Plenary, 05 Jun 2008

Meeting date: Thursday, June 5, 2008

Official Report 777KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Engagements

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-843)

Later today, I will have meetings to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland, including meetings to look at the serious impact of rising energy prices throughout Scotland's industries and public services.

The Scottish National Party boasts of record funding for councils this year, so why do teachers, their unions and Scotland's directors of education agree that most councils will suffer education cuts this year?

There is no doubt about the figure for council spending in Scotland—it will be £34.9 billion in 2008 to 2011, an increase of 13.1 per cent over that period. That represents, for the first time in a generation, a rising share of the Scottish Government's budget. Given that Wendy Alexander, as I understand her position, believes that the Scottish budget was a generous settlement from Westminster—nobody else believes it, but she does—why does she not accept that, if there is a rising share for local government, it is getting an extremely good deal?

If everything is as rosy as the First Minister would have us believe, why, for the first time since devolution, will the leadership of the country's largest teaching union call at its conference tomorrow for ballots on industrial action to resist the education cuts?

Wendy Alexander should look at recent history. The Educational Institute of Scotland passed motions in 2004 and 2006 for industrial action. I do not think that industrial action is the way in which to progress a campaign for lower class sizes, but I agree with the EIS that lower class sizes are a desirable aim. In that, I join with the EIS and with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, through the concordat between Scottish Government and local government. The one person I know who does not agree with that is Wendy Alexander, who told The Scotsman last year that class sizes were not a particularly important indicator. Whatever else we might say, will Wendy Alexander join the consensus that class sizes are important and join with the SNP and local government in getting lower class sizes in Scottish schools?

Scotland's teachers do not like being conned any more than anyone else does. Last week, the First Minister could not answer the most basic questions on his class size promise. The growing crisis in classrooms up and down the country now runs much deeper. In the past week, The Times Educational Supplement has predicted a jobs crisis for new teachers. A survey of the directors of education shows that most councils are having to make cuts. The EIS general secretary has said:

"talk to any education authority and it will tell you how awful the settlement is".

According to the general secretary of the Headteachers Association of Scotland, Scottish education is in meltdown. Will the First Minister do the unthinkable and, for once, provide a serious answer? What will his Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning do to stop the cuts?

Let us take a look round Scotland to see the reality of what is happening with teachers and in schools and local authorities. Wendy Alexander's local authority, Renfrewshire Council, is introducing measures to lower class sizes. Fife Council is investing in improving education £9.6 million of the additional £40 million over three years that was won for the council. West Lothian Council and Stirling Council, under SNP control, are taking measures to reduce class sizes. East Ayrshire Council, another SNP council, is increasing its education budget this year by no less than 6.9 per cent. Of course, those councils are SNP led, and it might be that I want to make the political point that SNP councils place a higher priority on such matters than do other councils.

However, fair is fair, and I have been looking round the country. I have been looking at the councils that are abiding by the COSLA concordat with the Scottish Government on reducing class sizes. Only last week, COSLA said that it was moving towards that aim. I was struck by this quotation:

"The investment of 11 additional teachers will mean that 35 primary classes in the targeted schools are restricted to 18 or fewer pupils for the start of term in August. This represents a significant further step by the council to ensure the resources are provided to raise educational attainment within the schools serving priority communities."

The quotation is from Councillor Eddie McAvoy, the leader of the Labour South Lanarkshire Council. If one of the few remaining Labour councils in Scotland can move in that direction, why cannot the others?

I direct the First Minister to the survey of directors of education: most councils are having to make cuts.

When I first raised these concerns about education cuts back in February, I was accused of scaremongering. This week, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning received a letter from 80 teachers and staff at Paisley grammar school. I quote:

"We wish to express … our growing sense of outrage and disbelief, at the effects the cuts to the education budget are having, on our school's ability to deliver a quality education for our pupils."

Is the First Minister now accusing the staff and parents of Paisley grammar school of scaremongering too?

No, I think that I will reserve that charge for Wendy Alexander, who is not able to face the subject. She is the only person I know of in Scotland who says that class sizes do not really matter. In The Scotsman on 11 September last year, she said:

"Class sizes are not a good measure of what matters."

In a debate last year, Karen Whitefield said:

"I assure the cabinet secretary that no Labour member is against a reduction in class sizes."—[Official Report, 5 December 2007; c 4077.]

Unfortunately, she did not proof that with her leader, who is one of the few people who do not think that class sizes matter.

An increasing number of local councils—I have listed some from across the country, and my statement is validated by figures that have been confirmed by COSLA—are moving to improve their education budgets and reduce class sizes. The reason why that is possible, within a tight financial settlement, is the historic concordat between central Government and local government in Scotland.

I read some comment today about the number of probationers who are getting into full-time employment as teachers in Scotland. The figure has reached 92.7 per cent. Now, I wish that the figure were higher than 92.7 per cent, but Wendy Alexander should consider that, in the last full year of Labour control, the figure was 91.8 per cent. Will she now acknowledge that improvements are being made in teacher employment across Scotland?

With respect, First Minister, it is for Wendy Alexander to ask the questions. Does Ms Alexander wish to ask a final question?

Yes, thank you, Presiding Officer.

The First Minister can give it out, but he cannot take it. The directors of education say that most councils are making cuts. Is he accusing the directors of education of scaremongering too?

I have named some councils—Fife, West Lothian, Stirling and East Ayrshire—and I have talked about the improvements. I have even—in the generosity of spirit for which I am famed and renowned—complimented South Lanarkshire Council. If all those councils are able to respond to the initiatives in the concordat, why on earth cannot the ones that Wendy Alexander is perhaps more familiar with than I am do exactly the same? It is time for her to face facts.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S3F-844)

I have no immediate plans to meet the Prime Minister, although I have been in correspondence with him in the past few days.

I will ask the First Minister about a condition that does not hit the headlines but which the chief medical officer in England has described as "a Cinderella issue" and as one that

"is known internationally as the silent killer."

I refer to thrombosis, which is commonly known as a blood clot.

I think that everyone in the Parliament is familiar with the tragedy that confronted the McPherson family of Langbank. I pay tribute to Gordon McPherson for his courage and the excellent work that he has done.

Most people will be astonished to learn that thrombosis is responsible for more than 12,000 deaths a year in Scotland. When I say that that is nearly four times the combined total of all those who die from breast cancer, HIV/AIDS and road traffic accidents, we can all see that the description "silent killer" is chillingly apt.

I am aware that guidelines are being reviewed and that a consultation on draft guidelines is expected in 2009. Given the condition's seriousness, does the First Minister really think that expecting a consultation on draft guidelines some time next year is treating the subject with the urgency that it deserves?

As Annabel Goldie knows, consultation is important. She will also know that we recently funded Lifeblood: the Thrombosis Charity to produce an information leaflet. I share her concern about thrombosis and I agree with her graphic but serious description. I shall certainly write to or meet her if she feels that further discussion about prioritisation would help.

It is estimated that one in 20 people carry a gene that increases their risk of developing a blood clot. Acquired conditions such as pregnancy and cancer also increase the risk of developing a thrombosis. Given the magnitude of annual deaths from thrombosis in Scotland, does the First Minister accept the urgent need to consider intervention such as testing for that gene, for which a simple test is available? Will he consult his chief medical officer and report to the Parliament as soon as practicable? We can no longer sit back and ignore the silent killer.

Screening is available for people with a family history of thrombosis, but I undertake to consult the chief medical officer on whether further measures would help in tackling this serious problem. I will come back to Annabel Goldie on that.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-845)

At its next meeting, the Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.

On 11 January, the Scottish Government issued a press release that claimed that Glasgow Science Centre would receive "a major cash injection". Here it is—it says:

"Hyslop Hails Bright Future for Glasgow Science Centre".

She said that the centre played "a vital role" and was "flying high". After all that propaganda, did the First Minister expect the money from his Government for the centre to go up or down?

The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning has met Kirk Ramsay, the centre's chief executive, and we will take forward the issue seriously.

Well—such warm words were exactly what the Government's press release contained, but the reality is that last year's grant of £1.7 million became £1.4 million this year and that more cuts will be made next year and the year after. That represents a 40 per cent cut in funding.

The centre has international standing, hundreds of thousands of visitors every year and a mission to inspire children about science. It has targets to attract young people from the most disadvantaged communities in Scotland. Given that, why did the First Minister's Government decide to cut the centre's money this year, next year and the year after? Will he agree to stop the cuts at the centre now? Will he tell us who else has been promised a bright future and who else is flying high, so that they can check their wallets before it is too late?

I would never promise Nicol Stephen a bright future, and I do not think that anybody else in politics would either.

I want to make a serious point. The talks in which the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning was involved with the chief executive of the Glasgow Science Centre were actually on the extension of funding in period terms and putting all science centres in Scotland on a secure and sustainable footing. I would have thought that Nicol Stephen would think that there was something to welcome in those talks and in having such a constructive attitude.

I have a number of requests from members to ask supplementary questions. I will do my best to get in as many such questions as possible.

The First Minister will be aware of the tragic accident that happened yesterday on the A9 at Pitlochry, which involved a head-on collision between two cars on a single-carriageway stretch of the road. The accident left two dead; others had serious injuries. I am sure that the First Minister will want to join me in sending condolences to the families of those who were involved.

I recently obtained answers to parliamentary questions that showed that the accident rate on the single-carriageway sections of the A9 is four times that on the dual-carriageway sections. Does the First Minister accept that there is an unanswerable case for upgrading the remaining single-carriageway sections of the A9 between Perth and Inverness to dual-carriageway status? Can he say how and when his Government will progress that work?

First, I want to express my sympathy for the victims and casualties of the accident that Murdo Fraser mentioned.

Murdo Fraser will know that work is going on at the moment on the A9. Earlier this year, I inspected the safety improvements and dualling that is taking place at Ballinluig. A programme to dual the A9, which is part of the infrastructure plan, is going forward. The programme is a step-by-step programme that considers priority areas—that must be done in government. Nonetheless, work is going on, and I know that Murdo Fraser will welcome that.

The First Minister will be aware of the announcement that Freescale Semiconductor made earlier this week about the closure of its East Kilbride plant. Some 750 or more jobs in the community will potentially be lost, which is a devastating blow for employees of that company, their families and the local economy. The closure of the plant will not be immediate, but the early indications are that it will close early in 2009. Will the First Minister give an assurance that the enterprise agencies and others will use the intervening period effectively to ensure that the highly skilled and loyal workforce that is involved will receive advice on gaining future employment and support for that? Will he give an assurance that the research and development jobs that are based in East Kilbride will stay in East Kilbride?

I have read comments that Andy Kerr has made on the matter. He has acknowledged and welcomed the work that Scottish Development International has done over the past year since the initial announcement that was made. Closure of the plant is now the likely option, as he rightly said—that is what the company has suggested. That will be a severe blow, but I give him the assurance that there will be the usual intervention to help the workforce find future employment. There are fewer research and development jobs, but he will welcome, as I do, the work that SDI has done with the company to secure those jobs for Scotland.

The lack of ability to market the plant as a going concern sends out serious messages for part—and only part—of the electronics sector in Scotland. However, I hope that we will be able to retain and, over time, grow the research and development jobs. Perhaps that points the way to how industrial strategy can be switched in areas in which Scotland remains outstandingly internationally competitive.

Is the First Minister aware that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency has published draft regulations that, if brought into force, will force all ship-to-ship transfers to take place within harbour authority areas? Does he agree that those regulations would leave the Firth of Forth wide open to many further applications to transfer oil there? Will he make representations to the MCA on the need to exclude the Firth of Forth from those regulations? Does what has happened not illustrate again the need for the Parliament to have powers to regulate ship-to-ship oil transfers in Scottish waters?

I agree with much of what Tricia Marwick says. However, it is important to acknowledge that at least there is recognition that some form of overall regulation is necessary and that there should be a coherent system for ship-to-ship transfers. I do not think that anyone in the Parliament would think it appropriate to have to keep on revisiting individual proposals. In the case of the Firth of Forth, I think that the entire Parliament and every community around the Forth estuary have found the situation totally unacceptable.

Tricia Marwick's final question is crucial. It seems obvious to me, given our environmental responsibilities, that powers over ship-to-ship transfers should be transferred to the Parliament so that we can do our job in representing the best interests of the Scottish people.

---

Sexual Health

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government plans to take additional measures in light of the increase in sexually transmitted diseases and their possible impact on fertility. (S3F-860)

The rise in the number of sexually transmitted infections in Scotland is of great concern although, in part, it reflects an increase in testing. We have matched previous levels of funding by investing £15 million over three years in the national sexual health strategy. We have also gone beyond that with additional funding to improve access to independent sexual health information in rural areas.

Early diagnosis and treatment will help to prevent longer-term problems that may be associated with STIs, including infertility. National health service boards have a central role to play in implementing the sexual health strategy. They are working to increase testing for STIs, especially chlamydia, in those who are under the age of 25.

The First Minister will be aware that there is good evidence that marginalised groups of young people who suffer from low self-esteem and lack of confidence are more likely to suffer the consequences of poor sexual health yet are least likely to take up existing services—a situation that should worry members of all parties. Does the First Minister share that concern?

I do share that concern. As Ian McKee will be aware, the new sexual health standards that were published by NHS Quality Improvement Scotland in March include a new target for chlamydia testing of young people in particular. For the first time, there is also a standard on tracing the former partners of those who have been diagnosed with an STI.

Ian McKee makes an important point about the situation of disadvantaged people, which is worthy of pursuit—on a cross-party basis, if he wishes—between him and the Minister for Public Health. They may wish to consider in particular the arguments around how the initiatives that we are taking will impact on the more socially deprived communities.

What action is the First Minister's Government taking to ensure that people who live in the most remote areas of Scotland have local and real, physical access to sexual health clinics?

I have talked about the additional funding that is being provided to improve access to independent sexual health information in rural areas. That additional funding is being provided this year to do exactly that. The member would do well to join Ian McKee in looking at the issue and meeting the Minister for Public Health.

---

Renewable Capacity (Public Buildings)

To ask the First Minister, on world environment day, whether the Scottish Government remains committed to ensuring that there is a renewable capacity in each public building. (S3F-853)

As the member knows, our target of reducing CO2 emissions by 80 per cent by 2050 means that we must transform the way in which we use, save and generate energy. The Government's ambition is to see renewable capacity in every Scottish community, and that includes our public buildings. This is a generational transformation, which is why, for example, we are tasking the Scottish futures trust with ensuring that new public buildings are also green public buildings.

Indeed, our leading by example programme will lift all aspects of environmental performance across the public sector. We are targeting practical and financial support for on-site renewables to where that will have the most effect. As the member knows, we have tripled the funding for community generation and microgeneration—£13.5 million is being made available each year, compared with the previous Administration's £4.5 million. We are extending the public sector fund for energy efficiency to allow it to be used to support renewables technologies as well as energy efficiency. We are also providing additional expertise specifically to support an increase in the installation of renewable energy technology in Scotland's schools.

I welcome the First Minister's commitment to move in the right direction on the issue and his acknowledgement of the importance of having renewables in every public building in order to reduce CO2 emissions and of the Government leading by example. Will he, therefore, set specific carbon reduction targets and a completion date for those commitments? Given the fact that the Scottish National Party manifesto promised to kick-start the process with the installation of renewables technology in every school in Scotland, will he clarify what specific resources have been made available to deliver on that promise, either by the Government or by local authorities? Will he tell us when that promise will be delivered on? One of the first acts of the new SNP council in Edinburgh was to remove three renewables projects from the new schools programme that it inherited from Labour.

I am sure that Sarah Boyack will acknowledge that I listed the increased funding that is available for community generation and microgeneration. Just this week, in an historic joint launch with the Scottish Green Party, we launched a climate change fund of £18 million to enable communities throughout Scotland to tackle climate change issues and embrace renewables.

Sarah Boyack is right. We identified in our manifesto, on page 29, the opportunity to move towards renewable generation in Scottish schools. In addition to the various initiatives that I listed—she had the courtesy to acknowledge that she approves of those—there will be more announcements shortly on how we can realise the ambition of having renewable capacity in Scotland's schools.

I am just as patient as the First Minister is generous in spirit. I seek his guidance on getting the answer to a question that I have asked eight times. It was first lodged on 10 January 2006, and Mr MacAskill answered it on 18 January 2006. Will the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body publish details of the Parliament's energy performance, as required by the European Union energy performance of buildings directive, which came into force on 4 January 2006? The directive requires a large, easily read poster to be put in a prominent place so that people can see how energy efficient we are—or are not.

I cannot ask the First Minister to speak for the SPCB, but I am sure that he will want to.

Presiding Officer, I would not presume to comment on your duties or those of the corporate body. As Margo MacDonald well knows, I give her guidance and help as often as I possibly can.

I saw some interest around the chamber when she mentioned 2006. Kenny MacAskill was not a minister then, but he answered the question for the corporate body.

Although I am happy and enthusiastic to give Margo MacDonald as much guidance as possible, it would be prudent for me to accept the Presiding Officer's guidance and leave the matter, interesting and important though it is, to the corporate body and the Presiding Officer.

---

High-speed Rail Links

I noted the previous question.

To ask the First Minister what discussions have taken place at ministerial or official level regarding the construction of high-speed rail links between Scotland and England. (S3F-862)

I congratulate Alex Johnstone on being the first member to answer a question before asking one.

The Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change met the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Tom Harris MP, on 28 May to discuss the potential for a high-speed rail link between Scotland and England. As I said in the chamber on 6 March, a fast rail link is likely to carry substantial support throughout the parties in the Parliament. According to a recent report by Atkins, the Scottish economy could benefit from such a link by up to £7.3 billion. We therefore continue to press the United Kingdom Government to work with us towards that aim, at the same time as finding ways to improve journey times for existing services.

I am delighted that the First Minister is once again bringing his Government into a position of agreeing with a Conservative party manifesto commitment. However, given that Scotland has and will continue to have significant commitments on carbon reduction, it is embarrassing that we now have such a large number of flights between Scotland and the nation's capital. Consequently, will the First Minister press forward with a comprehensive feasibility study that begins to move the project from policy and manifesto documents to the drawing board and, ultimately, to trains that connect us to the European high-speed rail network?

I was busy nodding along with Alex Johnstone and was going to give him a tremendously supportive answer until he started talking about national capitals and ruined it all.

Where we are shows some indications of progress. As Alex Johnstone will remember, in December 2006 the then Secretary of State for Transport received a report from Rod Eddington, the former chief executive of British Airways, which astonishingly came to the conclusion that such a fast link should not be a great priority. I am sure that his former employment had nothing whatsoever to do with that unfortunate conclusion.

We have moved on to some extent. There has been no commitment by the United Kingdom Government, but at least Network Rail has been charged with studying capacity solutions for cross-border services. It will be able to consider all options for improving capacity, specifically including high-speed rail and, of course, improvements in the current service.

I am not overegging the situation because Tom Harris made it clear that there was no commitment from the UK Government to the proposal, but we have at least moved a little from the position in December 2006. Given recent events in the world, there must be a growing realisation that high-speed rail should be considered in all seriousness as the logical, intelligent and environmental way to carry the bulk of journeys between Scotland and however we want to describe the city of London and elsewhere.

I must confess that I had absolutely no idea that a high-speed rail link was in the Conservative party's manifesto, but we must not let that unfortunate fact cloud what might be a really good idea.

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—