for the right reasons. As has already been said, exclusions for carrying a knife increased by 28 per cent last year. However, thankfully, such extreme behaviour is still perpetrated by only a small minority. General, day-to-day, low-level disruption is much more common and much more corrosive.

As has been said, the previous Executive did a great deal to address the issue, including setting up the national discipline task group and other actions that are outlined in the Labour amendment. However, more is required from the Government.

Overall, we need parents to take greater responsibility. The behaviour displayed in school is a reflection of behaviour in wider society, so we have to work with families in communities throughout Scotland to reduce antisocial behaviour in schools. We have to encourage families to value education and involve them more in education in school, and in education in general, so that it is not alien or irrelevant to them.

Last year, the Minister for Children and Early Years and I visited Cupar nursery, which provides a good example of integrating children's education with parents' education in partnership with Elmwood College.

Schools have to have the resources to identify problem behaviour and its cause and to intervene to address it. Tackling illiteracy and bullying and identifying learning difficulties or health problems at the earliest opportunity is crucial. Cuts in school budgets and the numbers of teachers, classroom assistants, support staff and truancy officers will do nothing but harm in the area of school indiscipline and to Scotland's education system in general.

Schools need the correct leadership to get the culture right for children and staff—members have commented on the importance of headteachers in that—so that pupils know where the boundaries are and teachers are supported fully when those boundaries are crossed.

At the extreme end, when we are talking about exclusions leading to expulsions, we have to ensure that the alternatives to school are working properly. We have to ensure that children know the consequences of their actions while minimising the long-term damage to their education and life chances. A temporary exclusion is a punishment and, we hope, a wake-up call, but it should also be an opportunity to intervene with the child and the family. Having a child at home for a few days, excluded from school, sometimes serves the needs of the school but not the needs of the child.

To improve school discipline we must address problems as soon as they arise, and we must consider not just the poor behaviour but the reasons for it. We have to get school right for the majority of well-behaved children, but that cannot be done at the expense of cutting loose the minority for whom school is not working. We cannot write off any child at any age.

I hope that the SNP raises its game, as someone said recently. So far under the SNP Government, education has not been given the priority that it deserves. I hope that the Government makes changes fast, so that our schools, teachers and pupils get the support from the Government that they deserve.

Hugh O'Donnell (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

I do not think that anyone doubts the importance of good discipline in our schools or questions the unacceptability of aggressive or violent behaviour or the extent to which our pupils' academic studies can be disrupted by bad behaviour. As Ken Macintosh said, disruption in schools is often of a low level, but the frustration that classroom teachers feel when they face it can manifest in unacceptable ways, such as in the case to which Liz Smith referred in her opening speech.

Although the Tory motion seems reasonable, it reveals a lack of understanding of the complicated nature of school indiscipline. Johann Lamont's speech was particularly thoughtful, and she explored many of the issues.

I was disappointed to hear Maureen Watt refer to borstal, which is a term from the past. I am quite sure that the Church of Scotland, which runs the Ballikinrain residential unit, would be a little disappointed to hear its facilities described in those terms.

I was equally shocked by Dr Ian McKee's wide-ranging knowledge of corporal punishment. I did not expect that from the SNP.

Notwithstanding the merits of the Tory motion, it is narrowly focused. "Remove, expel and punish children" seems to be the mantra. If we do that, we will simply consign another batch of our most disadvantaged young people to disaffection and economic and social isolation.

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Does the member acknowledge that implicit in our motion is the idea that children would be removed in order to address their offending behaviour, and then returned to mainstream education?

Hugh O'Donnell (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

Yes. Various Conservative speakers have made that point, but I would be happier if that were in the motion.

As with too many issues, there is the danger that behaviour will become generational. We will not fix the behaviour of many youngsters unless we fix the chaos in their lives. Simple exclusion on its own will not fix that.

For the most part, headteachers have the authority and responsibility to address indiscipline in their schools. Our political obsession with trying to make capital out of the numbers game in relation to exclusions and suspensions undermines that, and sometimes has a negative effect on how local authorities deal with discipline.

No matter how we calculate them, the figures that we and the Government get are nonsense, because local authorities use a variety of strategies, which means that the figures are not accurate. Some young people who have been excluded from mainstream school remain on school rolls despite being taught in other facilities, simply because of the political imperative for local authorities not to be in the headlines as having the worst-disciplined schools in the country. We need to find a way of remedying that. We must be honest and have some integrity about the figures that we ask local authorities to produce.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

One of my concerns when I came into post was the variability of the figures. They can be relied on to an extent, but does Hugh O'Donnell realise that there is a contradiction between saying that the surveys are inaccurate and the Conservatives' call for us to produce them more regularly even if, as he says, they are not robust?

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Mr O'Donnell, you should be finishing.

Hugh O'Donnell (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

I apologise to the cabinet secretary for not having a chance to respond to her point.

Early intervention is the key. Karen Whitefield referred to nurture groups, of which I am a firm supporter, but there are alternatives. Community alternatives in my region and the inclusion zone in St Maurice's high school are good examples of innovative practice that need to rolled out. We do not need a narrowly focused reaction from any political party.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Margaret Smith referred to being belted for talking too much; I am afraid that I stand guilty as charged.

Johann Lamont referred to her experience of working with pupils with emotional and behavioural difficulties. I, too, spent many years running a behaviour support base in a secondary school, so I welcome the opportunity to discuss and debate school discipline. It is a serious issue and it is at the front of every teacher's mind in a variety of ways.

Many members have referred to the vast majority of pupils in schools throughout Scotland who behave well and work hard every day of the week. We acknowledge that. As members have said, it is persistent low-level indiscipline that makes teaching difficult at times—in fact, often. However, there is also a small minority of pupils who make teaching impossible. That can happen, so it is vital that we ensure that every school has a discipline code that sets out clearly the responsibilities of pupils, teachers and parents and that gives clear guidance on the steps that should be taken to provide a safe and secure environment, as well as clarity on the exclusion process. Headteachers must be able to exclude the worst-behaved pupils, so I welcome the fact that the previous Government introduced that power.

We must also ensure that schools have a range of resources and strategies to tackle ill discipline—from minor to serious incidents—and to tackle the at times violent incidents that we have also discussed and which it is important to discuss. That requires a whole-school approach to promoting positive behaviour, but there must also be a continuum of physical provision inside and outside schools. Behaviour support bases are necessary not only in schools but off site for pupils whose presence in school is unacceptable or too disruptive. However, given the current rate of investment in schools and the Government's failure to implement its Scottish Futures Trust, that is a rather vain hope.

Many pupils require support in school. As a former teacher, I recognise the challenges of maintaining discipline, which is hugely important. That is a massive issue for pre-service training, and we must also ensure that in-service courses are run to support teachers in those challenges. However, there is evidence of cutbacks in behaviour support staff, and we know that teacher numbers have fallen by 1,000 in only one year. That is simply not good enough.

Karen Whitefield referred to important work on development of nurture units in her constituency and in Glasgow. We have a lot to learn from those.

I have concerns that the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 is not working as well as it should for pupils with social, emotional and behavioural difficulties. Few such children have been assessed for co-ordinated support plans, although they are among the pupils who require the most intensive interagency work. That is a serious problem.

The Labour Party welcomes the opportunity to debate discipline in schools. Every Labour member supports Scottish teachers and knows that discipline is a major issue for them. We need to ensure that we have information that accurately reflects what is happening in schools, which is why we support the survey on behaviour. However, I welcome Keith Brown's reassurance that that survey will be kept under review.

If the Government is serious about tackling indiscipline, it must halt and reverse the fall in the numbers of teachers and behaviour support staff and it must implement the Scottish Futures Trust to ensure that schools have a range of up-to-date physical provision for teachers who deal with difficult and challenging behaviour.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The Government is committed to promoting positive and peaceful learning environments in our schools. The starting point for learning is a positive ethos and a climate of respect and trust, based on values that are shared by all the school community, including parents. All members of staff should contribute through open, positive and supportive relationships in which children and young people feel that they are listened to, and staff should model behaviour that promotes effective learning and wellbeing within the school community.

I am pleased that members from all parties have emphasised the fact that the majority of pupils are well behaved—the pupils who are in the public gallery will recognise that message. However, a minority of pupils are not well behaved. Any violence against school staff or other pupils is absolutely unacceptable, so when children or young people are involved in offending behaviour, we need to work in partnership with other agencies, including criminal justice agencies, where necessary.

The Government is committed to working with local authorities to support schools to introduce the most effective approaches to promoting positive behaviour. We have formalised the discipline stakeholder group, which comprises the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland, the General Teaching Council for Scotland, HMIE and all the teaching unions. It is now a permanent Scottish advisory group on behaviour in schools for national and local government, and co-chaired with COSLA. Through a sub-group of that new advisory group, we will develop and promote guidance and best practice on improving relationships and promoting positive behaviour.

We will continue to be supported by the positive behaviour team, which is funded with £500,000 to work with local authorities and others to promote positive behaviour policies. Maureen Watt identified that many of those policies are making significant progress, including work on restorative practices, solution-oriented approaches, curriculum programmes in social, emotional and behavioural skills—which Johann Lamont touched on—and nurture groups. I say to Karen Whitefield that we have organised and run three national training events on nurture groups and that HMIE is currently evaluating that approach, which will help in the sharing of best practice.

Tackling poor behaviour is not only about punishment. Restorative practices, for example, are about working with peers, staff and other agencies to make children and young people face up to their responsibilities and the consequences of their actions. We will also continue to fund the pupil inclusion network Scotland—which networks voluntary and independent agencies that work with disengaged youngsters—so that policies and good practice can be shared across provision for children and young people wherever they are educated.

I look forward to the findings of our national evaluation of campus-based police officers in schools. It is under way, is due to report in the autumn this year and will inform local decision making.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Does the minister share my concern about campus police officers being withdrawn in my constituency?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The evaluation of the role of campus police officers that will report in the autumn might be helpful in progressing the positive actions that are being taken throughout the country and might inform the situation to which Johann Lamont refers.

I also look forward to seeing what the survey on behaviour in Scottish schools later this year tells us about low-level indiscipline and more serious indiscipline and violence, as well as the wide range of approaches that schools and local authorities employ and the training and support that staff receive.

We are developing guidance on school exclusions—Hugh O'Donnell will be particularly interested in this point—which will be published for consultation this year. It will provide an opportunity to address how we work with children and young people who persistently misbehave in class. Staged interventions of joint assessment and planning for children with behavioural needs are well embedded, but we need to develop and innovate continually to ensure that all children and young people are included in, and engaged with, the new curriculum.

Local authorities can and do devolve powers to headteachers to exclude. In practice, temporary exclusions, which account for 99 per cent of all exclusions, are devolved to headteachers. Where a headteacher wants to remove a pupil from the register, local authorities retain that power in practice because they are responsible for the continuing education of the child or young person.

I congratulate schools and local authorities on their concerted efforts to reduce exclusions significantly—not as a target-driven process, as it was in the first half of the devolution decade—through early intervention and preventive work. Schools are developing strong behaviour policy codes for pupils and staff. I do not underestimate the drip-drip effect of low-level indiscipline or the problem of more serious negative behaviour. I value the input of the Scottish advisory group on behaviour in schools and I look forward to working with it as the research findings come through.

Ken Cunningham, general secretary of School Leaders Scotland, stated in The Herald on Tuesday 27 January 2009 that

"the government, schools and the teaching unions have worked together to come up with a range of strategies to reduce exclusions and that has shifted the focus towards doing the best for all young people—those who are disruptive and those whose education is being disrupted. That has led to the introduction of a range of behavioural strategies dealing with the underlying problems being faced by a disruptive child—and we have also looked at making the curriculum more interesting and more flexible to give pupils a wider range of options, such as going to college. Taken together, these strategies have had an impact on the number of exclusions as these new figures show."

I agree with that sentiment and I support the SNP amendment.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

This has been a useful debate, which Elizabeth Smith ably kicked off. Members will probably agree that the most memorable speech was from Dr Ian McKee. In an entertaining but utterly irrelevant speech, he demonstrated a decidedly unhealthy interest in the details of corporal punishment. I am surely not the only member who is concerned that Dr McKee spends his evenings surfing the web checking the prices of various instruments of punishment.

For the benefit of Dr McKee, I should say that most Conservative members of the Scottish Parliament went, as I did, to comprehensive schools. We have no old Fettesians on the Conservative seats. Some might say that it is a sad reflection on the modern Conservative party that we are down to our last old Etonian.

Maureen Watt displayed the sunny disposition that was the hallmark of her tenure as Minister for Schools and Skills. She seems to think that all in the garden is rosy, citing the 11 per cent fall in exclusions last year as a sign of good progress. However, that is not the full picture. Indeed, as Elizabeth Smith said at the start of the debate, when that statistic was published, it generated a robust response from the teaching unions, including the SSTA. Jim Docherty, acting general secretary of the SSTA, said that the released figures bore no relation to the real situation in Scotland's schools. Other statistics are equally concerning. The number of exclusions for physical assault with a weapon went up from 286 in 2006-07 to 366 in 2007-08, and the number of exclusions due to drinking alcohol increased from 332 to 383 in the same period.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Which of the statistics does Murdo Fraser believe?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Unlike the cabinet secretary, I believe what those at the coalface—the teachers and parents of the pupils—tell us. They are the ones who express real concern.

On statistics, it is a remarkable conversion for the cabinet secretary to take a completely different stance today from her stance in opposition. In January 2005, during First Minister's questions, Fiona Hyslop asked the then First Minister, Jack McConnell why the Executive had moved from producing an annual survey of discipline to producing one every three or four years. Mrs Hyslop, with righteous indignation, raged at the First Minister, asking what he had to hide by not publishing the statistics annually. Well—the transition from Opposition to Government has changed Mrs Hyslop's mind on that issue, as it has on so many others. I do not know whether the civil servants have got to her.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Will the member give way?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I will give way in a second.

The fact is that Mrs Hyslop is not prepared now to publish the statistical information annually.

I was interested to hear what Mrs Hyslop said about the survey that is being done because we—of course—want accurate information. However, why did she not know that three years ago when she was in opposition? Surely an Opposition spokesman worth his or her salt would have known the facts before attacking the other party.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

As my colleague Ken Macintosh said, we welcome Fiona Hyslop's conversion. Is it not the case that, as far as the Conservative party is concerned, there have been somewhat large changes in tack and approach by Mr David Cameron? Is there anything wrong with that?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Mr Cameron does many things excellently, of course.

All we are calling for in this instance is consistency between what parties do in opposition and what they do in government. On that note, I say to Mrs Brankin that the Labour Party has gone in the opposite direction and is doing exactly the same trick. As I pointed out to Mr Macintosh in an earlier intervention, the Labour amendment refers to

"the removal of restrictions on headteachers",

and conveniently forgets to mention that the Labour Party introduced those restrictions, although Mr Macintosh had the good grace to acknowledge that when I intervened.

Let me reiterate a point that Elizabeth Smith made in her opening remarks. The great majority of pupils in Scottish schools behave well and only a small minority cause problems, but they cause disproportionate concern. The reality is that pupils like discipline. They want to have boundaries and to go to school in an environment in which they can get on and learn, and in which the classroom is not disrupted by fellow pupils acting in irresponsible and possibly dangerous ways.

Moreover, our teachers want to be able to get on and teach in classrooms in which they are not threatened by verbal abuse or, which is worse, by physical abuse or, which is worse still, by physical abuse with a weapon. Those problems are happening, but we simply do not do enough to tackle them. We have in our motion one suggestion as to how we should set about dealing with that problem.

We do not believe that it is right that a headteacher's decision to exclude a pupil should be second-guessed by the education authority. Indiscipline is dealt with far more effectively if the final decision is left to the headteacher. It should be the headteacher, in consultation with staff, parents and pupils, who is responsible for drawing up discipline polices and ensuring that they are enforced. If we are to trust headteachers to do that and to take a lead, we must be prepared to trust them to take the final decisions. That means that a headteacher's excluding a pupil should be the end of the matter. We should not see the headteacher undermined by education authority officials seeking to overturn that ruling.

We concur with the Liberal Democrat amendment; members made fair points about the voluntary sector and its good work. I have seen the work that Fairbridge does in helping youngsters who are excluded from school, and such work is very welcome. In that regard, I thought that Karen Whitefield made excellent remarks about nurture groups—I have seen a nurture group in operation—which fulfil a vital role. We require a menu of options and a range of solutions in this area, not just one. However, we must do more than we currently do.

Fundamentally, it is at school level that we will deal with the indiscipline problem, not with more top-down policies from the Scottish Government or, indeed, local authorities. If we set our headteachers free to run their schools, we will soon see a safer environment for the benefit of all our pupils and teachers. I am pleased to support the motion in Elizabeth Smith's name.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

I will allow a few seconds for members to change places. Be quick, please.

Community Courts

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-4065, in the name of Bill Aitken, on community courts.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

I will introduce the motion in what I hope are consensual terms, with acknowledgement that while some things work in our justice system, some do not. We should not be inhibited about reviewing best practice elsewhere and incorporating it in our approach. We are all concerned about high prison numbers and—contrary to what the Minister for Community Safety might believe—Conservatives would like to see lower prison numbers. However, the most obvious way to achieve that is to achieve a significant reduction in crime. I am sure that there is nothing wrong with that premise.

In central New York—a city that for years was regarded as dangerous and, some might say, lawless—a new approach to crime was adopted some time ago. Much of that approach was about increased and more intensive policing, but the policy was also predicated on speedy and effective justice. An offender now comes before the court within 24 hours. Where a guilty plea is tendered, the sentence is immediate. In the vast majority of cases, the sentence is community service, although the range of options that are available to the court includes drug treatment, monetary penalties and custody. For community service disposals, the work begins immediately and is intensive and closely supervised. Work is also carried out with the offender during the period of his compulsory work: parts of the allocated time are used to give appropriate advice on health and employment issues.

It is important to stress that, in New York city, community service is not a soft option. Breaches are not tolerated and result in custody. The effect is that offenders recognise that the court must be respected and that the work must be done. There has been a positive reaction from a number of offenders, who have gone on to lead much more ordered lives. Many of them have found employment.

In the central New York area that is covered by Midtown community court, a 48 per cent reduction has been achieved in nuisance-type crimes such as breaches of the peace, thefts by shoplifting, prostitution and small-time drug dealing.

Another New York city court based at Red Hook works on a similar basis, although a degree of artificiality is perhaps caused by the fact that, due to slum clearance and a major motorway project, the Red Hook population has been dramatically reduced. The court still does valuable work, however.

The need for more direct judicial intervention than is available under the conventional court system has been acknowledged by the Government by the inclusion in the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill of a provision to allow for such interventions. The drugs court at Glasgow sheriff court is already allowed that greater degree of intervention and has, I think, been worth while. However, the drugs court has not—no matter how it is spun—been an unalloyed success. From my experience of having viewed the court several times, I think that its success is highly dependent on the approach that is taken by the presiding sheriff. At least one of the presiding sheriffs is prepared to intervene in a robust and direct manner that seems to pay dividends.

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

Does Bill Aitken agree that the drugs court's success is attributable not to the building in which it is located but to the way in which it operates, which is different from the traditional court process?

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

That was my point. There is room for such processes, but I would guard against the view that the drugs court has been the success that we all hoped for, although it has achieved a measure of success.

There is a unanimous view among those who have visited the New York courts. As Minister for Justice, Cathy Jamieson visited the city, and I know that current Scottish Government ministers have also visited. I have visited the city on two occasions and was extremely impressed. That unanimity of view has prompted the Scottish Government to do some initial work with a view to operating a community court in the east end of Glasgow. It is a matter of profound regret that that will now not proceed. The Government has proposed the view—which has some merit—that the cost implications of that work would have been considerable. I point out that the costs of fitting out the appropriate building and the associated property costs would have fallen in the current financial year, when we have no particular difficulty. With some imagination, the revenue costs in the years ahead could, I would have thought, have resulted in a significant reduction in the amount of money involved. Why could not some attempt have been made to apply lateral thinking?

Given that Mr Ewing's boss, Mr MacAskill, has stated time and again that offenders should be out on the streets working and paying back the community by the sweat of their brow, we need to consider—although I fully accept that we must not take work away from law-abiding people and that it is not for the Government, council or other public body to act as a provider of labour gangs—what other things we could do. We could sit down and work those out collectively and achieve a solution.

Let us compare and contrast that proposal with what happens at the moment: fines are not paid, direct measures are ignored, and we have an appalling and absolutely unacceptable level of breaches of probation orders and community service. The current approach is not working. The value of the proposal would have been in its ensuring that such disposals were made to work and that local people would have seen work being carried out. That would significantly improve the attitude of the victims of crime and it would act as a deterrent to those who are likely to commit crime. Frankly, I think that it is very disappointing that we have not made further progress.

In Midtown, justice is visible and swift, but in our system, delays are endemic. I accept that the Midtown system is not, in some respects, totally cohesive with the Scottish legal system, but we could have worked out a solution by sitting down and considering the issues. Instead, the Government has simply carried out an exercise in accountancy and now feels that it would not work. The Government has lost a real opportunity to have an impact on crime levels and, in time, on prison population levels. When the Midtown project was started, the number of community sentences was minimal and the number of jail sentences was very high. After the system had been in operation for a few years, that situation was reversed, with the disposals being largely for community service and a fairly minimal amount of sentences of imprisonment being handed down. Because offenders know that a breach of an order will result in custody, the work is done, the conduct improves and crime is cut.

Even at this late stage, I urge the Scottish Government to think again.

I move,

That the Parliament notes with regret the decision of the Scottish Government not to proceed with the establishment of a community court in Glasgow; recognises that community courts based on the New York City model in Midtown can address patterns of offending behaviour by providing for swift and effective summary justice coupled with a range of rehabilitation services to break the cycle of reoffending, and believes that the recent action taken by the Scottish Government demonstrates its incoherent approach towards addressing crime and the causes of crime and to providing viable and robust alternatives to custody.

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

As members will see, my amendment shares some common ground with the Conservative motion, but on the big issue—the coherence of the Government's strategy on crime—it will come as no surprise to anyone that we entirely disagree.

Let us first consider the areas of agreement. Bill Aitken's motion recognises the positive lessons that can be learned from the establishment of community courts such as those in Midtown, New York. I accept that point. I hasten to add that I have been on no foreign trips to New York—I get to go to places such as Aberdeen, Peterhead and Dumfries and Galloway—but, nonetheless, I learn from others that lessons can be learned from the practices that have been applied in New York. To some extent, I agree with the analysis of those who support that model.

However, the key point in today's debate—at least in respect of the wording of the motion and of the amendments other than our own—is that the essence of the New York model is not the building but how the services work together. That is the fundamental disagreement between where we stand in the debate and where other parties at least appear to stand—in so far as we can discern that from their amendments.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

Will the minister take an intervention?

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

I will do so later. Let me just develop the argument.

The swiftness in starting the community payback sentence is what seems to be the holy grail for such courts, not the expense for a new building that the Conservative motion asks us to incur. I see that Mr Brownlee is listening with studious intent at this point.

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

If the minister is worried about the lack of capital funding for such a building, he might have a quiet word with Mr Swinney who, in next year's budget, had allocated £20 million to a local income tax. Thankfully, that money is now available. A little word in his ear might draw some dividends.

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

While we are on the topic of quiet words—not something I excel at—Mr Brownlee might wish to have one with Mr McLetchie and ask him why he supported the spending of £500 million on trams, which we sought to oppose. Two can play at that game.

The effective working together of all agencies to provide services is the key to delivery of the results that we all want. We did not dismiss the community justice centre concept out of hand. We appreciate the value of community courts in other areas, so we undertook a feasibility study to establish the costs of building and running such a centre and to identify the potential benefits but—it a big "but"—the study showed that the cost of the building would be around £3.73 million, which would need to be found from the public purse.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Will the minister give way?

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

Just a second.

The running costs would be around £750,000 a year. That money would have to be spent before any service gains were made. We must be realistic: in the current financial climate, the community court proposal does not offer best value for money.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Is the feasibility study that underlies our discussion in the public domain, or will the Government put it in the public domain? It is an important document.

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

I believe in complete transparency with regard to provision of documents that can properly and appropriately be made available in accordance with the rules and regulations that applied to the previous Executive. The same rules and regulations apply to this Government.

We will work with Glasgow City Council to establish how we can achieve the service gains that were sought from a community justice centre. We want to explore how payback can be targeted at the communities that are most in need of reinvestment, with a strong focus on community buy-in. We want to examine how local services can be directed to support people out of a lifetime of crime. Officials will meet Glasgow City Council's director of social work later this month. The council should be allowed to come up with local solutions to local problems, but we share its commitment to putting resources back into the communities that are most blighted by crime.

I hope that members will recognise that resources are not infinite—we are in a recession. We are told by the Government in Westminster that it is essential that we make cuts. The Labour Party in London criticises us and tells us that we must make deeper cuts. It is extremely ironic, and a tad inconsistent, that the Labour Party in Scotland calls on us to do the very opposite—to spend, spend, spend. It used to be the members of the Scottish Socialist Party—who, as I recall, were not known for having quiet words, either—who believed that every leaf of every tree was a high-denomination note. It now appears that that belief is shared not only by members of the Labour Party, whose strange view of arboriculture we are used to hearing about, but by the Conservatives. There is a new alliance of spendthrifts—Labour, Tory and Liberal members are all invoking us to spend, spend, spend.

The Government has a strong and coherent strategy to deliver a safer and stronger Scotland.

In such a short speech, I have not had time to address all the issues, but we most certainly will. We will continue to work with our partners in Glasgow to procure the best possible results as regards justice for their citizens.

I move amendment S3M-4065.3, to leave out from "notes" to end and insert:

"recognises that community courts based on the New York City model in Midtown can help to address patterns of offending behaviour by providing for swift and effective summary justice coupled with a range of rehabilitation services to break the cycle of reoffending; notes the decision by the project board for the Glasgow Community Justice Centre that in the current economic circumstances they should not proceed with the development of a new court building, and supports the joint work underway between Glasgow City Council and the Scottish Government to identify how best offenders can pay back for their crimes to the communities most in need of reinvestment and local services can be directed to support offenders out of a life of crime."

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

I call Richard Baker to speak to and move amendment S3M-4065.1. You have four minutes.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

Is that right? I was told that I would have six minutes.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

You have four minutes.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

Okay.

Scottish Labour has supported enthusiastically the proposal for a community court in Glasgow, which Labour ministers in the previous Executive were keen to take forward. It had been intended that the court would deal with some 2,000 cases every year, and its main aim would have been to deal quickly and effectively with criminal incidents and antisocial behaviour. When the plans were announced, it was hoped that the court would be up and running in 2009. The Scottish National Party is now in power and, although it is 2009, the court is not up and running. Indeed, the plan has been abandoned.

The situation that we have reached, in which an excellent proposal has been ditched, is deeply disappointing, so I welcome the debate. In pointing to the incoherence of the Scottish Government's policy, the motion addresses the nub of the issue. The Government seeks to expand massively the number of community disposals through what amounts to the abolition of sentences of less than six months, but it is failing to provide anything like the investment that is required to make such an expansion achievable.

As we have heard, the planned community court in Glasgow was based on proven models of success at Red Hook and Midtown, and in England. Members who visited New York have said how impressed they were by the swiftness with which offenders are dealt—they usually appear in court a day after they have been arrested, and when sentences are awarded they begin there and then. That is a far cry from the situation here, in which only 1 per cent of sentences begin within the Scottish Government's seven-day target. We are nowhere near making the progress that the minister says that we need to make if we are to achieve the overall objective. A community court would have been a focal point for those efforts.

The sentences that are handed out by community courts, which involve work that is identified by the local community, are exactly the community payback that is supported across the Parliament. The idea of progress courts, which the Scottish Prisons Commission advanced in its report, was incorporated in the plans for the community court. It was proposed that the judge would play a key role in community engagement and that the new approach to sentencing would help to engender greater confidence in communities.

The cabinet secretary's approach threatens public confidence in community sentencing and will not advance community safety. Labour wants more use to be made of community sentences, and we advanced the principle of payback when we were in government. Although the cabinet secretary has proposed a trebling of community sentences, only a 20 per cent increase in funding is to be provided. At the same time, organisations such as Sacro are having their budgets cut, there is stasis on the development of the domestic abuse and drugs courts that were introduced in the previous session of Parliament, and there has been a 14 per cent drop in the number of drug treatment and testing orders. The decision not to proceed with the proposed community court leaves the SNP's policy without any credibility.

The Scottish Government's approach is a recipe for disaster in our justice system. We know that even many of those who support the abolition of sentences of less than six months have made it clear that the measure requires major up-front investment, which the Government is not providing. That message is conveyed in the Liberal amendment, which we will seriously consider supporting, and the motion's description of the Government's strategy as "incoherent" is a good one.

We do not believe that the matter should be allowed to rest. The Government's amendment is entirely inadequate. The Government should reverse its decision and seek to continue to work in partnership with Glasgow City Council to develop the plans for a community court. We have stated that we believe that the proposal can be afforded; Bill Aitken made the same point, Derek Brownlee suggested as much in his intervention, and we point out that the cabinet secretary has said that the Scottish Prison Service has made some £4 million-worth of VAT savings. There will be a real cost if we do not proceed with the proposal: a great opportunity will be lost to make progress on community sentencing in Scotland and to develop what could be a blueprint for delivery throughout the country.

The Scottish Government might believe that the proposed community court should not go ahead, but I am confident that the Parliament thinks that we should proceed with the idea. That is why we will support the motion.

I move amendment S3M-4065.1, to insert at end:

"and further believes that the Scottish Government should reverse its decision and seek to progress plans for a community court in Glasgow."

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

The Conservatives have brought to Parliament a motion on an extremely relevant and topical issue. It goes to the heart of whether the SNP Government is serious about its programme of criminal justice reform, which the Liberal Democrats broadly support. We will support the Labour amendment, as the point that it makes is intrinsic to our amendment.

Mr Ewing said that he had not had time to deal with all the issues; the difficulty is that he did not deal with any of them. There is no question but that much of the current system is struggling, and the effectiveness of community sentences is patchy to say the least—42 per cent of those who receive them reoffend within two years. If we are to reduce that figure, such sentences must be implemented speedily, must be effective and must concentrate on tackling the causes of the offender's criminality. In many council areas, none of those requirements is met.

To its credit, the Government is trying to improve matters by replacing the 21-day commencement period with a target of seven days. There is some distance to go, given that last year only 2.16 per cent of community service orders in South Lanarkshire were inducted within seven days. The figure for Glasgow was only 29 per cent, which will now be worse because of the protracted strike that is affecting the service there.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

Will Robert Brown give way?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I will continue because I have only four minutes.

The Glasgow community justice centre and community court project involves an extremely dynamic and innovative concept that was set in motion by the previous Executive. As has been pointed out, it had sign-up across the political spectrum. A reforming policy that gets warm words even from John Lamont is reaching parts that other justice initiatives have failed to reach.

It is no wonder that the model has worked spectacularly well. It was pioneered in New York and carried through in Liverpool, and it has been adopted in other parts of the United States of America and in Canada, South Africa and Australia—it is not a new concept in any sense of the word. It would not be going too far to say that success in the Glasgow project, targeted as it is on the wards with the highest offending and the greatest concentration of multiple problems in Scotland, would slash national crime rates dramatically and improve the quality of life for many hard-pressed communities, to say nothing of salvaging the lives of some offenders, which are going to waste under the current system.

On any view, the community court model offers the potential for a new start on rehabilitative community sentences. It is a necessary precursor to the policy of replacing ineffective and costly short-term prison sentences with tough and effective community sentences. That is why the Liberal Democrat amendment puts community courts in the proper context.

An ominous silence had surrounded the community court project in recent months—no one knew what was happening—but we now know that it has joined the long list of the Scottish National Party's broken commitments. We understand that the independent business plan, which Mr Ewing has said he may be prepared to put into the public domain, refers to safer communities and success in reducing rates of offending, and predicts more accountability to communities. We believe also that there was a strong recommendation in the business plan for the community court to proceed, which has been ignored by the Government and the community justice authority. It is vital that it is put in the public domain—I am astonished that that has not happened in advance of the debate.

The exact trail of responsibility for the deplorable decision to abandon the community court is unclear; what is clear, however, is that responsibility lies with the justice secretary to reverse the decision by working positively with the community justice project board. The community court was and is about fast and effective justice—a spend-to-save initiative, as Cathy Jamieson has rightly described it. It is a dynamic way of revitalising community service and, as Bill Aitken rightly said, it can build community confidence in the ability of the system to deliver. Whatever the difference of nuance about community courts, Parliament will speak clearly tonight on the matter and support the reinstatement of the community court concept. Thereafter, the justice secretary must listen and he must act.

I move amendment S3M-4065.2, to leave out from "and believes" to "custody" and insert:

"notes that the independent business plan in March 2009 anticipated numerous benefits from a community court project, including improved community safety, greater offender accountability and reduced rates of reoffending; believes that the cancellation of the community court project also undermines the Scottish Government's own stated commitment to replace short-term prison sentences with tough and effective community sentences, and calls on the Scottish Government to continue to work with the Community Justice Project Board."

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

I suspect that I was not alone in my great disappointment at learning last week of the decision by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to abandon the Glasgow community court project. I sincerely hope that he understands—and I hope that he will tell his boss—that the news comes as a blow to the city, part of which I represent. My constituents have made it crystal clear to me that they want to see a fast, effective and responsive justice system in Scotland. That is exactly the model from which the cabinet secretary has made a conscious decision to walk away.

A lot of time, dedication and effort have been put into the proposals. Since 2006, an expert working group consisting of sheriffs, procurators fiscal, police and public officials has been developing the community court model to tailor it to fit Scotland's needs. Planning was at an extremely advanced stage, with Glasgow City Council receiving thousands of pounds to fund a detailed business case for the court—a case, I might add, that strongly supported the need for such an imaginative plan.

The report presented a strong and convincing rationale for the adoption of the community court model: it recognised its potential for increasing community safety by contributing to crime reduction; it acknowledged that it afforded communities and individuals directly affected by crime a real stake in the justice system through restorative justice projects; and it agreed that such a court would have the ability to begin to tackle unacceptable reoffending rates.

The Glasgow court was to be Scotland's first genuine community justice centre, bringing all the various justice agencies under one roof. It would be ready to respond quickly and effectively to the offence, to the offender and, importantly, to the victim. It is a model that understands that the quicker that we get people into the system and the offence is appropriately dealt with, the sooner justice is served and the more faith the public have in the judicial system. It also provides practical benefits to the courts and an increasingly overcrowded prison system. That was highlighted by Clive Fairweather in a letter to The Herald on 21 April.

The unique "restorative justice" ethos of community courts not only means that offenders are properly punished for their behaviour but ensures that they pay back their debts directly to the communities that have had to suffer the consequences of their actions. For example, they provide swift, visible justice, often through supervised work schemes that provide environmental and other benefits to the community.

Additionally, community courts offer a range of support services aimed at effectively tackling the root causes of an offender's behaviour. Community courts can quickly identify and respond to an individual's circumstances and problems, such as addiction issues, and have agencies on hand to begin rehabilitation work. It is a proper balance. As Bill Aitken said, the model of Red Hook community justice centre is one that Scotland should follow.

Community courts present us with a real opportunity to change the way in which we view and dispense justice in this country. They are exactly the sort of innovation that the people of Scotland expected Government to introduce when they voted to establish the Parliament more than a decade ago. The SNP Government's decision is short-sighted and reactionary. Why is the cabinet secretary choosing to turn his back on such an imaginative, speedy and effective model of justice? If, as he is doing, he claims that it is a question of money, he and his boss are being penny-wise but pound-foolish.

The amendment in the name of my colleague Richard Baker states that

"the Scottish Government should reverse its decision and seek to progress plans for a community court in Glasgow."

I understand that the Red Hook community justice centre in New York is known as the court of second chances. I hope that, at decision time, Parliament will vote for Labour's amendment and offer the cabinet secretary that second chance. He and Mr Ewing should grasp it with both hands.

Nigel Don (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Despite the rhetoric, it is clear that—perhaps unsurprisingly—there is a great deal of unanimity among members and that we agree that a community court would be a good thing.

Experience around the world would seem to indicate that such a court works.

We agree fundamentally that the point of such courts is immediate justice. Those of us who are privileged to be parents will understand me when I reflect on this. Let us suppose that my son and heir has just done something that he should not have done and that he knows he should not have done. I say to him, "Aye, lad. You shouldn't have done that. We'll talk about it in a week and a half's time." The absurdity of that as parental discipline makes the point that we all agree on: if our justice system is to have any reasonable effect on those who come before it, it needs to act swiftly.

As far as I can tell, the court that was proposed for Glasgow was about trying to get all the services in the same place so that the whole process could be fast. However, at the moment, alternatives to custody are not being implemented quickly, and there is no point in spending money on a building to put people in if the system is not yet working fast. We need to get the system to work fast.

I therefore agree with what I think is the minister's central point, which is that the money for the building is not the issue. Where we need to spend money, and where we need to change things, is in the systems around the court so that whatever penalty or community disposal comes up can be implemented quickly. That is not specifically about the building, although the building might help us to get people in the right place to do that.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

Does Nigel Don agree that part of the success of Red Hook and Midtown in New York is down to the fact that the buildings, within those communities, are identifiable as where justice is administered and that the support services are located locally within those buildings, which enables speedy reaction?

Nigel Don (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I do not think that that is in dispute, although if the support services were a few miles away it would not really slow down the process. That is why I commend the Government's insistence on continuing to work with the project board and the council to speed up the process of justice. That is what is important: it is not about a building, whether it is £3 million or £5 million.

I have heard members saying that the community court would be a good thing and that the Government should spend the money. In the current circumstances, with a fixed budget, we need to adopt the discipline of asking, "If we're going to spend more money on this, where's it going to come from?" It is not fair on any Government to ask it to spend more on something without telling it where the money will come from, although I have heard some suggestions from members.

In my remaining seconds, I will talk briefly about the coherence of the strategy. To be fair, the Government has a strategy and is trying to make it work. The strategy is that the people in prison should be the people who need to be in prison—either for the protection of society, as is usually the case, or for their own protection—and that the people whose imprisonment would not benefit either them or society should be kept out of prison. That is very much the cheaper option, and in the long term it will be far better for society.

We need fast systems in place. Whatever non-prison disposals we come up with, they will have to work quickly or they will not work at all. I will stop now because I have come to the end of my time.

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

This debate ought to be about the principles of justice and about how justice should not only be done but be seen to be done in local communities.

I will start by dealing with the building. In some senses, it is right to say that the debate is not about the building. In Scotland, we sometimes become too hung up on what we think a court building, and the panoply that goes along with it, should look like. If we are serious about justice being delivered and being seen to be delivered, we have to get away from such notions and ensure instead that the workings of the court are located in local communities.

Members have mentioned Red Hook and Midtown in New York, and I have visited the Midtown community court. It is situated in a converted building in a local community. It is not a purpose-built court costing millions and millions of dollars but a building that is central to the community and in which the community therefore has some investment, as Bill Aitken and others have pointed out.

The debate is about more than simply ensuring that everybody works better together because we know that that has not been happening, despite our best efforts. In Midtown and Red Hook, services are co-located and people can see that they are in the same building. That makes a difference, as does the fact that the judge is community oriented—someone who talks to people in local communities, goes out to explain the workings of the court, and finds out what is important to people. Any community sentences are, to a large extent, driven by community interests; it is ensured that offenders are involved in community projects and carry out work that is seen in the community.

In Glasgow, we had a once-in-a-generation opportunity to follow world-leading examples from elsewhere and change the face of community justice. We had an opportunity to focus on an area that, sadly, is sometimes known for its high levels of violent crime, drug use and alcohol misuse. It was not about simply putting another court building in place but using a catalyst for change to regenerate the local community. If the Government does not act on the will of this Parliament, the opportunity will be missed—and I believe that the Government will live to regret that.

All of us who support the principles of community justice want community sentences to be enacted more speedily. As has been suggested, even the Conservatives probably want the prison population to be reduced. However, none of us wants that reduction to come about by administrative means. Simply opening the doors and saying to people, "Go away, out of prison," will not do one thing to reduce the rate of reoffending. To do that, we will have to change the whole culture of communities.

It is sad, but the current Cabinet Secretary for Justice has form on these issues. The youth courts, which were modelled on the principle of community justice centres abroad—bringing different organisations together and trying to ensure that people move quickly from the court into their sentences or programmes—have also been put at risk.

The Minister for Community Safety might admit today that he has got things wrong and should think again, but I wonder whether he will also tell us whether the youth courts will be put in place some time in 2009, as we were promised—and I have a quotation here from Mr MacAskill, which I will happily pass to the minister. Will the minister assure us that the courts will be put in place, and will he tell us when? Will he also agree to the reasonable request that has been made this morning—to put into the Scottish Parliament information centre a copy of the feasibility study on which the Government has based its decision to rule out the community court?

It looks to me as if a consensus is building up in the chamber. I hope that the minister will be big enough to say that he will rethink the issue and come back to Parliament with a plan to go ahead with the community justice centre in Glasgow.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I fully support community courts. Cathy Jamieson said that this is not about the building, and she is correct—it is about the expediency of the system. However, in Glasgow we would be pretty hard-pressed to find any empty buildings, with Glasgow City Council closing down schools and community centres. I therefore ask her to think over the point again. I fully concur with what the minister has said and with what my colleague Nigel Don has said.

I have heard many things about the Conservative party, many of which I cannot repeat here for obvious reasons, but until today I had thought that the party generally attempted to consider the facts. Today, however, we see Conservative members engaging in the very politics of spin and disinformation that their leader, David Cameron, has vowed to stamp out. His Scottish wing seems not to have heard about that and has decided on a policy of misinformation and soundbites in its quest to smear this Government.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

rose—

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I am sorry, but I have only four minutes.

Bill Aitken's motion is a work of fiction. It is built on the premise that the Scottish Government decided not to proceed with the community courts system, and Bill Aitken has gone on to reiterate that misleading and ill-informed statement. Let us look at the facts for a minute. Bill Aitken knows, as all of us in the chamber know, that the project board for the Glasgow community justice centre met in March and decided not to proceed with the service. That was the board's decision, not the Government's decision. It cheapens the member and others in this chamber to pretend otherwise. We have to correct the glaring inaccuracies in Mr Aitken's motion. There is nothing to it—no substance and no merit—and I am really disappointed in it. The Labour and Liberal Democrat amendments are no better.

It is to the credit of the Government and Glasgow City Council that they have continued to work on how their aims can be realised. As the minister and others have said, this is not about the bricks and mortar but about the expediency of services. It seems to me, and perhaps to others, that the other parties would be happier if all plans were simply dropped. That would give them the chance to criticise, rather than enter into constructive dialogue on how people in the Parliament and the country can work together to deal with the problems that crime creates for communities throughout Scotland. We should take that to heart.

I remind members that the Conservative party was the party that failed to build any extra prisons in Scotland and which introduced automatic early release.

What this Government is doing, in working with Glasgow City Council and others, is commendable. It is grown-up action that Scottish people want to see—not juvenile point scoring and one-upmanship. Until the Conservatives realise that, they will continue to live and breathe the air of the political wilderness in Scotland. The Scottish Government stands accused of creating a "soft-touch Scotland", yet it is the Conservatives who have a soft touch with the truth.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

Follow that. That was a remarkable conversion by Sandra White to loyalty to the Scottish Government. If this debate were being held two years ago, we would have heard Sandra White condemning any Scottish Executive that made such a daft, disappointing and dangerous decision.

Because she had been given a briefing note, Sandra White wanted to articulate a number of issues, and the minister tried to argue that the present economic circumstances make it difficult to pursue the choice under discussion. Like many ministers, he has been selective in the information that he uses. He mentioned the trams, about which a legitimate debate is to be had, but what about the £900 million that the former Executive did not receive from the United Kingdom Westminster Government but which was made available to John Swinney to disburse as he saw fit as Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth? What about many of the other commitments that this Government is not revisiting, such as the national conversation and the debate on whether we should have a referendum in 2010? Those are political choices that members are entitled to make, but SNP members should not come here and lecture the other members of this Parliament, saying that we are not making wise choices but that the SNP, with its current proposal, is.

The reason why the Government's proposal is daft, dangerous and disappointing is that it misses a threefold opportunity—one in evidential terms—to make a real difference to the experience of justice in our communities. Years ago, someone said that justice delayed is justice denied. If the courts system can move from a three-month treatment of an individual to a one-day treatment, there will be major benefits. For the communities that I represent in the east end of Glasgow, which suffer too many small numbers of individuals who create major problems in the community over the weekend without facing any consequences of their actions for the next two or three months, anything that could improve the situation would be a positive development.

Of course, it is about more than just a building but, if Sandra White had read the project reports, she would know that they were about constructing a new building at a much lower cost than was initially anticipated by the former Scottish Executive. The building was to cost nearly 50 per cent less and the revenue costs were going to be 50 per cent less than was initially projected, yet Sandra White comes here today, some yapping dog for the Government, to claim that the SNP has a better response to the situation than the former minister.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Order. Mr McAveety, I do not think that that kind of expression is really suitable.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

Sorry about that. I apologise to the member if any offence was caused by that remark. However, it strikes me that the view that Sandra White articulated is not appropriate for the debate that we are having in the east end of Glasgow.

I have here a letter from Kenny MacAskill to Glasgow City Council, dated May 2008, in which he says:

"I know we both strongly support the concept of a Community Justice Centre and believe that it could bring very real benefits to Glasgow in terms of reducing crime and providing effective payback to the community."

I also have the report that the councillors received from their community justice team. It states that

"it cannot be argued that the figures that were given were a surprise to the Scottish Government"

and that

"it is considered surprising that the Scottish Government has now withdrawn its support".

That directly contradicts the claim that Sandra White made, which was also articulated by the minister.

The minister pointed out that he is here and said that he does not get to go on foreign trips. I know that the cabinet secretary goes on foreign trips, as the minister had to come to the knife crime summit because the cabinet secretary was elsewhere that day. The minister is here today, too, because the cabinet secretary cannot respond on the issue. Those are two fundamental issues that impact on the communities that I represent. I am of a relatively modest disposition, but I am quite angry about the Government's decision, as it rejects all the major developments that have been taking place to tackle injustice in the east end of Glasgow.

Many of us have been arguing for years that we must give commitment and investment—sometimes including quality buildings, I say to Sandra White—to the east end of Glasgow. Such developments are welcome as they send the signal that we are trying to make a material difference to communities such as those in the east end. I am therefore disappointed that the minister has chosen to defend the Government's proposal and that we have not heard anything that suggests that the issue will be revisited.

I hope that, by the end of play and once the vote on the motion is recorded, the minister will reflect on the matter and put forward a much better idea of how to fill the small gap in funding in order to deliver something that would make a meaningful difference to the communities that we serve throughout the country.

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh South)

Everybody knows that there is an urgent need for sentencing reform, to reduce reoffending and tackle acute overcrowding in Scotland's prisons. As my colleague Robert Brown made clear, the Scottish Liberal Democrats believe that very short prison sentences are ineffective and should be replaced with tough and effective community penalties whereby offenders can pay back the community that they have harmed. That ambition is shared by the Government and, if it is to be realised, the community courts must play a key role. Local community courts allow low-level offending to be tackled promptly and visibly, reducing serious criminality in the longer term.

Bill Aitken referred to Brooklyn in New York where community justice has transformed an area that was once synonymous with crime. That successful model is now being rolled out across the United States. Much closer to home, in Liverpool, the Community Justice Centre has succeeded in providing an integrated approach to tackling crime, combining the powers of the courtroom with a range of on-site community resources to tackle the problems behind offending. The on-site problem-solving team includes the judge, the Crown Prosecution Service, the National Probation Service and the youth offending team. Other on-site services address drug and alcohol problems, debt and housing issues. Volunteer mentors are available to provide practical support, and the judge uses regular reviews to check up on and encourage offenders' progress. That is an excellent example of community-based justice in action. If the minister does not want to go to New York, perhaps he could go to Liverpool—it is not very far away—and examine what is being done there.

I therefore deeply regret the Government's decision last month to scrap plans for a new community court in Glasgow, despite the positive recommendations of its business plan. I am concerned that what the Government is now proposing is sentencing reform that has the right aims but is woefully short on substance.

The system is not working effectively. In Edinburgh, community service is considered to have begun when offenders are seen for their first interview. The 2007-08 figures show that 46 per cent of offenders are seen within the first seven days but only 1 per cent actually start work within seven days. If the public is to have faith in the justice system, community sentences must be seen to be efficient and effective. The well-publicised delays that plague the system serve only to send the wrong message to criminals and the law-abiding public.

As they stand, the Government's plans are overambitious and risk being rendered ineffective. Last Thursday, at First Minister's question time, I challenged the First Minister to shelve the Government's plans for replacing prison sentences of less than six months with community sentences, focusing initially on sentences of three months or less. I repeat that call today.

The latest sentencing figures for 2007-08, which were released by the Government last week, show that 12,681 custodial sentences were for six months or less. The Government's own officials admit that, following sentencing reform, the number of community service orders would increase by a maximum of only 1,240. Given the obvious need for reform, even in a best-case scenario those figures do not represent the progress that many—particularly the Liberal Democrats—had hoped for. If the Government is serious about sentencing reform, it must get serious about introducing community courts.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

We have consistently argued, during many justice debates, that offenders must be dealt with robustly. We have also stressed the need for communities to have confidence in the justice system and for rehabilitation opportunities to be provided to offenders. As many members have suggested, the community courts model provides a structure for those opportunities to be delivered, but it is clear from the speeches of the apologists on the SNP benches that the SNP is out of touch with the reality that our communities face. Our communities want to see justice done, yet the SNP is the only main party in the Parliament that does not adequately support community courts.

It is not only the main political parties that support community courts; the Lord Advocate said, in March 2007:

"This court will be at the heart of the community, delivering justice that is swift, visible and informed by a thorough understanding of the offender's background and of the impact of the offence in the wider community."

With the greatest respect to the High Court in Glasgow, I do not consider it to be at the heart of the community. That was wise counsel from the Lord Advocate, who has significant experience of the courts in delivering justice for our communities.

Frank McAveety referred to the proposal to develop a court in the Bridgeton area of his constituency. That proposal provided an opportunity to ensure that the courts would be seen as relevant and effective in providing solutions to many of the problems that Bridgeton and other parts of Glasgow face in respect of antisocial behaviour in our communities.

We show humility sometimes and realise the need to be objective. We recognise that courts alone cannot solve all the problems, and so do our communities. We believe strongly that communities have a role in contributing to solving many community problems.

Many communities sense that courts are removed, attitudinally and physically, from the problems they face. I do not believe that our courts properly appreciate the challenges that our communities face when they try to combat antisocial behaviour.

As Richard Baker and other Labour members said, we support the principle of payback. That is why, in government, Cathy Jamieson did not just talk a good game but delivered the game. She delivered community reparation orders, which were scrapped by this Government. I have yet to speak to any community representative who does not want certain offenders to be given the opportunity to face up to their unacceptable actions. Reparation orders provided that very opportunity, and so too would community courts.

The problem lies with the Government's unwillingness to fund community courts adequately. There can be no doubting that community courts will cost money but, with regard to the point Robert Brown made about the spend-to-save principle, I would say that spending money on community courts would save money in the long run.

Compare the cost of a community court—£3.75 million, with annual costs of £700,000—with the effect that vandalism and antisocial behaviour have on our communities throughout Scotland. Courts often talk about low-level offences, but those so-called low-level offences are not low level to the communities that are affected by antisocial behaviour. I say that on behalf of my constituents and the pupils of Balornock primary school, whose playground project has been vandalised. They want action to be taken to stop antisocial behaviour. We believe that the community courts would have provided an opportunity for that to happen.

The debate has exposed this Government's lack of innovation. It is evident that the Government is good at posting glossy documents on its website but that when it comes to following that up with action it is posted missing.

We call on the Scottish Parliament to support the amendment in the name of Richard Baker.

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

We agree with the Liberal Democrats' broad approach to sentencing policy. In 2007-08, three quarters of short prison sentences were for six months or less. The outcomes for defenders who are sentenced to prison are poor. We all know that only one out of four of those sentenced to jail for six months or less remains free of further convictions within two years of release and that, by contrast, three out of five of those sentenced to community service have a clean record after a similar time. That basic comparison justifies the broad approach that we and the Liberal Democrats take to sentencing.

The facts in relation to community sentencing merit some repetition—they might not have been mentioned so far because this is a short debate. More than 6,000 community service orders and 3,000 probation orders with a condition of unpaid work attached were imposed by Scotland's courts in 2007-08. That means that the courts ordered more than a million hours of work to be carried out in the community. I mention that because credit is due to those who are dealing with those orders on our behalf. We should not forget about that in the maelstrom of criticism that there has been today.

Nigel Don hit on the nub of the debate when he talked about swiftness of justice. I do not think that anyone is suggesting that the essential thing is that we spend money on a new building. I think that all members agree that it is the swiftness of the response, particularly with regard to the commencement of a community service order, that is important.

We have been accused of doing nothing, and the debate has been full of political knockabout, which is all great fun, but it is important to recognise that we are working extremely closely with professional stakeholders to agree a new, tighter framework for starting and completing community sentences. New guidance in respect of community service orders, which was issued on 27 February, will require post-sentence interviews to be carried out within one working day of the order being made by the court, with the work placement to start within seven working days. The new arrangements will take time to bed in. There are problems relating to community service orders in Scotland, not least in Glasgow, of which we are all well aware.

The new arrangements should lead to significant improvements over the current levels of performance. There is common ground between all parties in that regard. However, I respectfully disagree with the implicit proposition in the amendments, which is that we should spend a lot of money on a new building. That is what we are being asked to agree to today, but we do not agree with it. I have said so frankly and candidly, and we will be entirely open with members such as Frank McAveety and Sandra White who, quite rightly, stand up for their constituents. As I said at the outset of the debate, and as Cathy Jamieson also said, we recognise that the concept of community justice is good.

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

Does the minister accept that the model that has been adopted in the Red Hook community justice centre and the Midtown community court is not simply about the community service aspect but also about co-locating the court with, for example, addiction services, employment services, housing services and a range of other services? If so, does he accept that that is the opportunity that will be missed if the Glasgow project does not go ahead?

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

I agree that that is a key feature of the community justice concept, but I respectfully disagree that we are missing that opportunity. We most certainly are not. From my former work as a solicitor in Glasgow sheriff court, I know that some services are co-located there. The social work service is present. I have seen the drugs court operating. I have seen Sheriff Lindsay Wood's manifest and palpable desire to help those who come before his drugs court. That is admirable, and I hope that more sheriffs will undertake the necessary training that will enable them to provide the progress courts approach, which Richard Baker referred to.

I respectfully disagree with the proposition that we should progress community courts simply by investing in a new building. I do not think that, even if we did that, we would deliver the swiftness that is the nub of this debate. It is possible to incorporate those benefits of swiftness into the criminal justice system without a costly new building. In the current climate, we must all recognise that resources must be targeted to provide best value for money. The important thing is the swiftness of starting community work and of visible payment to the community—not a building.

We will work with Glasgow City Council to explore the scope for investment in a more focused service for the east end of Glasgow, testing out an improved payback scheme. Therefore, I urge members to support the amendment in my name.

John Lamont (Conservative, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

The debate has been useful: it has demonstrated yet again what it means to live in the SNP's soft-touch Scotland, it has shown the Government's attempts further to undermine the credibility of the Scottish justice system and it has helpfully demonstrated the broad coalition that is starting to gather around the SNP's plans.

The Scottish Government has continually argued that there are too many people in Scotland's prisons, yet when it comes to toughening up other disposals so that judges and sheriffs can feel confident in their sentencing choices, it has failed miserably. The Scottish Government cannot continue to talk about alternatives to custody with any credibility unless it strengthens current community sentences and ensures that they are completed on time.

The Glasgow community court provided an opportunity for the Scottish Government to show that it is serious not only about tackling crime but about tackling the causes of crime. It could have been a one-stop shop not only to ensure that effective and efficient punishment is meted out but to offer offenders every opportunity to start to make positive choices and changes in their lives.

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

Will John Lamont give way?

John Lamont (Conservative, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

No—I want to make progress.

Contrary to the picture that the minister and several SNP members tried to paint, the community court would have been a good use of the limited resources that are available to the Government. In relation to spending money, I remind the minister that he told the Parliament that

"There are costs associated with doing the right thing."—[Official Report, 11 March 2009; c 15652.]

What does that say about the Government's attitude to the issue? We can assume only that the minister and the Government do not view tackling the underlying causes of crime as doing the right thing.

Definitive evidence shows that community courts produce results and provide value for money in the medium to long term. As we heard from my colleague Bill Aitken and from Richard Baker, we can look to the Midtown community court and the Red Hook community court in New York in the United States, which house a drug treatment service, domestic violence counselling, job training and a medical unit, all of which are made available to victims and offenders. The results speak for themselves—increased compliance, significant reductions in crime, increased use of alternative sanctions and, crucially, a slashing of the level of fear of crime.

As Mike Pringle said, closer to home, we can look to the community justice centre that has been established in Liverpool. Early evidence suggests that that has also been successful, particularly in reducing low-level offending and antisocial behaviour.

A recent YouGov poll discovered that, on witnessing low-level crime such as graffiti, vandalism or underage drinking, 30 per cent of Scots would report it but would think that nothing would be done and 34 per cent would not report it because they would think that nothing would be done. From those figures, we can have no doubt that the lack of public confidence in our justice system is at the heart of the problem. That is why the SNP's approach is fundamentally flawed—Cathy Jamieson made that point.

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

Will John Lamont give way?

John Lamont (Conservative, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I am happy to give way.

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

If the Conservatives regard the matter as such a priority, why did they not seek additional provision for new courts in their budget negotiations with John Swinney?

John Lamont (Conservative, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

We wrongly assumed that since the court was in the SNP's plans, the SNP would deliver it and the point was not for negotiation. That is another broken promise from the SNP Government.

Community courts in Glasgow and other parts of Scotland could have increased public confidence in the criminal justice system by creating visible and robust community sentences and by using local businesses and service providers to deliver justice and rehabilitation. The SNP Government has done nothing to instil public confidence in the criminal justice system; it has called for six-month sentences to be all but abolished, extended the use of home detention curfews and increased the number of offences for which fixed-penalty fines can be issued. The Scottish Government is watering down our criminal justice system at every opportunity.

We want to prevent people from ending up on the path to crime, but we have made it clear that those who blight our communities should face up to the consequences of their actions. Fines must be enforced, community service must be swift, effective and efficient and those who are sentenced to prison must serve the sentence that the judge hands down and not spend half their sentence in the community.

Soft on sentencing, soft on criminals, soft on prisons—the Government will not spend money on cutting crime by tackling the underlying causes of crime because it does not think that that is the right thing to do. We should be clear that we can forget the SNP's grand plans for an independent Scotland—they are no more. Its new master plan seems to centre around the desire to create a soft-touch Scotland. That is a master plan that we utterly reject. We urge the Parliament to back our motion.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

That concludes the Conservative debates. We are a few seconds early for general question time, but everybody is here so we will proceed.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — General Questions

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it considers that it has made sufficient progress in securing employment for newly qualified teachers following a probationary year. (S3O-6810)

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

We have said that we are disappointed with the results of the 2008 teacher census and the implications for teachers after their probation year. This year, we are providing an additional £4 million to enable local authorities to employ an additional 100 teachers. We will also discuss with each local authority its plans for teacher employment and class size reduction.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

I am pleased to hear of the minister's disappointment, which is widely shared in the Parliament and in the teaching profession. Is it acceptable to allow local authorities to reduce the number of teachers by 1,000, which means that the Scottish National Party is failing to deliver its manifesto promise? What discussions is the minister having with local authorities to increase the number of teachers and get it back on target?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

Yesterday, I had a discussion with a local authority that has had difficulties in encouraging teachers to apply for vacancies that it has advertised twice. That underlines the point that the situation is different in different parts of the country.

I emphasise that, as I am sure Ken Macintosh knows, councils—not the Scottish Government—employ teachers. We have given councils an extra £9 million, which should allow them to employ enough teachers to reduce class sizes, but that has not happened in the past year. We have taken action by holding a series of meetings with local authorities, which are on-going.

If Ken Macintosh is genuinely concerned, rather than just trying to throw political mud, perhaps he could have a word with some of his local government colleagues to ensure that local government employs the teachers about whom he professes to be concerned.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Will the minister explain how the number of retirals by schoolteachers can skew statistics for workforce planning?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

Teacher workforce planning takes account of the number of teachers who are leaving the profession for a variety of reasons, including retirement. The expected number of leavers each year is based on historical trends. For example, the number of probationers who are to start in 2009 had to be set by using leaver rates from 2005-06.

Sudden changes in retiral patterns can imbalance supply and demand. The teacher employment working group considered the issue and recommended research, which is now under way, into whether the changing economic climate is affecting retirement decisions.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Did the recent joint working party on workforce planning formally discuss the effectiveness of the collection of data on how each local authority is filling teaching vacancies?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

Yes, that was discussed. I refer Elizabeth Smith to a previous response that I gave on the issue. We are talking about an inexact science, because there is a long time lag between planning for the education and training of teachers and employing those teachers. The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning in particular is doing as much as she can to work with the working group to ensure that we get planning right in future years.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

To ask the Scottish Executive when it now expects to make a decision on the future of the Scottish Qualifications Authority's offices in Dalkeith. (S3O-6789)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

An announcement on the future of the Scottish Qualifications Authority's offices in Dalkeith will be made once consideration of the options has been completed. I know that the member has a keen constituency interest in a decision being made sooner rather than later, as I do, but she will acknowledge that the decision must deliver the best possible balance between value for money and the effective delivery of services to the public of Scotland at a time of increasing economic and public sector pressures. Resolving that has taken longer than expected.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

To be frank, that answer was pathetic. When I first expressed concerns in January 2007 about the future of the SQA's ageing offices in Midlothian, where 231 permanent jobs and countless more temporary positions are based, my Scottish National Party election opponent accused me of scaremongering and manufacturing a non-existent crisis. However, two years into the term of the current Government, the minister still cannot give a simple guarantee that one of the biggest employers in Midlothian will not be moved out of the county. Is it not time for her to stop dithering and to end the uncertainty by giving a cast-iron guarantee today that the SQA will remain in Midlothian?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Far be it from me to comment on the scaremongering of Rhona Brankin. The matter is serious and the correct decision is needed. I will not compromise continuing negotiations by making the response that was described in her question. The right decision will be made for the SQA's future and—more important—for the service that it delivers to the pupils of Scotland.

George (Labour, Lothians)

To ask the Scottish Executive for what reason the First Minister has met the chairman of the Independent Commission on Funding and Finance for Wales but not the chairman of the Calman Commission on Scottish Devolution. (S3O-6796)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

For reasons of open-mindedness. The Holtham commission is looking at a full range of options for funding the Welsh Assembly Government, including tax-varying and borrowing powers. By contrast, the Calman commission cannot examine all the options for the future of Scotland. Nevertheless, if it helps, I will meet Sir Kenneth Calman later this month to explain the work of the Government's national conversation in more detail.

George (Labour, Lothians)

The minister is trying to mislead the chamber, just as the First Minister did when on 29 March he pointed out to the BBC that

"the Welsh finance commission was considering independence."

According to the remit of the Holtham commission, which I have here, it is, like the Calman commission, not considering independence. When the First Minister made that comment, was he ignorant or was he lying?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I will not have the accusation made in this chamber that anyone is lying. Will you please withdraw that accusation?

George (Labour, Lothians)

Then can I substitute—

George (Labour, Lothians)

I withdraw the accusation. Was the First Minister being ignorant or was he being economical with the truth?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I would have thought that a peer who apparently is one of the four wise men considering British intelligence matters might be more careful with his language than he appears to be in this chamber. If anything, such comments reflect badly on him.

I make it entirely clear—and the member should know this if he is a man of intelligence—that the Holtham commission is considering a whole range of options including tax-varying and borrowing powers.

George (Labour, Lothians)

But not independence.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

George (Labour, Lothians)

But he is not answering the question.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I am afraid that Lord Foulkes is just not asking the right question.

The reality is that tax-varying and borrowing powers are being considered by the Holtham commission, a body that the First Minister and I have met. We should remember that the Calman commission has, by diktat of the party of which Lord Foulkes is a member, excluded from consideration all the options that face the people of Scotland.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

Does the minister agree that the Calman commission, whose 15 members include six peers and three knights of the realm, is hardly a representative cross-section of Scottish society; that a commission that specifically excludes the noble aim of Scottish independence has damaged its democratic credentials; and that the national conversation is a more open and inclusive way of addressing Scotland's constitutional future?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Briefly, minister.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I certainly concur. However, I advise the member not to judge all members of the House of Lords by the one from whom we have just heard.

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

To ask the Scottish Executive what measures are being put in place to enable Scotland to benefit from a higher price of oil in light of recent forecasts that the present economic crisis will not postpone the impact of peak oil. (S3O-6851)

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The North Sea is a vital resource for Scotland, employing over 100,000 people directly and indirectly and contributing almost £13 billion in tax revenue during the financial year ending April 2009. We continue to work closely and supportively with the industry directly and with Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise, Scottish Development International and others to encourage a similar approach from the United Kingdom Government and its agencies.

We remain conscious of the industry's huge significance to Scotland and the experience of Norway, whose independent Government has been able to establish for the benefit of future generations a significant oil fund that is now worth £239 billion. By contrast, Europe's other major oil producer, Scotland, has no such oil fund; instead, all the tax revenues from the North Sea flow to the UK Exchequer.

As part of the national conversation, the Scottish Government believes that Scotland should take full responsibility for oil and gas reserves. That would allow long-term production to be optimised and would enable a portion of this massive resource to be invested in an oil fund for the benefit of Scotland today and in the future.

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

Is the minister able to set out some of the research and production ideas that he has in mind to combat the prospect of oil rising to $300 a barrel by 2020? I point out that Denmark, which the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee visited last week, is contemplating such a situation.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

In February, we announced 10 pledges to create new jobs and wealth and a successful low-carbon economy, including the delivery of a more sustainable transport system through the development and market take-up of electric and other low-carbon vehicles. Research in that respect has been undertaken by the Scottish Government and Scottish Enterprise, working with the industry, and the responses to that consultation will be analysed in June.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Does the minister agree that offshore wind energy offers an opportunity both to address the energy gap that Scotland will face in the next 15 to 20 years and to diversify the economy of Aberdeen and the north-east on the basis of proven technology and established offshore skills and expertise?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I very much agree with that proposition. Indeed, that is why offshore wind energy, which was probably not on the radar even nine months ago, is now very much at the forefront of our thinking for both the east and west coasts.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

To ask the Scottish Executive for what reason the family planning and well woman clinic is being withdrawn from Dumbarton health centre. (S3O-6785)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

The Dumbarton family planning and well woman clinic will now be part of a new integrated sexual health service based at the Vale of Leven hospital in Alexandria. The service will continue to provide all of the services that were available at the Dumbarton clinic.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

The minister will of course be aware that the level of teenage pregnancies in West Dunbartonshire and in Greater Glasgow and Clyde continues to rise and that it is clearly linked to deprivation, with the rate of teenage pregnancy in deprived areas three times the rate elsewhere. Given those statistics and given her stated approach of keeping services local, will the minister intervene on this matter and review whether the removal of family planning and well woman services is appropriate?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

Jackie Baillie is quite right to highlight the challenge of teenage pregnancy in those and other areas. However, the service in question is designed to meet that need. It will run from 11 am to 7 pm two days a week, one day of which will be reserved entirely for young people. I would have thought that, given her concern about teenage pregnancy, the member would welcome that.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it is aware of any progress that has been made toward the establishment of a pensioners parliament. (S3O-6867)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

At the older people's consultative forum in April last year, I proposed the establishment of an older people's assembly or parliament, making it clear that it would have to come from and be organised by older people. The proposal is being taken forward by members of the older people's consultative forum, facilitated by Age Concern and Help the Aged in Scotland, and it is hoped that the assembly will be held on 2 October, as close as possible to national older people's day on 1 October.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

As convener of the cross-party group on older people, age and ageing, I wonder whether the minister or her officials might be able to attend one of our meetings and explain the proposals for 2 October.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

I am certainly happy to take up that engagement, diary permitting. I am sure that people will be very keen to involve the cross-party group in what I think will be a tremendous event that will allow the views of older people throughout Scotland to be heard.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Does the minister accept that the council tax is still a huge worry and expense for many Scots pensioners? If so, will the Government look to implement Scottish Tory proposals for a 50 per cent discount for pensioners?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I am not sure that that has a lot to do with the pensioners parliament, minister, but feel free to respond.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

We recognise the impact that the council tax has on older people, which is why we have frozen it for yet another year. I am sure that older people throughout Scotland welcome that action from the Scottish National Party Government.

Charlie Gordon (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it is considering funding part of the Clyde fastlink project to enable it to serve the Southern general hospital. (S3O-6798)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

As part of project 24 of the strategic transport projects review, which relates to west of Scotland strategic rail enhancements, we aim to increase public transport access to key public services. We are working with partners such as Strathclyde partnership for transport and Glasgow City Council on considering a range of options, including the possible development of a metro or light rapid transit network across Glasgow.

In addition, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde is committed to funding a package of public and active transport measures, including the provision of new infrastructure, as part of the on-going planning and development arrangements associated with the Southern general hospital project.

Charlie Gordon (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

Can I take it then that the health budget could supplement Stewart Stevenson's transport budget for the project?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The next important step is the appraisal of the Clyde fastlink proposal that is currently being undertaken by Glasgow City Council. I understand that there will be a report on that in the summer of 2009, which will inform the way forward. That report will be a necessary precursor to any discussions that will follow.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

To ask the Scottish Executive when it plans to increase the fines for landlords of houses in multiple occupation who do not have an HMO licence. (S3O-6813)

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Part 5 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2006 revises the system of HMO licensing. Among the changes is a provision that makes an owner of a licensable HMO who is guilty of the offence of not holding a licence liable to a fine not exceeding £20,000, which is four times the current maximum. Later this year, we will discuss with stakeholders the options for implementing the provisions in part 5 of the act. We will then draw up a timetable for implementation.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

I moved an amendment to the Housing (Scotland) Bill to increase the penalties for landlords of HMOs who do not have an HMO licence as the minister has outlined. That provision and other important powers in part 5 of the act have not yet come into force. The fight against illegal HMOs is made harder by the delay, and authorities such as Glasgow City Council have been waiting for some time to use those powers. What are the reasons for that delay? Implementation was expected at the end of last year. Does the minister appreciate that there has been a long delay and that the provisions, which are important, are needed now?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The Government is totally committed to implementing the provisions that Pauline McNeill mentions in consultation with the relevant stakeholders. However, we have consulted our local authority colleagues and have, at their request, implemented the landlord registration scheme first so that it is allowed to bed down. As the member knows, 87 per cent of landlords are now registered. That gives the local authorities the experience that is necessary to implement part 5 of the act successfully when we bring it into force later this year.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

When the minister is considering the provisions that relate to houses in multiple occupation, will he also consider a new nuisance that has arisen for people who live in buildings with communal stairwells: weekend lets for stag and hen nights, in which the participants' behaviour is abominable?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

As I said last week when various members, including Malcolm Chisholm and Margo MacDonald, asked a similar question, we are considering covering short-term lets in HMO licensing, but there is a clear distinction between short-term lets and holiday lets. The primary way to deal with the problems that arise as a result of antisocial behaviour by a small minority of people who occupy holiday lets is the antisocial behaviour legislation rather than housing legislation.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what representations it has made to the British Olympic Association and the United Kingdom Government regarding the estimated £150 million shortfall that could impact on Scottish good causes and voluntary organisations as a result of lottery funds being diverted to the London 2012 Olympic games. (S3O-6850)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

I met the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Andy Burnham, on 31 March to press Scotland's case for the return of the £150 million that is being diverted to the London 2012 Olympic games. That meeting followed three letters to the Department of Culture, Media and Sport to pursue that matter. At my request, my officials are currently arranging a further meeting with Mr Burnham; the Secretary of State for Scotland, Jim Murphy; and the leader of Glasgow City Council, Councillor Purcell.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

In light of the millions of pounds lost to Scottish good causes, will the minister or her colleagues consider a not-for-profit Scottish lottery so that money that is raised in Scotland is spent in Scotland?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

After the meeting that we had on 31 March, my officials and officials from the DCMS have been working to consider the available options to secure resources for the legacy. I hope to have an options paper soon and certainly in time for my meeting with those ministers and Steven Purcell.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

That concludes general questions. Before we come to questions to the First Minister, I am sure that members will wish to join me in welcoming to the gallery the Honourable Maria Antònia Munar, the President of the Parliament of the Balearic Islands, and her delegation. They are most welcome. [ Applause. ]

First Minister's Question Time

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-1668)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I have engagements to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland. However, in this week in which we celebrate the 10 th anniversary of the first elections to the Parliament, all members, regardless of their political perspective, should spend at least some time considering and taking satisfaction from the advent of an institution that has changed life in our country fundamentally and for the better.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

We in the Labour Party echo those words of celebration of the 10-year anniversary of the institution. However, the First Minister and his Cabinet also found time this week to slap themselves on the back for their mid-term report. They said that it was

"a fantastic record of policy delivery".

We can picture the scene: "Well done, John Swinney; great job, Kenny MacAskill; great job, Fiona Hyslop—terrific job." Did they find time to think about the 1,000 teachers who have been cut from our schools, the 1,000 apprentices who have been made redundant and who are still waiting for their training guarantee or the 20,000 construction workers who are on the dole because of the First Minister's failure to build schools and hospitals? Some of those people might be watching today, because they are certainly not at work. Can the First Minister look them in the eye and tell them how well he is doing?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

That is the sort of question that probably sounded all right when Iain Gray was rehearsing it with Andy Kerr earlier on. In Iain Gray's accolades of individual ministers in the Government, which are much appreciated, he forgot the Deputy First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, whose work, not least on the current flu outbreak, has been exceptional. I thank Iain Gray for his commendations of the Government's work, but he will excuse me if I am even more satisfied with the overwhelming evidence from the opinion polls that the people of Scotland back the Scottish National Party Government.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

Was that the answer? I have the First Minister's list of so-called achievements. It probably looked good when he was writing it down, but it does not bear much examination. Number 30 states that the Government has "Reviewed modern apprenticeship" programmes—he means that he cut them. I like number 41, which states, "Developed North Sea super-grid". How did I miss that? Where is he hiding it—in the basement of Bute house? Not so much wired to Norway—more like wired to the moon. Number 28 states that the Scottish Futures Trust has been "achieved". Now he really is having a laugh at our expense. In two years, the SFT has delivered two meetings, one e-mail and not a single school or hospital. Does the First Minister really consider the Scottish Futures Trust to be an achievement?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The North Sea grid and the achievements of the SNP Government are hugely important for Scotland. I have the list of 50 commitments that the Government has already met or exceeded in our first two years in office. I do not have time to address all 50, but let us try the first five: the council tax freeze in Scotland for two years in a row; the small business bonus, which is vital for employment in our communities; the abolition of tolls on the Forth and Tay bridges; the reversal of the decision to close the accident and emergency departments at Monklands and Ayr hospitals—it is a good job that we did not downgrade Monklands in light of recent events; and the delivery of funding for 1,000 more police officers on the streets of Scotland. I would like to go on to list the other 45 commitments, but we will make them available in the Scottish Parliament information centre. Perhaps the Labour Party should wonder why, in eight long, miserable years in government, it did not manage to achieve any one of those 50 commitments made by the Scottish National Party.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

The First Minister missed out the first-time buyers without their £2,000; the students with the debt that the SNP promised to ditch; the carers who are still waiting for their funding; and the children in classes whose size the SNP promised to reduce. He did not mention the teachers on the dole or the pensioners means tested out of the central heating programme. He did not mention his local income tax that has just been ditched. So many promises broken in so little time; I do not have time to go through them all. Is that not why one of our papers today asks of the First Minister's record whether it has been

"just all big talk from a wee man"?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I must say that I am delighted with the description of my size—it is very comforting indeed. On the local income tax, how can Iain Gray complain about the non-implementation of local income tax when he kept voting against it? I have to confess to one other aspect of our manifesto that we have not been able to achieve, unlike the 50 commitments that have been achieved in two years. It was the Government's ambition to cancel the Edinburgh trams project and invest that money in capital infrastructure in the capital city and throughout Scotland. I wonder whether anybody in the Parliament or on the Labour benches—even Iain Gray—thinks that they were wise to combine with the Tories and Liberal party to foist that project on the people of Scotland. Is there a single person who believes that?

Of course, Iain Gray has something to celebrate too. It is not just that he is unable to quarrel with or question the 50 commitments met by the Government; he is unable to explain why he is the first Scottish Labour leader in history to be less popular, not than an SNP leader, but than the Tory leader in Scotland.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

There are two signs of desperation in politics. [ Interruption. ]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

One sign of desperation is to tell the electorate lies in order to get their votes; that is what local income tax is about. The second is when the First Minister is reduced to reading out poll results, especially when he bought and paid for the polls.

Let us go back to what really matters to the people of Scotland. The Scottish Building Federation says of the achievement that is the Scottish Futures Trust that it has destroyed 20,000 jobs. Ron Hewitt of the Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce called it a "scandal" and said that it could cost another 15,000 jobs. Labour is doing all that it can: 15,000 jobs for young Scots in the budget package and, yesterday, 11,000 jobs secured and 1,000 more created on the Clyde. Thanks to the First Minister's Futures Trust, he is destroying Scottish jobs faster than Margaret Thatcher did 30 years ago. Does he really think that that is something to be proud of?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Employment is a serious issue. Ten years ago, unemployment in Scotland was 25 per cent higher than the United Kingdom average, as indeed it was for most of the post-war period. One of the things that we should be satisfied about is that, although we are in a recession and in difficult times at present, unemployment in Scotland is now 25 per cent below the UK average. Iain Gray complains about our firm action to accelerate the economy in Scotland and to create jobs through our plans. He should look south of the border and wonder why the plans there are not being quite as successful.

Iain Gray talks about cuts. Is he the last man in Scotland still in denial about the £500 million of Labour cuts coming next year? Is Andy Kerr still in denial about the Labour Party's own economist warning of the real-terms cuts in Scottish public spending?

The threat to Scottish jobs does not come from an SNP Government that is not just popular in one poll but popular in all polls. It does not come from the recovery plan generating tens of thousands of jobs in Scotland. The threat to Scottish jobs and unemployment comes, as Glasgow City Council confirmed this week, from the Westminster cuts from a Labour Government—£500 million planned for next year and real-terms cuts in public spending planned for the next few years.

The fortunate thing is that not just in opinion polls but in elections the people of Scotland have the opportunity to decide to have economic powers for this Parliament and independence for this country.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S3F-1669)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I have no plans to meet the secretary of state in the near future, but a meeting is being arranged in a few weeks' time.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

There are few certainties in life, but we have just been reminded forcibly of one this morning: a First Minister who is desperate to be liked. It is also becoming very clear that he does not have the guts to take tough decisions. The Parliament's Finance Committee took evidence last week that showed that Labour's mishandling of the economy could mean massive long-term cuts to the Scottish budget. The First Minister says—he repeated it this morning—that Labour's squeeze on the Scottish budget will be £500 million from next April. If that is the case, how is he going to tighten his belt—small or otherwise? What is he going to cut, or does he not have the courage to tell us?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

As Annabel Goldie well knows because she supported the proposal, we set up a process in the budget debate to examine public spending in Scotland and invited contributions from the other parties to face that reality. She can be absolutely certain that that will be done in an orderly manner.

Annabel Goldie is right of course to point to the £500 million of cuts from the Labour Party. What she neglects to mention is that now, apparently, the Conservative party plans exactly the same perspective. We have cuts to the left of me, cuts to the right of me, or an alternative future with the Scottish National Party and real powers for this Parliament.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Let us be clear that the Labour Party has created this horrific mess. The Conservatives, when elected to government, will have to deal with the consequences of that horrific mess, and will have the courage to do that. The First Minister does not have the bottle to deal with the horrific mess.

The Government is hitting the buffers. On education, the First Minister's Minister for Schools and Skills, Keith Brown—in his Hazel Blears moment—said that the Government must do better. On justice, as the headline in The Sun said this week, the SNP is the criminals' best friend. On taxpayers' money, even the First Minister's own department is way short of hitting its efficiency targets. What kind of political leadership is that? Once again, we need an unpalatable truth. What is the SNP going to cut—or, in the fantasy land of the First Minister, is he denying that any cuts are required?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The Government's efficiency targets of 2 per cent across departments are being met; they have been met over the past two years; and they will continue to be met. There is a major difference between the Government's efficiency savings and cuts by the Labour Party and the Conservative party: the Government's efficiency savings are reinvested in public services and local councils across Scotland.

The Government's economic record, in terms of the competence and the flair displayed by my colleague Mr Swinney, is second to none. We will meet any funding situation from whatever Westminster Government with the competence that we have shown over the past two years, and we will do that in the interests of the Scottish people. That will not prevent us from pointing out, in elections that are coming up in the next few weeks or months, that the perspective, whether from a Labour Government at Westminster or from a Tory Government at Westminster, is one of long and severe cuts in public spending and vital services across Scotland. That is why there has to be a real political choice between the cuts of the Westminster parties, and investment and economic power from the SNP.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-1670)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

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

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

This week, the First Minister received a prisoner transfer request from the Libyan Government. I ask him where he stands on the statement that he made in June 2007, in which he said:

"The question of prisoner transfer is particularly important, not least in relation to the case of Mr Al Megrahi, the Libyan who was convicted in a Scottish court of the Lockerbie bombing".

He went on to say:

"the Scottish law officers and others, including the secretary-general of the United Nations, gave assurances that any sentence that was imposed would be served in Scotland."—[Official Report, 7 June 2007; c 586.]

Does he stand by that statement, which he made as First Minister?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Tavish Scott will understand that nothing that I say should be taken to prejudice decisions that the Scottish Government will have to take on the prisoner transfer agreement or anything else. I point out to him, since we are looking into history, that he is absolutely right: in June 2007, I came to the Parliament with an emergency statement to warn of the implications of the memorandum of understanding that was agreed between the then Prime Minister and Colonel Gaddafi.

Some people in this Parliament mistakenly believed—I see that Lord Foulkes is nodding—that the memorandum of understanding would not affect the case of Mr Al Megrahi. As we now know, in late 2007, the Westminster Government, through the then Lord Chancellor, Jack Straw, said that it would try to negotiate on the face of the prisoner transfer agreement an exclusion for anybody connected with the Lockerbie atrocity. That did not happen, unfortunately, and we are now in a position in which the PTA was agreed and finalised last week, and an application for prisoner transfer has been made.

Throughout this process, I have said that, in everything that we do as a Government, we will uphold the integrity of the Scottish judicial system. I repeat that today, and I also say that the decision that is made by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice will be made not on economic or political grounds, but on judicial grounds, and judicial grounds alone.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

That is as it should be, but I agree with the secretary-general of the United Nations and the Scottish law officers: Al Megrahi should serve his sentence in Scotland. The First Minister has announced today that he will reopen and revisit the assurance that was given by the secretary-general of the UN, yet elsewhere SNP members are saying that the transfer request is simply a conspiracy to prevent the criminal appeal from being heard in full.

Should the First Minister not end that uncertainty and prevent the matter from dragging on? Why does he not today reassert the position and the assurances that he voiced in June 2007, and ensure that the sentence that has been imposed is served?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Is Tavish Scott seriously suggesting that if a prisoner transfer request is made, it should not receive proper consideration in terms of due process? That is an absolutely extraordinary thing to say.

We are in a position in which a prisoner transfer agreement has been negotiated between the United Kingdom Government and the Libyan Government. A request has been made, and we are duty bound to consider that request properly and fully, in line with the terms of the prisoner transfer agreement.

I have no doubt—and I maintain the position—that it would have been greatly to be preferred if the judicial processes of Scotland were allowed to take their course. I have absolutely no doubt about that whatsoever, for a whole range of reasons. However, if a PTA application is made, it must of course be properly considered by the justice secretary on advice from Scottish Government justice and other officials. That will be done, and nothing that I say to Tavish Scott in this Parliament or elsewhere can be taken to prejudice that decision, which will be made on judicial grounds, and judicial grounds alone.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I will take a constituency question from Elaine Smith.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

What support can the First Minister's Government offer the total workforce of 57 people at Glen Shaw Knitwear—formerly Mackinnons—in Coatbridge, who were dismissed in an appalling way last week, with no prior notice or consultation?

Does the First Minister agree in general that Governments of whatever political persuasion should not simply pander to a pro-business agenda in which greedy companies can make excessive profits at the expense of the working class?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

As in all situations of redundancy, this Government will give whatever support we can to the employees involved. If the constituency member wishes to pursue the matter with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth, we can arrange for that to be done.

As the member will know, we have doubled the resources that are available for intervention and redundancy situations to enable us to reskill workers and do our utmost to find every workforce that is affected by the current recession alternative employment if at all possible.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to support jobs and economic recovery. (S3F-1672)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The economic recovery plan is focused on jobs, skills and investment in the industries of the future, and we are working hard to ensure that Scotland weathers the current economic storm and recovers strongly.

For example, our plans to accelerate capital spending protect thousands of construction jobs, and we are working with social partners on our plans for a Scottish investment bank, which have been warmly welcomed by the Scottish Trades Union Congress and others. The Parliament should also be aware of the recent announcements on European funding—I am sure that those are warmly welcomed throughout the chamber—which will support 8,000 jobs in Scotland and 75,000 new training opportunities.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

I welcome the action that is being taken by the Scottish Government, but does the First Minister agree that, although such local stimulus is welcome, it will be badly affected by the decision of the United Kingdom Government to remove resources from investment in jobs by cutting £500 million from Scotland's budget? That is in stark contrast to the action of the Australian state of Victoria, which is supporting its population of 5 million with an £8 billion fiscal stimulus, including resources that are being raised through borrowing powers. What impact will the UK cuts have on jobs in Aberdeen and the north-east?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I welcome the question, because it gives us an opportunity to put these matters into stark contrast. As I said, the European funding, which I know is welcomed throughout the chamber, will help the creation of 8,000 jobs throughout the country. Six thousand jobs are supported by the acceleration of capital investment. The new-build plan for local authority housing—this Administration is actually building council houses in Scotland—will create 3,000 jobs. All those jobs are valuable and add to a considerable total of tens of thousands of jobs that will be supported by this Administration's recovery plan.

Is it not interesting that, in contrast to that recovery plan, which is designed to fight the recession and lead this country out of it as quickly as possible, in a single afternoon last week, by confirming the £500 million of cuts in the Scottish economy next year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer removed, with a stroke of his pen, 9,000 jobs from the Scottish economy? What a contrast between job creation by the Scottish National Party Government and job destruction by the Labour Party at Westminster.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

What a contrast indeed, between truth and fiction around the Scottish budget. Would the First Minister care to agree with his own director general of finance that the Scottish budget will grow by 1.3 per cent next year, in the teeth of this recession? Does he agree with the fiscal stimulus measure of £2 billion for the Scottish economy, which has already been put in by the UK Government, and, of course, the £50 billion that has been put in place to save Scottish workers in our banks and leave Scottish mortgage payers in homes throughout Scotland?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Both the red book and the Scottish Government's director general of finance indicated that, because of Labour's cuts, there will be less spending in the Scottish economy next year in comparison with this year, in the teeth of a recession. That is in contrast not just with what is happening in Australia but with what is happening in President Obama's America, where, next year, there will be counter-recessionary fiscal stimulus in the economy. Will Labour finally get its head around the reality that, in addition to the £500 million of cuts, which Andy Kerr said that he could not calculate even up to the last moment, there is the threat of a real-terms reduction in public spending year on year in the red book, which was also confirmed at the start of this session of Parliament by Labour's own former economist, Mr John McLaren? Labour Party front benchers that are reduced to attacking their own economist are no semblance of authority for Scotland's future. We have investment and jobs from the SNP, but cuts in public services from the Labour Party.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Before we come to question 5, I point out that Mr Al Megrahi has an active appeal against his conviction. Where he serves his sentence is not under appeal, but whether he is guilty of the crime is sub judice and, therefore, supplementary questions should not stray on to the subject of the appeal itself—whether the evidence or the accused's guilt or innocence—as that would be in breach of rule 7.5.1 of standing orders.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

To ask the First Minister what consideration the Scottish Government has given to the possible transfer of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi to a prison in Libya. (S3F-1678)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The United Kingdom and Libyan Governments ratified a prisoner transfer agreement on Wednesday 29 April 2009. An application for prisoner transfer has now been received from the Libyan authorities on behalf of Mr Al Megrahi. The application will be considered according to the agreement, relevant legislation and the merits of the individual case.

Any decision on the transfer of prisoners who are held in Scotland is for the Scottish ministers. In practice, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice makes the decision on any prisoner transfer request. That emphasises our point that, whatever decisions are made elsewhere, our decisions will be made on judicial grounds, not economic or political ones.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

On 2 February 2008, the First Minister told the BBC news:

"it would be appropriate if anyone connected with the Lockerbie atrocity was excluded specifically from any prisoner transfer agreement."

That sentiment was repeated by a spokesman for the First Minister on 16 February 2008.

On 15 January this year, the First Minister advised the Parliament that he believed that it was critical that the integrity of the Scottish judicial system be upheld, and he has repeated that today. His views on the matter seem clear. Do those statements indicate that the Scottish ministers had predetermined their response to a request from the Libyan Government? If so, would that enable the Libyans to seek judicial review if the request was turned down?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

For obvious reasons, it is not possible to predetermine a response before a prisoner transfer agreement is in place. The warnings that we gave in the statements that I made in June 2007 in the Parliament, and in the attempt—which, initially, seemed successful—to persuade the United Kingdom Government to exclude from the face of the prisoner transfer agreement people connected with the Lockerbie bombing, have been amply demonstrated in what has come to pass.

Elaine Murray should look very carefully at the record. Warnings were given in June 2007 about the agreement that was made by Mr Blair and President Gaddafi. After the talks with Jack Straw, the new Lord Chancellor, Mr Straw gave an undertaking to seek to exclude people connected with Lockerbie from the face of the agreement. Then there was the information last year that that had not proved possible. Now we have the conclusion of the PTA between the UK and Libyan Governments. We were absolutely right—demonstrably right—to warn of the possible consequences of the sequence of events that was set in place in June 2007, just as we are absolutely duty bound to consider a prisoner transfer request on its merits, given the relevant legislation. There can be no prejudging of that request before such a PTA comes into place.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Will the First Minister clarify the process? He has said several times this morning—most recently in response to Elaine Murray's question—that, in practice, the decision on the request will be taken by Mr MacAskill as Cabinet Secretary for Justice. Members will be aware that The Scotsman newspaper suggested this morning that the decision would be taken by the First Minister and would be the subject of a discussion in the Cabinet. Will he confirm whether that is correct?