Plenary, 01 Feb 2007

Meeting date: Thursday, February 1, 2007

Official Report 716KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

I welcome to the public gallery pupils from Eastern primary school.

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues they will discuss. (S2F-2683)

I have no immediate plans to meet the Prime Minister.

Perhaps that is wise, given the breaking news that Tony Blair has been interviewed by the police for a second time in relation to the cash for peerages investigation.

Why has the First Minister failed to deliver on his promise to improve school discipline?

That is not the case at all. The reality throughout Scotland is that there are improved teacher numbers, improved school buildings—which the nationalists oppose—and improvements in facilities for dealing with troublesome pupils, and we have evidence this week that head teachers are using the direction that they have been given and are excluding more pupils than they were six or seven years ago. All those indicators point to the fact that schools today are dealing with discipline more effectively than they have done in the past. Schools cannot be solely responsible for dealing with the problems in wider society with today's younger generation, but they can, as institutions and services, function more effectively than they were doing. I believe that the vast majority of schools throughout Scotland are doing that.

Not for the first time, the facts tell a completely different story. I remind the First Minister that figures that were released this week show that, since the start of this session of Parliament, the number of pupils who are excluded from schools has gone up by 18 per cent. Is he aware that, in primary schools, the situation is even worse? Since 2003, the number of primary-age children who are excluded from school has gone up by 40 per cent. Should that not be a cause for the most serious concern?

I remind the First Minister that his policy in the first session of Parliament to try artificially to reduce exclusions by setting targets was a complete and utter failure. Do not the recent figures prove that his policy in this session of Parliament to deliver "a downward trend" in school exclusions by "addressing bad behaviour" has also failed? Will he explain why?

I do not want to comment specifically on the policies of predecessors, as it can be unfair to do so. However, I want to be clear that the policy on school exclusions was changed following my election as First Minister, precisely because I believed that it was wrong to set a cap on or a target for school exclusions. The figures that the Tories produced this week are inaccurate and misleading. The reality is that it is essential that head teachers and teachers can remove from classrooms and schools youngsters who cause trouble. The reaction of the nationalists and the Conservatives this week to the misleading figures that the Conservatives published indicates yet again that they are prepared to say one thing at one point and a completely different thing at another. Before the policy was changed, the nationalists and the Conservatives called—correctly, in my view—for the target on reducing school exclusions to be put to one side and for teachers and head teachers to have a clearer instruction to use the exclusion powers that are available to them. Then, when head teachers and teachers actually use the power, the nationalists and the Conservatives use that to make a case against the very point that they raised in the first place.

That is another example of the fact that the nationalists and, occasionally, the Conservatives are prepared to say anything to try to win votes and curry favour with the public. It does not work to be that inconsistent. School discipline requires consistent, determined work by schools and back-up by politicians on everything, from issues that might appear minor, such as school uniforms, right through to exclusions and tougher action against those who cause the most serious trouble. Our duty as politicians is to back up those who have the hard job of making the measures work.

The figures to which I referred were Government figures, and the predecessor to whom the First Minister referred was education minister Jack McConnell. Back in 2001, he said that rising exclusions were a sign that other policies were not working. No one wants an artificial reduction in exclusions; people want an actual reduction that is brought about by better behaviour.

I draw the First Minister's attention to the reality in our schools last year. There was a 40 per cent increase in persistent disobedience, a 40 per cent increase in the verbal abuse of staff, an 88 per cent increase in offensive behaviour and more than 10,000 violent incidents, nearly 1,000 of which involved the use of a weapon.

I remind the First Minister that, in Labour's manifesto for the previous Scottish election, he said, "We will … improve discipline" in schools. Will he accept that he has completely failed to deliver on that promise?

Not at all. The nationalists and the Conservatives distort the figures in an extremely misleading way. For example, the figures that were being distorted this week include, for the first time, a proper, comprehensive addition of the day-to-day experience of teachers in special schools. In the past, teachers in such schools did not record verbal or physical reactions in the classroom as part of national or even local statistics, for the good reason that youngsters could be involved in such incidents because of their disabilities—they do not necessarily understand that they are being violent or abusive. However, those statistics are now properly recorded, because it is important that, year on year, we are able to monitor improvements in all our schools, including our special schools.

I admire teachers for being willing to make the change and ensure that the figures are included in the statistics. It is wrong for politicians to use their position to distort the statistics and mislead the public and parents in the way that Nicola Sturgeon does. The truth is that Scotland's schools are safer places because of the actions that we have taken, and better places because of additional teachers, improved school buildings, an improved curriculum, additional resources and better behaviour from pupils.

I taught in Scotland's schools when the kids in them were demotivated and felt that they had no hope and no future outside school because of a Conservative Government's economic actions. When I go round schools today, I find senior pupils helping younger ones in primary and secondary schools. I find eco-committees in which the schools and the kids work with parents and local communities to deliver a better future and understand the society in which they live. I find better results in primaries and secondaries. In classroom after classroom, I also find improvements in school discipline because of hard work by teachers and better behaviour from pupils. It is time that the nationalists and the Tories backed up Scotland's schools and teachers instead of attacking them all the time.

To be frank, it is disingenuous for the First Minister to argue that the situation in special schools explains his failure. I admire teachers too; it is the Government that is failing to deliver.

The First Minister says that education is his top priority, but he said that at the previous election and the election before that, and has failed to deliver. I remind him what has happened since 2003: indiscipline has got worse; the number of primary teachers has fallen; and class sizes are still far too big. I suggest to him that education is vital and that Scotland has huge potential but, to fulfil that potential, we need less rhetoric from a failing First Minister and real action from a new Government with fresh ideas and the will to deliver.

Members from across the parties will notice that, in four statements from Ms Sturgeon, which partially included questions, there was not one policy, initiative, idea or grain that might inspire Scottish youngsters, teachers and parents or improve their lot. The truth is that, in education in Scotland today, we have more teachers, better school buildings, improvements in the curriculum and better results for the youngsters, who are themselves helping to improve discipline. Those youngsters make me proud because they are helping to build the better Scotland that we want. Ms Sturgeon and the Scottish National Party have a completely different priority for Scotland, which puts separation before education. That will never happen because, as long as I am First Minister, education will come first.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-2684)

The Cabinet will discuss a number of issues that are important to Scotland.

The First Minister is well aware of the horrific problems that Midlothian Council has with its social work department. Unlike some, I do not seek to blame him directly for the situation. It is right that local authorities deal with such issues, and they should be judged by the electorate.

That said, it is important to establish the Lib-Lab pact's role in and knowledge of this deeply worrying affair. We know that Midlothian Council has been aware of the problem since 2004 and has apparently been sitting on a report since September 2006. Therefore, will the First Minister tell me when he knew about the problem, in which other councils it is replicated and how many Scottish children are in similar danger?

I will start at the end of Annabel Goldie's question, which deserves to be treated seriously because this is a desperately serious issue for youngsters in Midlothian and elsewhere in Scotland.

I do not have figures for the numbers of inspections that are currently taking place, but I am happy to provide them to Annabel Goldie afterwards. What I know is that the report was drawn to my attention last week, and I am aware that the Minister for Education and Young People and his officials were involved in preparing in advance for its publication. There have been discussions with Midlothian Council, in particular to ensure that it has an effective action plan in place to deal with the deficiencies that have been identified. I also note that this morning Midlothian Council seems to have taken action, and I welcome that.

For far too long in Scotland, public and, sometimes, voluntary bodies have not accepted the responsibility for failings in the child protection system that they should accept. Although all of us today would rightly criticise what has been happening in Midlothian Council services in recent years and praise the inspectors for how they have raised the issue properly under the new system of joint inspections, we would also welcome the fact that, on this occasion, someone has taken responsibility and resigned. I believe that others have perhaps done the same in recent weeks.

I hope now to see early action by Midlothian Council to put in place and then execute an action plan that ensures that youngsters across Midlothian are better protected and which enables the community, parents and friends of those youngsters to know that, when they are identified as requiring protection, they are properly looked after.

I thank the First Minister for that helpful response. As I said, I realise that he is not directly implicated in the affair. However, when it comes to the care, welfare and development of children, the record of the Labour Party and the Lib-Lab pact is abysmal. As has already been said, we were informed this week that there were 1,000 more exclusions from schools than in the previous year, which is apparently contributing to a rise of almost 20 per cent in the past three years alone. Added to that, in the past school year almost 1 million pupil days were lost to truancy, and nearly one in five pupils plays truant.

Faced with that stark information, why does this former teacher have so little faith in his former colleagues? Is it not about time that he gave more power to head teachers to provide effective school management—something that the Lib-Lab pact and their local government colleagues have shown themselves utterly unable to do?

Unfortunately for the tone of debate, a number of issues are mixed up in that question in connection with the Midlothian Council report this morning, which I will come back to in a second.

First, on the issues that Annabel Goldie raised at the end of her question, the point that I made earlier still stands. I believe that, when the Parliament was first created, her party had a better policy on school exclusions than my party. It was right to call for us to remove the target. I was determined to do that when I became First Minister, and I did so. However, that being the case, it is wrong to criticise schools or the system—which is in effect what happens when the Conservatives make these comments—for ensuring that the new policy is properly implemented and head teachers execute their responsibilities.

It is precisely because politicians exploit the issue of school exclusions that head teachers and teachers hesitate to make exclusions in the first place. We need to support them. When they make that judgment, we should encourage them to do so and to take effective action, while at the same time giving them every support to improve discipline in schools so that they do not need to make exclusions in future.

On the management of schools, the Executive has ensured that schools throughout Scotland have more devolved school management. We have done so not only by increasing such devolution in the first session of the Parliament, but by increasing it even further in this session, and by identifying those authorities that have not pursued devolved school management as effectively and energetically as they should and insisting that they do so. In addition, we have ensured that there is a system of inspection reports on local authorities so that we can check that they are carrying out their duties and responsibilities in relation to devolved school budgets and school management. Annabel Goldie is wrong about both those areas.

Annabel Goldie is also wrong in relation to the Midlothian Council report. In 2003, we instituted the new system of joint inspections precisely because youngsters were being mistreated in some areas of Scotland—some had actually died because of the inability of local departments to look after them properly. Following my election as First Minister, we introduced a new system of joint inspections. We have stood by that policy. We gave authorities three years to get their house in order, and we will now go through every authority with a joint inspection to check that they have done so. Where they have not, we expect action to be taken. Such youngsters, probably more than any others, deserve to be protected properly by the state at a local and a national level. We should leave no stone unturned in ensuring that the adults who are responsible for them—whether in their homes, in local authorities or in other agencies—work together to ensure that we get it right for every child. That is an absolute duty on and responsibility of 21st century government. As long as I am standing here, we will ensure that it happens.

Let us return to the environment of our schools. The clear message I am getting is that good, competent head teachers are hamstrung by state diktat from getting on with the jobs that their professional qualifications and experience equip them to do. The First Minister said that the Lib-Lab pact has improved devolved school management. How does the abolition of school boards do that?

On school discipline, my party previously revealed that there is an attack on a member of staff in a school every 12 minutes. What did the Lib-Lab pact do to rectify that problem? Did it give heads more power over exclusions? No—nothing as sensible as that; it stopped publishing the figures, and no wonder. The response to a recent Conservative freedom of information request—not a Conservative propaganda initiative—showed that physical violence in schools was up by 25 per cent in the past year alone. Will the First Minister start publishing those statistics again and stop hiding from Scotland's parents the true scale of violence in Scotland's schools?

I repeat some of the points that I made earlier. In this instance, the Conservative research department has done Lord James Douglas-Hamilton a great disservice by putting out those figures in his name. The figures are a gross distortion of the position. They have been taken from local authorities throughout Scotland on the basis of inaccurate and, at times, very different interpretations of information. They include, as I said earlier, figures on special schools, which have not been included in the past. It is brave of teachers to identify those incidents, but we all know that some youngsters, for all kinds of reasons—sometimes reasons that are purely physical due to the nature of their bodies—gesture and act in ways that have an impact on the adult standing or sitting next to them. There is no intention whatever on the part of a severely disabled youngster to be in that situation. Those figures are a gross distortion of the truth.

The head teacher whom I met on Monday at Stirling high school did not talk about the school board that the school used to have years ago. He was looking forward to the new building that his school will have next year. He was inspired by the school's committee of youngsters, which is helping to ensure that the school is a cleaner, better place for the pupils who come next. I was inspired by the head boy and the head girl, who showed a real dedication to duty and the sort of leadership that youngsters are now showing in our schools that helps to deal with school discipline and makes it sustainable. The Conservatives and the nationalists should occasionally praise such practices and improvements in our schools, rather than running down the teachers and the pupils who are doing so much to make Scotland a better place.

There are two brief supplementaries.

The First Minister will be aware of the 420 job losses in my constituency announced by Simclar (Ayrshire) Ltd on Monday. Will he join me in condemning the shoddy way in which the workforce was informed of the job losses? Some of them received texts. Will he undertake to investigate whether the company's actions breach the European worker information and consultation directive? Is he further aware that the company has indicated that it will look to the Department for Trade and Industry to make minimum statutory redundancy payments, although suggestions of asset stripping need to be investigated? Finally, will he agree to meet me urgently to discuss the resources that could be levered into the area to help us meet the substantial challenge that we will face in North Ayrshire to absorb those job losses?

I should not comment too much in advance of the various discussions, some of which Irene Oldfather mentioned. However, it appears to be the case that the company has not acted properly in carrying out its responsibilities. That is very unfortunate. Of course ministers will be willing to meet Irene Oldfather to discuss what further action is required.

On the key point of support for the area, we are conscious that we have made North Ayrshire a priority in our national regeneration strategy. Additional resources are already promised for the area and we are willing to discuss those further with the local member in due course.

I am sure that the First Minister appreciates the understandable concern of Muslim communities throughout Scotland, including in my Govan constituency, that has been caused by media reports that a significant number of Muslim members of our armed forces have been issued with safety information following recent arrests.

I know that the First Minister will meet imams later today. Will he please discuss with them those concerns and take the opportunity to reaffirm both to them and to us that we remain in Scotland an inclusive and tolerant nation and that all of us in the chamber are horrified by those threats?

Gordon Jackson makes a serious point on behalf of his constituents—I am sure that other members would wish to make the same point on behalf of their constituents throughout Scotland. By coincidence, I am indeed meeting the imams this afternoon at Bute House. I hope in the course of that discussion to give them an opportunity to raise community concerns with me. The meeting will also be an opportunity for me to reaffirm to them that we want an inclusive Scotland where extremists on all sides and racial discrimination of any kind will not be tolerated and where we work together to ensure that youngsters from whatever background feel part of our society and included in the public institutions of our country as well as in our local communities. I am sure that the imams will want to work with me and others to ensure that we can continue to deliver that in a modern, contemporary and inclusive Scotland.

---

Catholic Church (Adoption)

To ask the First Minister what recent discussions the Scottish Executive has had with representatives of the Catholic Church regarding adoption in Scotland. (S2F-2699)

Scottish ministers and Scottish Executive officials had a number of exchanges with representatives of the Catholic Church and of Catholic-origin adoption agencies before, during and after the passage of the Adoption and Children (Scotland) Act 2007. We have maintained that dialogue over recent days.

At any time during those discussions, has the Scottish Executive given an undertaking or come to an understanding with representatives of the church that exemptions to the Westminster legislation on equality would be made for its two adoption agencies in Scotland?

It is important to go back to the debate that took place on the issue in the chamber. It was a very passionate debate in which there were strong views on all sides. The minister who spoke for the Executive, Robert Brown, stated clearly that day that equalities legislation was United Kingdom legislation and that agencies will be required to comply with it and regulations that are made under it. No one who took part in the debate in the chamber that day was under any illusion about that.

It has become clear over recent weeks that there was concern about the impending decision of the UK Government on how it would implement that legislation. I hope that I reflected what I perceived to be the majority view of this Parliament when I spoke and made representations to the Prime Minister last weekend. I asked him to take on board the Scottish perspective in the final decisions that were reached this week. I believe that the decisions that have been announced are, at least, a step forward. We will continue to discuss with the agencies how best to implement them.

If the Presiding Officer will allow me to do so, I would like to take this opportunity to make one point. In 1991, I adopted two kids. That was the best thing that I ever did in my life. In every decision that we make about this subject, we should ensure that the interests of the kids who could be adopted or who have been adopted come first and we should never use the issue of adoption or the youngsters who could be affected as an excuse for political hypocrisy or point scoring. I hope that everyone in the chamber will remember that in the weeks and months ahead.

---

Road Safety

To ask the First Minister what additional measures the Scottish Executive considers should be taken to improve road safety, in light of recent fatalities in road accidents. (S2F-2689)

I would like first to offer my sincere condolences to the families and friends of those who lost their lives or were injured in the tragedies of last weekend and in recent days and weeks. I am sure that Fergus Ewing and others join me in doing so.

There have been many road improvements and safety education programmes over recent years, but Transport Scotland's forthcoming road safety plan, scheduled for publication in April 2007, will further improve road safety on the trunk road network through a safety engineering programme that will employ innovation and apply best available practice.

I entirely endorse the First Minister's sentiments.

Fourteen lives were lost on Scotland's roads last weekend alone. Does the First Minister agree that there should be a national debate about the measures that we can take to improve road safety and that, although prime responsibility must always rest with the driver, education—particularly of our young people, given the disproportionate number of young people dying in these accidents—is key? Does he agree that one suggestion, which might help in the long term to make a significant contribution to tackling the scourge of these deaths, would be to give 16 and 17-year-olds the option to study the highway code—and, perhaps even take the theoretical part of the driving test? That would enable them to equip themselves with the knowledge of road safety that they will need in later life?

I thank Fergus Ewing for the constructive nature of his question. I agree that, ultimately, responsibility for safe driving rests with the individual driver and that it is absolutely essential that people who drive on our roads take seriously the responsibility that they have for others.

There is a particular issue in relation to young drivers and I suspect that, although we might be irritated by the behaviour of some young drivers in our urban areas, there is a further specific issue in relation to road safety in our rural areas, given the journeys that some young people have to undertake in parts of Scotland. I know that Fergus Ewing will have had experience of that, just as I have.

There is a case for our thinking about how we introduce the issue of road safety to young people, whether in or outwith our schools. I would be happy to consider ideas that members have for improving the way in which we do that.

---

Autistic Spectrum Disorder (Teachers)

To ask the First Minister what action is being taken to ensure that teachers are fully equipped to support children with autistic spectrum disorder. (S2F-2691)

Through initial teacher education and continuous professional development we are improving teachers' skills so that they can support children

Does the First Minister agree that, given the increasing number of children who are being diagnosed with autism, teachers need to be supported, resourced and trained if we are to give young people the proper start in life and the educational opportunities that they need? Does he agree that the quality of service that is being offered at St Lucy's primary school in Cumbernauld is of a superb standard that should be encouraged across other schools and local authority areas, which could learn from the best practice that is on display in St Lucy's? Finally—

I am sorry, but we are very tight for time. Could I—

Finally, will the First Minister visit the school to see the good work that is being done there?

I cannot promise to visit the school, although I would be happy to consider any invitation that is made. However, I would like to praise the work of St Lucy's primary school, which Cathie Craigie has mentioned to me in the past. I am aware that it received a positive inspection report. The teachers at that school and, indeed, the parents do a terrific job for the youngsters. I am sure that, across Scotland, special units in mainstream schools, those who teach in our classrooms and special schools can all learn from one another to ensure that we improve education for youngsters.

---

Crichton Campus

To ask the First Minister how withdrawal of the University of Glasgow from the Crichton campus would affect the Scottish Executive's policies on access to lifelong learning. (S2F-2690)

The Crichton campus is important for Dumfries and south-west Scotland. I believe that the overall level of provision at the Crichton campus should be at least maintained, if not improved. Working with the Crichton partners, the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council is doing a crucial job in developing a strategy that will both enable that to happen and support a secure future for the campus involving a range of institutions. It has my full support in doing so.

I assure the First Minister that members of all parties will be encouraged by those words. However, is he aware that, during questions on enterprise, lifelong learning and transport on 19 January 2006, I asked the Deputy First Minister whether he accepted that, unless the Crichton campus received the capital funding that it required at that time, the partners might be forced to abandon the project? The Deputy First Minister replied:

"Let me make it clear that I would strongly resist any hint of the abandonment that Alex Fergusson described and would do whatever I could to prevent that."—[Official Report, 19 January 2006; c 22575.]

In the current, urgent circumstances, does the First Minister think it is acceptable that the invitation to enter urgent discussions that Dumfries and Galloway Council issued on 23 January has not received a substantive response? Will he undertake today to ensure that he or his deputy—or preferably both—come to Dumfries to meet all the parties involved and ensure that the University of Glasgow's presence continues in the way that the First Minister's predecessor, Donald Dewar, so robustly supported?

It would be wrong of me to comment on correspondence without prior notice. Obviously, I would be happy to do so if I saw it.

I want members of all parties to be aware that the Executive supports the Crichton campus and that the Deputy First Minister and I both whole-heartedly support not just the maintenance of the campus but its improvement and development. We also support the Scottish funding council's work to make sure that the right institutions are using the campus for the right purposes. That is why it is working not just with the University of Glasgow but with the University of Paisley and others to make sure that the availability of courses at the Crichton campus is right for the years ahead. The funding council has our full support in ensuring that the best possible range of courses and access for local people of all ages are maintained and improved.

I am grateful to the First Minister and members for continuing during the small disturbance in the gallery earlier. I will have a report from security this afternoon.

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—