Cabinet (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-2340)
As ever, we will discuss issues of importance to Scotland.
I wish the school a very happy birthday and I wish Margo MacDonald a speedy recovery and return to the chamber.
I make it very clear that local authorities have an absolute duty to deliver that service properly. The local authorities in Scotland that deliver the service willingly by using their budgets properly are to be congratulated. Those local authorities that do not should step up to the mark and meet their obligations; if they do not, there are clear procedures that will be followed.
Is it not the case that half of all councils operated waiting lists last year and that several councils, including North Lanarkshire Council in the First Minister's area, are already doing so this year? The First Minister's answer suggests that he thinks that that is not acceptable and that there is no excuse for it.
It took Ms Sturgeon two weeks to read the letter enough times to be able to take out of context a couple of sentences and misinterpret them. She has been slower than she normally is, although still predictable. As I am sure she will confirm, the letter also states clearly that even if local authorities are not in a position to make available the practical services that people might require immediately following an assessment of need, they have an absolute duty to secure appropriate services for people and to manage them until other resources are available.
Can I get this right? The First Minister has confirmed what he said in his letter, which is that he thinks that, where resources are not available, it is appropriate to operate waiting lists. That is rather different from what he said to me in his first answer.
Read out the whole letter.
I am happy for the whole letter to be read by anybody who wants to read it.
I want to be very clear about the facts. First, we are proud of this policy, which we have delivered and fully funded. Indeed, given the policies that it would pursue in many other areas, a nationalist Government would never be able to fund it. Secondly, a clear majority of Scotland's local authorities are using the allocated resources to implement the policy in full. The councils that are not spending this money that we give them on elderly people should be doing so; if they do not, there are procedures that we can and will follow.
A good place for the First Minister to start might be to stop condoning waiting lists. This policy is not being funded adequately, which is why many vulnerable old people throughout Scotland are on waiting lists for care that they are entitled to receive when they need it.
Read out the whole letter.
Is it not time that, instead of trying to play the blame game with councils, the First Minister took some responsibility and sorted the matter out?
Ms Sturgeon has declined every invitation to read out the letter—
You read it out. [Interruption.]
Order.
What Ms Sturgeon does not say is that, first, the policy, as agreed by the Parliament, is crystal clear. Secondly, the policy has been fully funded on the estimates that local authorities have provided. Thirdly, a majority of local authorities deliver the policy as defined and within the budgets that we have given them. Councils that are not spending this money we have given them directly on older people should be doing so; if they do not, we will follow the procedures that are available.
Prime Minister (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues they will discuss. (S2F-2341)
I met the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Home Secretary earlier this week and had a number of interesting discussions with them.
That must have been some convention of minds. Perhaps in the course of those discussions a succession was made clear.
Although I appreciate the reasonable way in which Annabel Goldie has put her question, I disagree with its content. First, the policy is very clear. Secondly, it has been fully funded on estimates that were provided by local authorities after our joint work on the matter. Thirdly, it has been described by a cross-party group in the Parliament as an excellent policy that is being well implemented. Fourthly—and most critical—the majority of Scottish local authorities are fully implementing the policy with the funds that have been made available to them. They all have an obligation and duty to do so, and those that are not meeting that obligation are diverting money into other areas. That should not be happening and, unless those councils start using that money to implement the policy, we will take action against them.
The First Minister seems to have suggested that some councils have received, but have misspent, their allocation. In response to Ms Sturgeon, he said that, where that unhappy circumstance has arisen, there are "clear procedures that will be followed". Elderly people are not interested in squabbles between councillors and the Executive and the problem will not be resolved by blaming someone else. If clear procedures will be followed to deal with this matter, does the First Minister accept that, having created the right to free personal care, the Executive has a legal responsibility to ensure that that care is provided when and where it is needed—not after someone has languished on a waiting list—and that that requires adequate funding?
The direct implication of Miss Goldie's question is that we should take the responsibility for delivering elderly care services away from local authorities and deliver them centrally. If that is what the Tories are suggesting, they should have been honest about that when the legislation was debated and lodged an amendment to that effect. If they wish to move such a motion now, we will happily debate it with them.
A few weeks ago, we learned that the Executive was bailing out Scottish Enterprise to the tune of £45 million. In that case, an Executive agency had overspent, just as the First Minister states that certain councils have overspent.
Underspent.
The First Minister made it clear this morning that he considered that some councils had received money but had not allocated it to the intended use. The point is that he is alleging that there is a misallocation of resource by the councils. I am pointing out that, at the end of the day, there is a client group whose members are not getting the services that they were promised because of a breach somewhere along the line. The councils are arguing that absence of resource and lack of money are responsible. If the kernel of the problem is money, as certain councils are alleging, and if one council has totally closed the books, saying, "No resource. No cash. Can't provide the service," will the First Minister explain why he can bail out the enterprise agency but is not willing to step in now with his procedures—whatever they are—to implement the free personal care obligation that the Executive has placed on those councils?
First, we agreed the amount of money required with the local authorities and their representatives. Secondly, the vast majority of Scotland's councils are delivering that service, as agreed by the Parliament, in the interests of elderly people, who should come first, and they are doing so within the resources that are available to them. Thirdly, those councils that are not delivering that service are failing to do so because they are underspending, not overspending. If they have been given money that they are not currently spending on the service, it would be a ludicrous outcome for us just to give them some more so that they can spend it somewhere else if they wish. They need to spend their budgets on the priorities that are needed by local people and on the needs that are assessed under the legislation, putting the individual elderly citizen first. When they do that, the policy will be implemented in full.
Is the First Minister aware of the death from tuberculosis of three of my constituents at Eastercroft House nursing home in Caldercruix? Can he assure me that a full investigation will be conducted into the outbreaks of that disease, that full consideration will be given to the steps that can be take to contain the spread of TB and that, if appropriate, improvements to action in such circumstances will be made to safeguard vulnerable residents and staff?
First of all, we want to express our sympathy with the families of those who have been most affected by what appears to be an outbreak. We wish those who are currently feeling ill or who could be affected a full and speedy recovery. The outbreak team is meeting regularly and all the appropriate procedures have been put in place. However, it will be essential during and after the incident that we learn any lessons that have to be learned and that people across Scotland see the example of what has taken place and ensure that best practice is implemented elsewhere, should anything like this occur again. We must also look again at the way in which we educate those who run establishments, to ensure that they have the highest standards of cleanliness and hygiene at all times.
Scottish Executive (Targets)
To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive is satisfied with its progress towards meeting its targets. (S2F-2348)
With 11 months until the end of this parliamentary session, we have had sustained economic growth in every quarter since the previous election, health waiting times are at their lowest ever levels, attainment in schools is up on all criteria since devolution, crime is coming down, our courts are better at delivering justice and clear-up rates for crime are up. The policies of the devolved Government are helping to deliver real improvements in Scotland.
Given the Executive's target of reducing the number of pupils to a maximum of 20 in all secondary 1 and secondary 2 maths and English classes by next year, how on earth can it be satisfied with progress when the truth is that it does not know what progress—if any—has been made? The most up-to-date figures that the Executive has produced are for September 2003, when around 8,000 such classes had more than 20 pupils.
Even Mr Canavan—who, like me, is a former maths teacher—will acknowledge that as the policy was established in 2003, its achievements will not be measured by what happened in that year. It was precisely because of the 2003 figures that we decided that the big priority for secondary reforms had to be reducing English and maths S1 and S2 class sizes. There is a problem that other parties should recognise. Young people can have difficulties with the transition from primary schools, such as the successful school that I visited this morning, to secondary schools. We know that many disciplinary, achievement and attainment problems in our schools start in those years and classes. That is why there is a record number of people on teacher training courses and why there has been more than a 100 per cent increase in the number of maths teachers in training since 2003. We are well on track to delivering our commitment, which is important and central to improving the life chances of young people in Scotland.
Will the First Minister please stop waffling and answer the question? As a former maths teacher, he is surely capable of counting the number of pupils in all S1 and S2 maths and English classes and the number of maths and English classes that currently have more than 20 pupils. Is he aware that when I asked all 32 local authorities for their up-to-date figures, the 20 responses that I received indicated that more than 80 per cent of maths and English classes have more than 20 pupils? Will he therefore take urgent steps to assess and rectify the situation? At the current rate of progress, the Executive has as much chance of hitting next year's targets as Scotland has of winning this year's world cup.
I have every respect for Mr Canavan as a politician, but sometimes I worry about his mathematics when he reads one of his pre-prepared speeches. Anybody with any common sense can see that it takes time to train maths and English teachers. The fact that the number of trainee maths teachers has increased by 116 per cent since 2003 and the number of trainee English teachers has increased by 145 per cent shows that additional teachers are being trained. The target does not relate to last year, the year before last year or the year before that—it relates to next year, when those teachers will have been trained and will be in classrooms and the target will have been met.
Glasgow Bar Association
To ask the First Minister what action is being taken to respond to the vote by court lawyers in the Glasgow Bar Association to refuse to defend sex offenders because of issues over legal aid payments. (S2F-2344)
I see no justifiable reason for legal professionals putting public safety at risk. We are ready to discuss with the Law Society of Scotland the offer that was made some weeks ago of a considerable interim increase in legal aid fees. However, we will make contingency arrangements for the possibility that people might carry out their irresponsible threat.
I thank the First Minister for his straightforward reply. He will be aware that when trade unions take strike action, they always seek to ensure that protection and cover are in place for the most vulnerable. Does the First Minister agree that, in light of the measures that the Executive has introduced to deal with sex offenders, it is unacceptable that lawyers—some of whom are very well paid indeed—could put public safety at risk, especially in the most serious cases, in order to negotiate a better pay deal? Furthermore, will he confirm that if private company lawyers do not think that representing sex offenders pays enough, public sector lawyers will represent sex offenders in the interests of public safety and to avoid delays in the dispensation of justice and consequent stress to victims and witnesses?
I will make three points. First, we will of course put contingency plans in place and they will involve—in addition to any other measures that we identify—the use of the Public Defence Solicitors Office, which I assume is what Bill Butler refers to.
Although the action by the Glasgow Bar Association could not possibly be condoned, does the First Minister accept that action is being threatened because—among other issues relating to legal aid—the association and the Faculty of Advocates are furious? They agreed to co-operate fully and to change their work practices to ensure early disclosure and to comply with the Bonomy proposals for High Court reform—legislation that the First Minister is not slow to take credit for—but the promises that were made by the Labour and Liberal Democrat coalition have not to date been honoured. In fact, there has been a downrating across the board.
I have acknowledged that there was an issue to do with legal aid payments. That issue arose under the previous Conservative Government and continued after 1997. There was a lack of regular annual increases. However, the issue has been tackled with the substantial increase in 2004 that I have described and with the substantial increase that has been proposed as an interim increase for 2005.
Scottish Criminal Record Office Inquiry
To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Executive will take to give effect to motions S2M-4485 and S2M-4486, agreed without dissent by the Justice 1 Committee on 1 June 2006. (S2F-2342)
Motion S2M-4485 concerns a report that was provided as part of a criminal investigation; as such, it is a matter for the Lord Advocate. Motion S2M-4486 is being considered by the Minister for Justice. We will try to find a way forward that will assist the committee while preserving the important legal principles that the Minister for Justice has previously set out.
I hope that the First Minister will accept that there is common cause to reinstate confidence in the fingerprint system in Scotland—which, of course, is why the motions were passed by a unanimous vote in the committee.
In some of the sessions of the Justice 1 Committee this week, we have seen the difficulties in this case and the difficulties in ensuring that a conclusion can be reached that will help to rebuild confidence in the justice system—not only in the fingerprint service but in other aspects of the system too. I absolutely agree with Stewart Stevenson if he is genuine about seeking common cause to restore that confidence. I welcome that indication and I hope that in the work and in the conclusions of the committee, we will see that that objective is clear.
The First Minister has alluded to the meeting that I had with the Minister for Justice this week at which, as the committee's representative, I set out the case for the committee to have access to both MacLeod reports and the Mike Pass report.
It is important that the information that is made available, the advice that we give and the assistance that we provide help the committee to conduct itself in a way that is helpful to ensuring that we restore confidence in the fingerprint service and the system as a whole. I welcome the fact that committee members from different parties have indicated that that is their objective. I simply counsel that there are important principles to do with the independence of the prosecution from politicians that the committee needs to heed in the work that it undertakes.
Teachers (Paperwork)
To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive will institute a study to assist with the reduction or simplification of paperwork undertaken by Scotland's teachers. (S2F-2351)
There have been a number of studies and action is being taken on them. If there are sensible suggestions for a further study that would add to the sum total of knowledge, we would be happy to examine them, but I remind the Parliament that we have reduced the administrative burden on teachers by increasing the number of classroom assistants, finding new ways of collecting data and introducing non-classroom support staff. The introduction of bursars in secondary schools and business managers in primary schools has been particularly important. Those measures are helping us to achieve the attainment levels that I mentioned in answer to Dennis Canavan's question.
Although I welcome the tone of the First Minister's reply, does he accept that it is unacceptable that five years after the agreement of the teacher's settlement, only 8.5 per cent of the teachers who were questioned by the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers said that their workload had reduced, whereas some 81 per cent of them wanted further reductions in the amount of paperwork and bureaucracy that they faced? Does he agree that, at least, the number of classroom support staff promised in the McCrone agreement should be available and that their deployment throughout Scotland should be more efficient so that teachers are freed up to teach, to plan innovative lessons and to provide constructive assessment to pupils? There is considerable evidence that the pattern of employment of classroom support staff is not uniform throughout the country but varies considerably from authority to authority.
I hesitate to talk too much about the workload of my former colleagues. However, we all want to see reductions in workload—most people in most jobs would say that. What is important is that the workload in Scottish schools is right and is focused on the correct activities for teachers and other staff in the classroom and elsewhere in the school. More than 3,000 additional support staff members have been provided since the agreement, and there will be many more. Those staff are reducing the administrative and support burden on teachers.
Meeting suspended until 14:15.
On resuming—
Previous
Question TimeNext
Question Time