Plenary,

Meeting date: Thursday, May 9, 2002

Official Report 699KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S1F-1879)

Next week, the Cabinet will discuss our programme of record investment in schools, hospitals, roads, courts and other public services.

On 31 March, Wendy Alexander said:

"I love my job. I'm committed to it."

Five weeks later, she resigned. What did the First Minister do to her?

First, Wendy Alexander did love her job, and she did it very well. Secondly, her reasons for resigning were spelled out clearly in her letter to me of last Friday morning.

That is all very well, but is not the real reason why Wendy Alexander resigned the fact that the First Minister overloaded her because she was not one of his cronies? Is the First Minister aware that his decision to create an enterprise, transport and lifelong learning post was described by a board member of Scottish Enterprise—Mr Ian Ritchie, who is one of the most respected businessmen in Scotland—as "completely and utterly barmy"? As a result, in a week of record business failures—with 240 businesses lost in Scotland so far this year—Wendy Alexander told The Herald that she

"can't get the growth issue on the agenda"

of the Cabinet. Is not it the case that the First Minister is more interested in settling old scores than in governing for the people of Scotland?

First, there are serious inaccuracies in that question. The leader of the nationalist party should refrain from inaccurately quoting anyone in this chamber, never mind an ex-minister of the Government.

Secondly, it is also wrong for the leader of the nationalist party to run down Scotland quite so much. There are figures that might have been entirely predictable as a result of last year's downturn in the electronics, farming and tourism industries, and because of difficulties in other sectors. Yesterday's figures on some business failures in Scotland might have been entirely predictable, but there have also recently been record figures for business start-ups in Scotland. There have also been much better growth figures than were predicted by the nationalist party, which has been trying to run down Scotland into a recession for the past 12 months.

The strategy "A Smart, Successful Scotland" was championed by Wendy Alexander and supported by two Cabinets—the previous Cabinet and the current Cabinet—and is being applied consistently with the support of businesses and other organisations in Scotland. Last Monday night, Wendy Alexander and I met a number of senior managing directors, chief executives and chairs of companies who support that strategy. They said, above all, "Don't change the strategy. Keep it going. Make sure that we build a better Scotland tomorrow." Those people are right. The strategy is right. We intend to continue with it. All MSPs in the partnership on the coalition benches are committed to supporting that strategy in the years ahead.

That would all be very well if the Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning had not decided to resign within the past seven days and question the whole direction of the Government. I remind the First Minister of some of his own words. He described Wendy Alexander as a minister with "commitment and expertise". What makes someone with commitment and expertise act in the manner that she did? Why did she decide to resign, then conceal that information for four months? Why did she make it public in a way that was so damaging to the Executive? Is it because Wendy Alexander is a uniquely spiteful person, or is it because she knows that there is something rotten at the heart of the McConnell Government? Is not it because she knows that the First Minister is a man who is more interested in operating like a cynical machine politician than he is in governing in the interests of everyone in Scotland?

Mr Swinney cannot hide the fact that he does not have an economics strategy behind that kind of abuse.

We have a strategy in Scotland to build the sort of smart, successful Scotland that will ensure that Scotland's growth rate rises in the way that it should in the years to come. The strategy involves boosting Scottish companies to ensure that they receive from public agencies the capital funds and back-up that they should have had a long time ago. The strategy involves ensuring that Scots have the training, development and skills to help them to cope and succeed in the 21st century. With 20,000 modern apprentices and over 50 per cent of our young people going into further and higher education, the strategy is on course.

This week, we launched the new science advisory committee, which will ensure that Scottish science and laboratories are up to date and that Scottish science is out there working in the economic community. In the past year, we launched Scottish Development International to promote Scottish products internationally. In recent weeks, we have seen chambers of commerce and others praise the new business start-up strategy of Scottish Enterprise and the Executive. Chambers of commerce and others have said that the strategy is exactly what Scotland has needed for a very, very long time.

Politicians' jobs are not important; we are elected for a four-year term to carry out a job. Other people's jobs are important. Every member of the Cabinet and, I hope, everyone in the chamber, has a difficult job to do. However, the people who have the really difficult jobs to do are those who work on night shifts throughout Scotland, who earn minimum wages and must try to feed their families. Our job in the Scottish Parliament is to ensure that their jobs are more secure and better in the years to come. That is what we will set about doing.

The First Minister might not be aware of the fact that last Friday, when other things were happening, business people gathered in Cumbernauld and Kilsyth to celebrate the 100th new business start-up in the area. Despite what other members are saying, will the First Minister note that business people in Cumbernauld and Kilsyth view the linking of transport, enterprise and lifelong learning as important to their businesses and to the future of the Scottish economy?

For months before I created the position, SNP members were calling for the Executive to link transport and enterprise more closely. I agree entirely with Cathie Craigie. We must ensure that Scottish businesses that are starting and that are trying to build up and develop their products, markets or work force have the support—not the interference—of this Government, to help them to grow and grow and grow. Those businesses need more than anything a stable policy and economy that will allow them to predict the future. The biggest challenge to those companies' stability is not changes of Executive ministers; rather it is the taking of Scotland out of the single market and the United Kingdom. We need to support Scottish businesses, not provide them with threats for the future, and that is exactly what we will do.

Question 2 has been withdrawn.

---

McCrone Agreement

To ask the First Minister whether the implementation of the McCrone agreement is proceeding satisfactorily. (S1F-1893)

Yes. Good progress continues to be made with the implementation of the agreement. The agreement is for the long term and has a completion date of August 2006. Successful implementation requires cultural change throughout the education service. The combination of investment and reform is already making a difference throughout Scotland.

Can the First Minister give some assurance that all probationer teachers, including last year's probationers, will complete their probation?

I suspect that I need to cover three different categories of probationer in the answer to that question. There are those who, because they have recently graduated, will start their probation this year. The guarantee for them is that the new probationary system will work to secure them a place in a school, with a proper contract to go with that. They will complete their probation on time. Others are on the current two-year probationary period.

One of the great tragedies in education over the past decade is that a large number of young people and others have had to carry out their probation over four, five and sometimes six years in a variety of schools and at a variety of times. Others will have done a bit of their probation, but they will not have finished it. The agreement allowed for a subsequent agreement to ensure that those probationers get a special arrangement. I understand that that special arrangement is almost in place. It will involve those young people and others not having to complete the full two years, but having to see through some other conditions in the new agreement in order to complete a reduced time period.

I thank the First Minister for that assurance. However, people who are presently working on probationary contracts have been told that they will lose their posts so that new teachers can be brought in during the induction year. I would like to ask again the question that I think Cathy Peattie asked. Is there a guarantee that those individuals will be allowed to finish their probationary period and qualify instead of being turfed out to make room for teachers on the induction scheme? It would be absolutely wrong for them to be turfed out.

I thank Mr Russell for thanking me for my first answer. Indeed, I hope that he heard what I said, because I made it clear that we have been involved in discussions to secure that very agreement, to ensure that local authorities can deliver it in schools, and to ensure that Executive and local authority funds are available so that the agreement's implementation can be properly seen through. We understand that that agreement is almost in place. When it is, members will be the first to know.

The First Minister said that implementation of the McCrone agreement is satisfactory. Surely he is aware that in the Labour-controlled East Lothian Council, £306,000 of the £512,000 that was delivered to implement McCrone has been diverted to another budget. Given the circumstances in East Lothian and in other local authorities that say that they do not have enough money, would it be helpful to meet the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and review the delivery of finance to support McCrone?

I am grateful to Mr Monteith for asking that question, because it gives me an opportunity to clarify the current position. As he knows, the deal that was reached early last year was never only about teachers' pay. It also involved significant change to and modernisation of the education service. That includes decentralised, more flexible and streamlined management; a new probationary and training system for teachers throughout their lives; new standards and a new system of teacher discipline to ensure that those who cannot teach any more are no longer in the classroom; a new system to supply more support staff to reduce bureaucracy for teachers; a significant increase in teachers' hours; and new flexibility in our schools. The agreement is being delivered in all those areas. I checked this morning and found that the negotiating team has not missed one deadline in securing implementation of the agreement. Local agreements between management and teachers unions are now in place in all the 2,900 to 3,000 schools in Scotland, which will ensure the decentralisation of the work and conditions of service and the flexibility of contracts that are so essential for the cultural change in the profession.

I am sure that East Lothian Council can explain its situation for itself. Indeed, Cathy Jamieson and I were very keen to hear about the position there and were both reassured this morning that that council has not missed one deadline and is on track to deliver the agreement. It is absolutely convinced that it will implement every element that it is required to implement. I assure Brian Monteith that I, Cathy Jamieson, the whole Executive and the local authorities and teaching unions at national level are all committed to ensuring that everyone complies and that the whole agreement brings about the revitalisation of Scottish education that it was designed to achieve.

From his visit to my constituency in January, the First Minister will recall that East Lothian Council is taking enormous strides in raising educational standards through annual education budget increases that average 9.7 per cent over the past five years and through a £35 million public-private partnership to upgrade all the high schools in the county. Although I am grateful for his acknowledgement of the council's unequivocal commitment to the McCrone agreement, will he further acknowledge the council's close partnership with the teaching profession locally? Furthermore, does he agree that it is right and proper that services that are provided for children by different local authority departments should be fully co-ordinated, notwithstanding last night's hatchet job by BBC's "Newsnight Scotland" programme?

I do not wish to comment on any television programme: if I started doing so, I could be here all day. As everyone knows, the agreement was very important for Scottish education. It is vital not only that it is applied consistently throughout Scotland, but that it delivers the flexibility in our schools that will revitalise professionalism and improve teaching.

I know the quality of education in East Lothian. Indeed, I have sometimes been jealous when I visited some of the very high-quality schools in the area. One of the main reasons why a large number of people work in Edinburgh and live in East Lothian is that they have the opportunity of sending their children to some of those high-quality schools. I hope that East Lothian Council is aware of the concerns that have been expressed in the past 24 hours and that it will do all that it can to reassure local parents that the agreement is being implemented in East Lothian, just as it is being implemented everywhere else.

---

“A Smart, Successful Scotland”

I should mention that my colleague Mr McLetchie regrets that he cannot be in the chamber. Sadly, he is dealing with the bereavement of a close personal friend.

I want to ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive's vision of "A Smart, Successful Scotland: Ambitions for the Enterprise Networks" will be affected by the resignation of Ms Wendy Alexander as Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning. (S1F-1891)

I thank David McLetchie for giving advance notice that he would not be here this afternoon.

In reply to Annabel Goldie's question, I say no. "A Smart, Successful Scotland" remains central to our vision for Scotland. We will continue to work with the business community and others to secure higher growth rates and sustainable levels of high employment for Scotland.

I thank the First Minister for his response although, unfortunately, given where it comes from, it has all the ringing conviction of me expressing a desire to enter the Miss World contest. As an aspiration, that might fair take the breath away, but as an implementable strategy, it is utterly incapable of attainment. However, unlike the Scottish Executive, I know my limitations.

Will the First Minister explain how his intended implementation of "A Smart, Successful Scotland" will reverse the fragile state of Scotland's economy, given that since publication of the vision 15 months ago, business start-ups are, sadly, at an all-time low, the Scottish economy lags behind the rest of the United Kingdom and company failures have soared since the end of 2001?

I will resist the temptation to respond to the earlier part of Miss Goldie's question. [Members: "Go on."] Obviously I resist at the risk of seriously disappointing members.

It is important to recognise two things. First, members all know—anyone who denied this would be a fool—that last year was particularly difficult for the Scottish economy, especially in relation to agriculture, tourism and electronics, although other sectors were affected. It is important that we grow out of that difficult year and ensure that Scotland is stronger as a result. We must ensure that, in the long term, Scottish growth rates are higher, Scottish employment is more sustainable and that Scotland has the kind of culture in which people are prepared to take risks.

Secondly, if we want more business start-ups and we want our young people and other people who have to change employment to take more of a risk and have a go at starting businesses, coverage such as is given to those who fail in that enterprise is unhelpful. We must ensure that in Scotland we have a culture that encourages people to be confident enough to set up their own businesses. If they do that and we support them, they will sometimes fail, but when they get it right, our economy and society will be stronger as a result.

I applaud the First Minister's sentiments and agree that we should encourage such a culture. The difficult question that confronts the First Minister is whether the business community has confidence in his Executive to achieve that. Is the First Minister prepared to take real action by restoring the uniform business rate, reducing business regulation and effecting immediate investment in transport infrastructure, which would at least be an indication that the First Minister is capable of doing something better?

The uniform business rate is, quite correctly, pegged at the rate of inflation and we should maintain that position. We invest in—and we plan to increase investment in—the transport infrastructure. We do not have a direct role in some of the taxation and employment bureaucracy with which firms must deal, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer dealt with many of those matters in his recent budget. I did not hear Annabel Goldie welcoming that, but I am sure that she did, then and today. We are doing what we can to ensure that there is minimal regulation, but we must be honest and say that sometimes regulation is right. For example, it is right and proper to regulate on health and safety matters to ensure that all firms look after their employees and their own interests in the longer term.

It is possible to ensure that we have successful companies in Scotland. It is important that we do not give the impression, either here or abroad, that that is not possible. It is possible to support companies that have been in Scotland for a long time, such as Rolls-Royce, which operates in the high-quality end of the market and produces a product that can be sold overseas. In recent weeks, we have announced that we are going to do that. It is also important that we attract smaller companies from abroad, such as Vestas. On Monday, I visited Vestas-Celtic Wind Technology Ltd in Kintyre. The company is creating high-quality jobs in that disadvantaged rural community and it is providing long-term stability that will make a difference. Those are positives in the Scottish economy. Let us talk them up instead of talking Scotland down.

Following yesterday's announcement of the closure of the Grampian Country Foods chicken processing factory at Newbridge, with the loss of 547 jobs, will the First Minister outline what actions the Executive will take with local agencies to secure alternative employment for the work force in an area that has already been hit by job losses at Continental Tyres, Grampian Foods and Motorola?

I express my regret at the announcement of that closure and my concern—which I am sure is felt by all members—for the people who worked there and who will have to find alternative employment. Our immediate task is to ensure that they have full support in that endeavour. Executive officials are meeting the company at this very moment and will meet the trade unions soon. The normal, successful arrangements—the partnership action for continuing employment strategy—will be put in place early to secure the advice for the work force that will, I hope, give those people the new opportunities that they need.

That concludes question time.

On a point of order. I do not think that the Procedure Committee at Westminster would be very impressed by the fact that, although six questions were lodged and in spite of the unfortunate absence of the Conservative leader, we got through only three questions in 20 minutes. My colleague, Gil Paterson, had a very important question to ask. I suggest—as other members have suggested—that you should reconsider the time that is allocated to questions at First Minister's question time.

I have some good news for members. When we move to Aberdeen, a slightly longer period will be allowed for questions. We will see how that goes. I also say—looking generally at ministers—that it would be helpful if we had shorter answers as well as shorter questions. They are full of good material, no doubt, but they could be crisper.