Plenary, 03 Dec 2009

Meeting date: Thursday, December 3, 2009

Official Report 765KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Engagements

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-2055)

Later today I will have meetings to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland. I will also speak to Mr Carwyn Jones, the First Minister designate of Wales, to congratulate him on his election and on his declaration of an early referendum on Wales's constitutional future.

Is it the mark of a man, or the mark of a First Minister, to cast aside one of his own colleagues to save his own skin?

I note that Iain Gray timeously delivered a speech for St Andrew's day on 2 December, in which he said that the Parliament focused too much on personality and process. Perhaps he should have said that the Labour Party focuses on personality and process while the Government gets on with the job.

Let us focus on education, which is central to Scotland's future. On 5 September 2007, Hugh Henry said that the First Minister

"promised ... that he would reduce to 18 class sizes for primaries 1 to 3",

and asked:

"Can he confirm that his promise will be delivered in the lifetime of this parliamentary session?"—[Official Report, 5 September 2007; c 1378.]

The First Minister replied, "Yes, I can". Does he remember saying that?

I recall saying a whole range of things to Hugh Henry, including bemoaning the fact that Labour councils the length and breadth of Scotland do not share this Government's enthusiasm for smaller class sizes. As I reminded Iain Gray only this morning, it is a remarkable fact that although only one third—far too many—of councils in Scotland are under Labour's control, they are responsible for two thirds of the fall in teacher numbers in Scotland.

It was Iain Gray's predecessor who told the chamber that class sizes do not really matter. I think that they matter, this Government thinks that they matter, and the education secretary will bring the fresh thinking that will persuade even the Labour Party that they matter.

It was the First Minister who said in the chamber on 5 September 2007 that his Government would reduce class sizes to 18 in the first three years of primary school.

I have in my hand a minute of a meeting of the deans of the faculties of education in Scotland that was held on 2 July 2007. In attendance was senior civil servant Donald Henderson, who revealed the advice that was offered to ministers on the class size pledge:

"The scale of the commitment does not allow it to be delivered in the lifetime of a parliament."

The First Minister told Parliament the exact opposite two months later. I remember that, and I remember the look on Fiona Hyslop's face when he said it, because she knew that what he said was not true. Did he know that it was not true?

As Iain Gray well knows from the concordat, the promise was to reduce class sizes on a year-to-year basis and to show progress on that basis. It is truly remarkable that not a single Labour council in Scotland is prepared to show that progress, although they signed up to the concordat. Luckily, some councils in Scotland are doing the job. Let us look at the figures for East Ayrshire Council, which is under Scottish National Party control. Through increasing teacher numbers, albeit at a modest level, the council has taken advantage of the fall in school rolls to achieve a situation in which more than 40 per cent of pupils in primaries 1 to 3 are in class sizes of 18 or fewer. Perhaps Iain Gray could have a word with his Labour colleagues in council chambers around Scotland, with his back benchers and with his front benchers, such as Jackie Baillie, and try to get them to be as enthusiastic on low class sizes as is every member of the Government.

Never mind the council chambers around the country—my question is about the First Minister's words in the parliamentary chamber. The First Minister misled the chamber on 5 September 2007. He made a promise that he knew he could not keep and then he left his education secretary to dangle. How must Fiona Hyslop have felt sitting there, tied to a promise that they both knew they could not keep? She sat there for two long years taking the flak for Alex Salmond and, in the end, she was sacrificed to save his neck. Will he admit that she was just the scapegoat and that he is the guilty man?

As I said this morning, Fiona Hyslop has made substantial achievements as education secretary, not least of which are the legislation on rural schools, the apprenticeships initiative, which is helping economic recovery, and the restoration of free education for the people of Scotland. She continues as a valuable member of the Administration.

Incidentally, if Iain Gray is not concerned with personality and process, why is it that Labour members have called for the resignation of every member of the Administration, with the sole exception being me? At some point, he had better get round to calling for my resignation; then, I hope, we shall face the people and see who they want to be their First Minister.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S3F-2056)

I have no plans to meet the Prime Minister in the near future.

For some time now, the First Minister has been desperately denying that there is anything wrong with education in Scotland. In fact, just a few weeks ago, he told me that he put on record his "approval and endorsement" of the then Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning—poor woman. Obviously, his sacking of Fiona Hyslop is a belated admission that something is very far wrong. Was it the 10,000 pupils who leave school each year unable to read or write properly that made him sack Fiona Hyslop? Was it the 2,000 fewer teachers than two years ago that made him sack Fiona Hyslop? Was it possibly Scotland's below-average global ranking for mathematics and science that made him sack Fiona Hyslop? Or was it none of the above, because he thinks that there is nothing wrong, which begs the question: why did he sack Fiona Hyslop?

It clearly was not the international comparisons that Annabel Goldie cites, first, because those were comparisons up to 2007 and, secondly, because they are not considered on a like-for-like basis. We have said that we needed the changes because fresh thinking was required to try to instil in council chambers around Scotland—all of them—the Administration's enthusiasm for lower class sizes. I have figures, set out by party-political council leadership in Scotland, which show that SNP-led councils have the lowest primary school teacher pupil ratio in Scotland. That is a matter for congratulation. However, perhaps the Liberal and Labour parties should consider that Conservative-led councils—although I accept that there are not very many of them—have the second-lowest pupil teacher ratio of council chambers round Scotland. I hope that Annabel Goldie will join the Administration in seeking to persuade all councils in Scotland to share the enthusiasm for low class sizes that is a mark of the Administration and on which we intend to deliver.

Of course, I believe in genuine devolution of local control to local government; I do not believe in central Government telling local government what to do. Sacking Fiona Hyslop does not get Alex Salmond off the hook. He wrote the SNP manifesto and concocted the undeliverable pledges, and he must accept that he got it wrong and that we need a new direction for education in Scotland.

What is the First Minister's position? Is it the Fiona Hyslop model of centralised control of education by the state, or is it the Mike Russell vision that "power in education" should

"be transferred to the school and where power lies"

and

"so should resource and the ability to decide",

which is also the Conservative position? In only 48 hours, is the First Minister already at odds with his new education minister?

I watched Michael Russell speak in the education debate this morning, rallying the chamber to his approach to education. [Laughter.]

Order.

Well, I note that Michael Russell became Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning without a single vote being cast against his appointment. However, even he was beginning to look a wee bit anxious when Annabel Goldie suggested that he might be developing Tory tendencies. He absolutely denies that he will ever go down that road.

In all this brouhaha, let us remember that the average primary class size in Scotland has now reached a record low of 23.1 pupils—an historic low in Scotland. Annabel Goldie and I may disagree on a whole range of things, but I believe that councils have to have discretion across the range of services. I also believe that, when a concordat is made and certain agreed provisions are signed up to, the Government has the right to expect councils—not just some councils but all councils—to hold to the commitment to policy implementation. Lower class sizes are very much in the interests of the Scottish people.

While school autonomy and local discretion are hugely important, this is a national Parliament, and a national Parliament with an aspiration to improve education must find the mechanism to ensure that its policy can be applied across the country. That is exactly the step that the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning set out this morning.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-2057)

Issues of importance to the people of Scotland.

The First Minister said that he watched on television Michael Russell's first speech as Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning. In his speech, Mr Russell said that the situation in Scottish education was not hunky-dory, but was not a crisis. What does "not hunky-dory" mean?

It means that Scottish education performs well every day of the week, as Michael Russell said. He was bemoaning the fact that some politicians in the chamber—whether Liberal Democrat, Labour or Conservative—seek to undermine the achievements of Scottish education for party-political advantage—[Interruption.]

Order.

Examination results in Scotland are at a record high and class sizes in primary schools are at a record low. Scottish teachers and pupils are performing well. We have an issue in trying to generate enthusiasm for low class sizes across the council chambers of Scotland. In that regard, we should remember that Liberal Democrat councils are second only to Labour councils in having the highest class sizes in Scotland.

Presumably, that all enthusiastically explains why the First Minister sacked Fiona Hyslop. When did he decide to remove her from her post? Was it when the Times Educational Supplement Scotland said that five out of six new teachers do not have a permanent job? Was it when teacher numbers dropped by 1,300 in one year, which was the reason that his press spokesman gave the BBC? Or was it when he found out that every other party in the Parliament was sick of the excuses and wanted change? Michael Russell says that this is not an education crisis. What is it? Is it a political crisis? Is having to sack an education secretary a personal crisis for a First Minister?

Tavish Scott was in his place this morning when I pointed out that, when it comes to ministerial changes, this Administration is a sea of tranquillity compared with the musical chairs for which the previous Administration was known. Among those musical chairs was the resignation of Tavish Scott because he could not stomach Ross Finnie's policy on fishing.

When we look at the achievements of Scottish education, which I have listed, Mike Russell's formula seems absolutely correct. Yes, Scottish children and teachers are achieving results every single day, but there is no room for complacency—we all want to make improvements. At last, perhaps, the Liberal Democrats and every other party represented in the chamber will get behind the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning to see whether we can introduce those improvements for Scotland.

Mr Salmond is right to say that I resigned over the principle of fisheries policy. When he resigned from the Parliament to go back to Westminster, did he do so on a point of principle?

The point that I was making was that Tavish Scott's was only one of 17 ministerial departures during the first Administration and 11 ministerial departures during the second Administration. The member should, therefore, be delighted by the stability of this SNP Administration, as we work for Scotland on a daily basis.

---

Throat Cancer (University of Milan Study)

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's response is to the findings in the University of Milan study indicating that Scotland has the highest rate of deaths in Europe from throat cancer. (S3F-2059)

The Scottish Government is aware of the study that was undertaken by the University of Milan and is considering its findings. The figures in the study to which the member refers are very concerning, but it should be noted that deaths from head and neck cancers in Scotland have fallen by 13.5 per cent in the 10 years to 2008 and that the incidence of head and neck cancers is down by 6.2 per cent in the decade to 2006. Between April and June this year, 94.6 per cent of eligible urgently referred patients with head and neck cancers were treated within 62 days of referral, which means that the national 62-day target for eligible urgent referrals has been met in three successive quarters.

Cancer is a top priority for both NHS Scotland and the Scottish Government. Our "Better Cancer Care" action plan will make a difference to all aspects of cancer care, including prevention, screening, referral, diagnosis, treatment and support. A range of actions is already in place to tackle the known risk factors for throat cancers and other head and neck cancers, which include alcohol consumption, smoking and poor diet.

The president of the Royal College of Physicians is quoted today as saying that there is "compelling evidence" that abuse of alcohol and the harm that it causes are linked to price. With alcohol being identified in the Milan report as a leading cause of oesophageal cancer—the incidence of which the World Health Organization estimates will increase by 64.3 per cent between 2000 and 2020—does the First Minister share my hope that all parties represented in the chamber will put aside political advantage, in the same way as was done for the ban on smoking in public places, and work constructively towards measures that will change Scotland's relationship with alcohol?

Yes, I do. We know that alcohol is a contributory factor in many conditions, including throat cancer. The Administration has never claimed that minimum pricing is a silver bullet. However, as the member indicated, there is a consensus in the medical community that it can be a key weapon in tackling the kind of alcohol misuse that can lead to many dangerous diseases. I call on MSPs from all parties to do the right thing for Scotland's health and to get behind all the proposals in the Alcohol etc (Scotland) Bill, especially those that are supported by medical experts, doctors, nurses, the police and the licensed trade. I am glad that not one but two former health ministers in the Parliament have confirmed their support for the bill. As the smoking ban has shown, legislation can play a role in driving the cultural change that all of us agree is necessary.

I thank the First Minister for accepting that minimum unit pricing is not a silver bullet. The Labour Party accepts the link between price and consumption. However, does the First Minister accept that he could do something now, with which the whole chamber would agree, to improve the mortality rate of those with oesophageal cancer? Does he agree with Ochre, a national charity based in Scotland, that early and accurate diagnosis of that rapidly developing cancer is needed? Will he therefore ensure both that clear guidance is issued to general practitioners on diagnosis of the cancer, so that patients are sent for testing more quickly, and that there is better access to testing facilities, with endoscopy clinics in primary care facilities? I am sure that he will agree that that would have the effect of saving lives now.

Early diagnosis is a key part of the cancer strategy, as Jackie Baillie is well aware. As I indicated in my initial answer—I am sure that she will be delighted about this—the national 62-day target for referrals in cases of the cancers that Jamie Hepburn mentioned has been met in three successive quarters. That is good news that should be welcomed by members across the chamber.

It is not new for the Government to say that minimum pricing is not a silver bullet—Nicola Sturgeon has indicated that on many occasions. Equally, it is not new for Labour spokesmen to say that they think price has a role in the consumption of alcohol. Surely if the Labour Party had other price mechanisms, such as taxation, in mind as a policy, we might have expected the Calman commission to propose the transfer of powers, which would have given this Parliament provenance over such taxation powers. In the meantime, is it not our responsibility to take action using the powers that we have and to pursue a minimum price policy?

---

Independence Referendum

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government considers that £12 million spent on a referendum is the best use of taxpayers' money in a recession. (S3F-2071)

The moneys to be spent on a referendum will be indicated in the referendum bill that will come before the Parliament. If Scotland chooses, in a national referendum, to increase the powers of the Parliament and to become independent, the many benefits that I can see accruing include this Parliament and this nation not having to contribute £9 million for the House of Lords every year, £32 million for our share of the House of Commons every year or £8 million for the Secretary of State for Scotland every year. That is money that we should invest every year in making Scotland more successful, and it far outweighs the cost of a one-off referendum.

Does the First Minister acknowledge that today's MORI poll puts support for independence at just 20 per cent, and that support for independence is falling? Could that be due the fact that, after two and a half years of a Scottish National Party Administration, the people of Scotland have got a glimpse of the SNP's vision for their country and are rejecting it?

If Alex Salmond, the new member in charge of the referendum bill, cannot persuade respected nationalists such as Jim Sillars and Gordon Wilson about his doomed referendum bill, has he considered the possibility that he might just be wrong? Where will Alex Salmond succeed where Mike Russell has failed?

I thank agent Pauline McNeill for allowing me to talk about today's MORI poll. The real figures published by MORI, as opposed to the fake figures in a Labour Party press release, show that the Scottish National Party is ahead not just in Holyrood voting intentions but in Westminster voting intentions.

On the subject of a referendum, I was generous enough to congratulate Carwyn Jones, who is to be First Minister of Wales, on his election. Pauline McNeill will have heard that Carwyn Jones is an enthusiast for a referendum on Wales's constitutional future. Perhaps that point should be considered. Perhaps the SNP is moving ahead, as shown in today's MORI poll, because the people of Scotland are wondering why the Labour Party wants an alternative transferable vote referendum in England and a constitutional referendum in Wales but is trying to deprive the people of Scotland of the right to have a say on their own constitutional future.

Will the First Minister confirm that it is still the Scottish Government's intention to find a way to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in the referendum on Scotland's future, unlike that of the Opposition parties, which are refusing to let any voter in Scotland have a democratic say on the constitution?

Of course, a surge in support for the SNP among 16 and 17-year-olds cannot be the reason for our moving ahead in the MORI poll, since they were not counted in MORI's sample.

I hope that the Parliament will decide that 16-year-olds should be entitled to vote on things that affect their future, as will happen in relation to elections to health boards. For the referendum bill, we will have to use the current franchise that is available to people. Nonetheless, I am sure that Aileen Campbell, on behalf of the young people of Scotland, will continue to put forward her argument. From this First Minister at least she will get receptive concern and answers.

Does the First Minister now regret not taking up my offer some 18 months ago, before the global economic downturn, of parliamentary support for an early referendum?

I am not certain that this is Wendy Alexander's strongest suit. There is a hopeful aspect to the Wendy Alexander initiative last year, which at the time was loyally supported by Iain Gray. We might come to the conclusion that, if the Labour Party can change its mind twice—as it has done already in this parliamentary session, given that it now opposes a referendum—a third change of mind next year is not beyond the bounds of possibility. I am sure that Wendy Alexander will encourage her colleagues to allow the people of Scotland to have that say on this nation's future.

At the meeting of the Finance Committee on 9 November, I asked the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth whether there was provision in the 2010-11 budget for the referendum. He said that there was not. I responded that he would therefore have to find the money

"by cutting something that is in the budget".

The cabinet secretary responded:

"I would have to make a choice in order to provide for a referendum bill—yes."—[Official Report, Finance Committee, 9 November 2009; c 1654.]

Education, housing, transport and health budgets are protected. From what line in the 2010-11 budget would the referendum costs come?

The cost of the referendum will be in the referendum bill, but if it were to be £9 million, that would be 0.03 per cent of total Scottish Government expenditure.

I have been teasing the Labour Party about its support for a referendum elsewhere. I remind Jeremy Purvis that the Liberals seem to be enthusiasts for a referendum on whether we should be in or out of Europe. Incidentally, they enthusiastically back the new Welsh First Minister in his call for an early referendum in Wales. Why on earth does the Liberal party want to consult the people on everything except the constitutional future of this nation?

Can the First Minister tell us how many of the contributors to the national conversation online discussion are in fact cybernats who are working for SNP parliamentarians at taxpayers' expense?

There were 500,000 hits on the national conversation website. That reflects a substantial amount of interest. If we consider the relative sizes of the national conversation and the Conservative party, I do not think that the Conservatives made a substantial contribution to the national conversation.

The national conversation engaged the people of Scotland at public meetings the length and breadth of the country. If Murdo Fraser wants to put it to the test, as I understand that Conservatives, including his old friend and sponsor Mr Michael Forsyth, do on a range of issues, perhaps they will join Wendy Alexander in supporting the right of the people of Scotland to have a say on expanding the powers of the Parliament, so that we can tackle all the issues and achieve what all of us would like to achieve for the people of this nation.

---

Education (National Debate)

To ask the First Minister, following the most recent drop in teacher numbers, what plans the Scottish Government has to hold a national debate on the future of the education system. (S3F-2061)

We should remember that this year Scotland has achieved an average primary school class size of 23.1 pupils—the lowest on record. We must also acknowledge that progress needs to be made on reducing primary 1 to primary 3 class sizes to 18 or fewer. That is why the Scottish Government is committed to taking a fresh look at how best to reduce class sizes. I have asked Michael Russell, whose post was confirmed by the Parliament this morning, to lead that work. He has made it clear that all stakeholders—particularly teachers, parents and pupils but, of course, local authorities as well—should participate fully and actively in the national debate on education. That is essential.

Does the First Minister agree with his new Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, who said that the debate on school education should be completely shorn of ideological prejudice and should encourage much more diversity in school management?

Of course, prejudice is never part of this Government's approach to any debate, so there will be no prejudice of any kind from us. The ideology that we will have is that the education system should do its best for future generations of young Scots. That is an ideology to which we should all sign up.

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—