Skip to main content

Language: English / GĂ idhlig

Loading…
Chamber and committees

Plenary, 10 Jan 2008

Meeting date: Thursday, January 10, 2008


Contents


Question Time


SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE


Education and Lifelong Learning


School Transport (Rural Areas)

To ask the Scottish Government what recent consideration it has given to rules or guidelines on the provision of school transport in rural areas. (S3O-1841)

The Minister for Schools and Skills (Maureen Watt):

Education authorities have statutory responsibility for school transport. The Scottish Government's guidance on school transport was supplemented in March 2007 by "School Transport: Survey of Good Practice". The survey of good practice contains examples of initiatives from, or appropriate to, rural areas.

Alasdair Morgan:

Does the minister realise that in Dumfries and Galloway, for example, the fact that parents are responsible for the first two miles of transport for pupils under eight and for the first three miles of transport for those over eight can mean that pupils need to walk on a road that has no pavement and no lighting but significant fast traffic? Clearly, not all parents in rural areas have access to cars to ensure their children's safety. Does she agree that, although we are quite rightly putting a lot of effort into safer routes to schools in urban areas, we may be ignoring people who are faced with similar problems in rural areas?

Maureen Watt:

Coming, as I do, from rural Aberdeenshire, I understand completely my colleague's concerns. The current guidance does not distinguish between urban and rural areas but expects authorities to keep their eligibility criteria for school transport under review and to take account of a range of factors, such as increased traffic volumes and the availability of footpaths and pavements. However, my officials are currently considering whether an update of the 2003 guidance may be necessary.


School Building Programmes

To ask the Scottish Executive what steps it is taking to promote school building programmes throughout Scotland. (S3O-1816)

The Minister for Schools and Skills (Maureen Watt):

Under the terms of the concordat that was signed with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on 14 November, we will provide local authorities with almost £3 billion of capital resources over three years to secure investment in schools and other infrastructure. That will enable them to deploy resources increasingly flexibly, according to their own local needs and priorities.

James Kelly:

The Labour Party in South Lanarkshire was elected on a manifesto pledge of continuing its excellent school building programme, funded by council tax rises of inflation plus 1 per cent. If the council follows the Scottish National Party's position on a council tax freeze, will the minister make additional moneys available to provide for modern schools for children in the Rutherglen and Cambuslang area?

Maureen Watt:

I congratulate South Lanarkshire Council on the ambitious and extensive school building programme that it is taking forward and on the work that it has already completed as part of the programme. As I said, under the concordat with COSLA we will provide local authorities with extra resources. South Lanarkshire Council's share of those resources will be £32 million in 2008-09, £33.437 million in 2009-10 and £33.366 million in 2010-11. It is up to the council to allocate that funding as it sees fit according to its priorities and circumstances. South Lanarkshire Council may also choose to make use of the prudential borrowing framework that is available to it.

Robin Harper (Lothians) (Green):

The recent complete loss of the roof of a brand new school at the first puff of a winter gale must raise questions about the quality of the schools that are being built. What steps is the Government taking to ensure that the principles in the Scottish Executive's 2003 publication "School Design—Building our Future: Scotland's School Estate" are implemented by local authorities?

Maureen Watt:

I share Robin Harper's concern about the disruption that was caused by the very high winds the other night. Clearly, we are in constant discussion with local authorities to ensure that the school building programme and the schools that are built thereunder are fit for purpose and take into account climate change matters.

Ian McKee (Lothians) (SNP):

The minister will be aware that in some areas community organisations can no longer afford the cost of using school facilities. Does she have information on the number of schools built under the private finance initiative that now inhibit community use in the evening and at weekends through prohibitive charges?

Maureen Watt:

I am aware that in some areas community groups find the cost of using facilities in new schools prohibitive. That is probably why the electorate put the cost of public-private partnership and private finance initiative schools high on the list of its concerns in the run-up to the previous election. The Government is rightly pursuing the cheaper option of building schools through the Scottish futures trust. There is no doubt that there has been commercialisation of charges for use of premises, which is against the ethos of community schools. In some cases, there has been an increased desire to use the facilities in new schools, which has probably led to commercialisation of prices.


University Funding

To ask the Scottish Executive how its funding settlement for universities will contribute to its ambition to grow the economy. (S3O-1800)

The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning (Fiona Hyslop):

By maintaining a high level of support for universities, the Government will ensure that students will be able to develop the high-level skills that are required for them to succeed in the modern economy. By investing in world-class research, we will enable our universities to continue to develop cutting-edge products and services. By putting funding into knowledge transfer activity, we will ensure that our businesses can capitalise on the opportunities arising from our universities.

Sarah Boyack:

How can the minister remain so positive when the universities are deeply worried about their future competitiveness, given the £20 million shortfall in university funding next year and the longer-term impact of the 5 per cent structural gap between universities in Scotland and those in the rest of the United Kingdom that David Caldwell from Universities Scotland identified in evidence to the Enterprise, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee?

How does the cabinet secretary see the University of Edinburgh—one of the top 100 universities in the world—remaining competitive, given the immense pressure to which it will be subject next year, which will damage the university's capacity to maintain competitive pay for academics? Will she ensure that her joint future thinking task force includes both the University and College Union and the National Union of Students, given their crucial perspectives on university funding and competition issues?

Fiona Hyslop:

Sarah Boyack raises a number of issues. In its press release following the spending review announcement, Universities Scotland acknowledged that Scottish universities remain competitive. We will face challenges in the future—that is one reason why we have put together the joint future thinking task force. The settlement for universities represents a marginal increase on that which was provided by the previous Government, so this Government has maintained and marginally increased in percentage terms the high level of investment that the previous Government made.

Sarah Boyack asked about membership of the joint future thinking task force. We had a successful first meeting on 20 December, which was Parliament's last sitting day before the recess. The task force will be made up of members of Universities Scotland and will be jointly chaired by Sir Muir Russell and me. We have agreed our terms of reference and remit and will carry out work over the coming months.

Sarah Boyack also asked what input the NUS, other student bodies and the teaching unions will have. In the summer, I had a useful and constructive discussion with UCU about its engagement in future thinking on our university sector. I will engage with it on the workings of the task force, but the remit and membership of the task force must remain fairly tight, as we want the key decision makers in the university sector—university principals and the Government—to deliberate and make decisions by the summer. That will be best achieved by ensuring that the remit and membership of the task force are tightly focused.

Can the Scottish Government update Parliament on the progress of the Scottish universities joint future thinking task force that the cabinet secretary and Universities Scotland have established?

Fiona Hyslop:

The member will have heard my reply to the previous question. It is important for Parliament to be aware that our thinking about what we want to do in the university sector is bold and radical. It will allow us to address some of the fundamental questions about obvious issues such as funding arrangements and organisation, and it will allow deliberations on what our universities are for, not just in the next three years, but on how the sector should be in the next 10 and 20 years.

Elizabeth Smith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con):

The cabinet secretary will be aware of the growing support among distinguished figures, both in business and in the university sector, for a full and independent review of higher education funding. I heard what the cabinet secretary said in her previous two answers, but why has she convened an internal review that is slightly limited in its role, as opposed to an independent review?

Fiona Hyslop:

Important decisions have to be made. Either we respect the autonomy and independence of Scotland's universities or we do not. If we respect universities' independence and autonomy, it is clear that they are external to Government, in which case I would not describe the task force as "internal".

I accept that there have been calls for an independent review. Had the university principals come to me and said that they wanted an independent review, we would have had to acknowledge that, but they have said clearly to me that they do not want an independent review. They want to be able to engage directly with Government about key decisions and perspectives that we take. I am pleased that we will be able to share the results of that thinking by the summer.


Class Sizes (Single Outcome Agreements)

4. Peter Peacock (Highlands and Islands) (Lab):

To ask the Scottish Executive whether each local authority's single outcome agreement will specify its class size reduction targets and the rates of progress expected for meeting such targets for each year of the spending review period. (S3O-1833)

The details of single outcome agreements have still to be finalised. We expect, however, that they will reflect the commitments in the concordat, including progress on reducing primary 1 to primary 3 classes to a maximum of 18.

Peter Peacock:

I am sure that the local authorities will be interested in that answer. It will be interesting to see how that will be possible, given that local authorities have said that there is not enough extra cash in the settlement to meet the class size reduction targets that we were promised at the election.

Will the minister make it clear to councils before they set their budgets that they will have to agree to extra spending on class size reductions despite the fact that there is no extra grant to do so? What will happen to councils who refuse to sign up to such reductions without extra cash?

Fiona Hyslop:

I stress that we are still in discussions about the nature of the single outcome agreements. However, there is extra cash for the class size reduction policy, which was a manifesto commitment, in the increased settlement for local government. That increased settlement is £1.3 billion. It is clear that local authorities will have the opportunity to implement the policy and resources to spend on it.

If Peter Peacock is arguing that the Government should have a ring-fencing policy for class size reduction, that is a different question and one that we and local government reject. On top of the £1.3 billion of extra investment for local government, the efficiency savings alone provide an extra £213 million for investment. The reduction in ring-fenced funds from £2.7 billion to £9 million provides additional flexibility that will release resources for front-line services in order to provide the investment that is required to improve the education of our children and a host of other services that rely on capable and competent local councils for delivery.


Education (Glasgow City Council)

To ask the Scottish Executive what recent discussions it has had with Glasgow City Council education services. (S3O-1793)

Recent discussions with Glasgow City Council education services have covered a number of important issues, including the expansion of nursery places for asylum-seeker children.

Sandra White:

Given that Glasgow has 60 schools that have achieved health-promoting status and 29 excellent new learning communities that continue to pursue the determined to succeed initiative, will the minister tell me how the Government, in conjunction with Glasgow City Council, can further develop those programmes to the maximum benefit of the local communities?

Adam Ingram:

I congratulate the 60 schools in Glasgow that have achieved health-promoting status by our target date of the end of 2007. To build on that, the Schools (Health Promotion and Nutrition) (Scotland) Act 2007 now requires all local authority and grant-aided schools to be health-promoting by law. The health-promotion duties in the act commenced on 3 January this year—we will shortly issue guidance on health promotion that we expect local authorities to develop.

We are very interested in, and encouraged by, the approach that Glasgow has taken through its 29 new learning communities to promote continuity between the various stages of every child's education, which encompasses learning, health, safety and general well-being. We acknowledge the positive work of employability and enterprise officers in Glasgow in taking forward the determined to succeed strategy, in which they provide support for employability and enterprise and promote links with the business community.

Ken Macintosh (Eastwood) (Lab):

Is Glasgow City Council expected to meet its class size targets and to rebuild its schools estate out of the current local government settlement or can we expect a future capital programme to be announced through the Scottish futures trust or a continuation of the private finance initiative and public-private partnerships? If the latter is the case, when can we expect an announcement on such a capital programme?

Adam Ingram:

Ken Macintosh should be aware that there has been a 15 per cent uplift in capital plans for Glasgow City Council. No doubt he will want to welcome that.

The Scottish futures trust proposals are out for consultation at the moment, so we will make further announcements in due course.


Scots Language (Teacher Training)

6. Bill Wilson (West of Scotland) (SNP):

To ask the Scottish Executive whether, in light of the response of the teachers participating in the "Cuddy Brae: Language at Letham" project, it will encourage teacher training colleges to raise Scots language awareness among trainee teachers to eliminate unconscious discrimination against Scots-speaking pupils. (S3O-1794)

The Minister for Schools and Skills (Maureen Watt):

The Scottish Government advocates the inclusion of Scots in the school curriculum where appropriate and deplores any form of discrimination, whether conscious or unconscious. Awareness of the Scots language will be part and parcel of the emerging curriculum for excellence and teachers will develop this awareness through initial teacher education and continuous professional development.

Bill Wilson:

Will the minister acknowledge that it is to say the least anomalous that, one year short of the 250th anniversary of the birth of Robert Burns, the Scots language still does not enjoy recognition equal to that of other British languages, such as Gaelic or Welsh? Will she consider commissioning a study to identify areas where Scots speakers may face discrimination and to determine what level of discrimination towards Scots speakers may exist in the wider school system?

Maureen Watt:

As I said to Bill Wilson initially, we deplore any form of discrimination—conscious or unconscious. It is absolutely unacceptable. In many schools, as in Letham, teachers are using children's knowledge of Scots to build on their literacy competence.

I agree that it is unfortunate that previous Governments have not recognised the importance of Scots in Scotland's linguistic, cultural and artistic heritage. As she was born in Alloway, my Cabinet colleague Fiona Hyslop is determined to ensure that the 250th anniversary of Robert Burns's birth will be an occasion to remember.


School Closures

To ask the Scottish Executive with what procedures local authorities must comply when planning to close schools. (S3O-1788)

The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning (Fiona Hyslop):

The statutory requirements on consultation on proposals to close any school are set out in the Education (Publication and Consultation etc) (Scotland) Regulations 1981. There is also extensive Scottish Government guidance on the matter, which was first issued in 2004 and which I reissued with a covering letter to local authority education conveners on 11 October 2007.

Stuart McMillan:

As the cabinet secretary will be aware, over the past four years, the then Liberal Democrat-run Inverclyde Council decided that it wanted to reduce the number of secondary schools in its area from eight to five, which left only one denominational school to cover Greenock, Gourock, Inverkip and Weymss Bay. The new minority Labour administration wishes to rationalise further and close a school in Port Glasgow, which will affect less well-off areas in the town. Will the cabinet secretary provide an assurance that, under the Scottish National Party Government, strict and thorough scrutiny of any proposals will take place when school closures are considered?

Fiona Hyslop:

Responsibility for the school estate lies with the local authority—in this case, Inverclyde Council. However, the 1981 regulations to which I referred, as well as the Government guidance that was reissued recently, spell out the process that we expect to be followed by any local authority when it is considering decisions about a school closure. We expect that to be fully adhered to by local authorities. If any decisions are referred to ministers, we will take a strong look at them, bearing in mind the content of the current guidance and the regulations.

Cathy Jamieson (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab):

The cabinet secretary will be aware of concerns from parents in my constituency about proposed school closures there. The Minister for Schools and Skills has previously told me, in response to a parliamentary question, that there is no legal definition of a rural school in Scotland. Could the cabinet secretary tell me when the Government will introduce legislation and whether all schools that are currently classified as rural for statistical purposes, in terms of the Scottish Executive urban rural classification, will continue to be categorised as rural schools under the proposed legislation?

Fiona Hyslop:

I am in active discussions with my officials about the drafting of such proposals, as set out in our manifesto. Our manifesto made it clear that there would be a legislative presumption against the closure of rural schools. It was stated by the First Minister that that would be part of our programme for government. Clearly, the question of what is rural and what is not will sometimes be touched upon. Any member will be able to respond to the consultation when it is published. It is open to Cathy Jamieson, who clearly has an interest in the matter, to suggest what the distinction might be, and we would welcome her suggestion.


Europe, External Affairs and Culture


Fresh Talent Initiative

To ask the Scottish Executive what concerns it has in respect of workers entering Scotland under the fresh talent initiative, in light of reports of the exploitation of migrant workers. (S3O-1777)

The Minister for Europe, External Affairs and Culture (Linda Fabiani):

The Scottish Government believes that the exploitation of any worker is unacceptable. Of course, the Scottish economy is benefiting from the many migrants who, through the fresh talent initiative and otherwise, have chosen to come and work in our country. We are working closely with partners, including the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Health and Safety Executive, to increase knowledge of workers' rights and to ensure that migrant workers have the information that they need to avoid exploitation.

The member may be interested to know that, when I visit the Highlands this weekend, I will visit the relocation advisory service in Inverness to hear at first hand from some of the workers there about the issues that are being faced in the Highland area.

Bob Doris:

Clearly, the level of exploitation that is experienced by different migrant worker groups varies. Migrant workers under the fresh talent initiative generally fare better than many others.

The minister might be aware of last December's joint report from Citizens Advice and Citizens Advice Scotland, which warned that

"exploitative practices such as non payment of tax and national insurance are putting good employers at a competitive disadvantage".

It also said that many migrant employees suffer exploitation. For example, they might not receive the minimum wage, they might be

"required to work excessively long hours or … denied proper rest breaks",

and they could be

"summarily dismissed simply for being pregnant".

Does the minister believe that all migrant workers should have similar levels of protection in the workplace? Given the reserved nature of much of the legislation governing this issue, will the Scottish Government consider working in conjunction with the United Kingdom Administration to tackle such inequality and social injustice?

Linda Fabiani:

I am aware of the reports of exploitative practice by unscrupulous employers. I very much commend the valuable work that has been carried out by such organisations as Citizens Advice Scotland, the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service and the unions to help individuals understand their rights. It is, of course, completely unacceptable that some employers choose not to comply with statutory requirements in respect of workers' employment rights.

These matters are, of course, reserved, as Mr Doris said, but migrant workers have the same legal safeguards as workers from the indigenous population, and enforcement of the national minimum wage is the responsibility of HM Revenue and Customs, apart from in the agricultural sector, on which members have expressed concern regarding particular types of exploitation of migrant workers. In that sector, enforcement comes from the agricultural wages inspectors, and a helpline is available.

A mechanism exists that could be used for working closely with the UK Government on such matters—the joint ministerial committees that were set up at the beginning of devolution. There is a sub-committee on poverty, which I feel would be an ideal vehicle to discuss matters and to ensure that people throughout the UK are not exploited. Sadly, it has met only three times, the last time being in 2002. I very much hope that the Prime Minister of the UK will shortly answer the First Minister's letter of August regarding the reinstatement of such a committee, so that matters can be fully discussed.


Norwegian Consulate

To ask the Scottish Executive what representations it has made to the Norwegian Government in respect of its proposal to close its consulate in Edinburgh. (S3O-1770)

The Minister for Europe, External Affairs and Culture (Linda Fabiani):

I will provide some background to this matter. The Scottish Government learned in early October that the Norwegian Government intended to downgrade its representation in Scotland's capital city from a consulate general, staffed by career diplomats, to an honorary consulate. The First Minister arranged immediately to speak to the Norwegian foreign minister and made clear to him this Government's disappointment and that Norway's decision went against the recent trend of more countries opening consulates in Scotland. He also spoke of the importance of having a career diplomat in Scotland who was authorised to speak on behalf of the Norwegian authorities. The First Minister followed up his telephone conversation with a paper, which was sent on 4 November, detailing reasons for retaining the consulate general, including the changed political situation in Scotland.

On 5 December, the Norwegian Parliament approved the plan that the new honorary representative in Edinburgh should have the rank of consul general and be supported by an official paid for by the Norwegian Government. That is an improvement on what was originally planned.

Jamie McGrigor:

I, too, wrote to the Norwegian Prime Minister in November, although I have not yet received an acknowledgement.

Does the minister acknowledge the real concerns of many of my constituents in the Highlands and Islands and many others throughout Scotland and northern England who use the Norwegian consulate in Edinburgh and find it an efficient office, and who now face the possibility of receiving a less effective service in future, particularly in relation to passports? Will she repeat her opposition to the Norwegian Government's plans to downgrade its consulate? Does she agree that it is ironic that devolution in Scotland is leading to the centralisation of consular services of a country with which Scotland has so many links?

Linda Fabiani:

I agree with Mr McGrigor that what has happened is sad. I knew that, like other MSPs, he had written to the Norwegian Government, along with Norwegian nationals who live in Scotland and others who work in Scotland. There is a particular concern about visas, especially in relation to the oil industry, where people come from Norway to Scotland and then go elsewhere and vice versa—there is a particular problem with Nigeria in that regard. There are issues, because the United Kingdom is not a party to the Schengen agreement.

What has happened is unfortunate. We will always wish for full consular representation of our fellow nations in Scotland and we will continue to discuss the matter.

Rob Gibson (Highlands and Islands) (SNP):

I acknowledge the value of the career diplomats in the consular service of Norway who have helped constituents of mine. I want the minister to underline, if possible, the fact that it has been possible to get speedy decisions because the officials in the consulate have been diplomats. We want to ensure that that will continue with the new honorary representative. In one example, when someone was trying to exchange Scottish bank notes in Norwegian post offices, an issue was resolved by people of the rank of diplomat. Will the minister ensure that such points are added to Mr McGrigor's?

Yes. I assure members that at every opportunity this Government will raise with the Norwegian Government issues that affect people living in Scotland.


Tartan Day

To ask the Scottish Executive what financial and other support it provides for the promotion of tartan day, particularly in respect of sporting and cultural events. (S3O-1792)

The Minister for Europe, External Affairs and Culture (Linda Fabiani):

Tartan day provides a useful platform to promote Scotland in North America. We are reviewing how we can improve the Scottish Government's contribution to this event to ensure that we maximise the impact.

The United States celebration of tartan day will be just part of a wider programme of events—which is yet to be announced—for 2008. I hope to come to the chamber soon to make that announcement. The programme that is being planned will extend beyond events in New York city and will include other North American cities. In the longer term, our ambition is to develop a programme of engagement in North America that can be sustained throughout the year. Of course, cultural and sporting events will be part of that.

Andrew Welsh:

I thank the minister for the clear progress that is being made.

Is the minister aware of the work that is being done to promote tartan day activities in Scotland, such as the golfing initiatives that encourage golf visits by people from the United States and China, and which could involve visitors from South Africa? Will she seek to promote and, where possible, assist Scottish local authorities and other appropriate organisations to build on such pioneering Scottish sport, culture and heritage initiatives?

Linda Fabiani:

Of course. Not that long ago, Mr Welsh sponsored a members' business debate about the sterling work that is done by Angus Council, in particular, to promote tartan day, which other local authorities are picking up on. I restate what I said during that debate: as a Government, we are more than happy to provide advice and assistance and to share information and expertise with any local authority that, like us, seeks to promote the interests of Scotland overseas.


European Union Reform Treaty

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it supports the European Union reform treaty. (S3O-1858)

The Minister for Europe, External Affairs and Culture (Linda Fabiani):

As I made clear in the debate on the EU reform treaty on 19 December, the Scottish Government cannot accept the treaty's statement of exclusive competence for the European Union over

"the conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy".

Ross Finnie:

I thank the minister for that confirmation. Given that the Scottish National Party Government opposes the EU reform treaty on the ground that the minister has specified—namely, that the treaty codifies the EU's exclusive competence over marine biological resources—and that, even if the reform treaty were not ratified, the EU would continue to have exclusive competence over marine biological resources, in the light of the European Court of Justice ruling in 1979 that power to adopt measures relating to the conservation of the seas belongs fully to the Community, is it the SNP Government's position that because it is unable to support the reform treaty, logically it cannot support the existing treaty? Therefore, will the SNP Government seek to take Scotland out of the European Union?

Linda Fabiani:

I do not know how many times I must make the position clear or how many times Opposition members must hear my explanation before they understand the situation. The text of the reform treaty does not simply restate the current legal position, under which case law has established the conservation of marine biological resources as an exclusive competence.

The UK Government has backtracked on the call for a referendum that the Labour Party made in its manifesto. We are asking the UK Government to fulfil that obligation, because for the first time there is a firm basis for dealing in primary law with a situation that currently hinges only on a contestable reading by the court of a particular article of the act of accession. That creates an anomaly, which I have explained in two parliamentary debates. I am more than happy to send Mr Finnie a letter that defines the position, which he can read over and over until he understands it.

Keith Brown (Ochil) (SNP):

As the minister is aware, the Parliament agrees many long and complicated motions. However, on December 19, it agreed a simple one, which expressed its belief

"that the UK Government should hold a referendum on the EU reform treaty."

Has the Scottish Government received any response from the UK Government on that decision by the Parliament, which was clearly in line with the wishes of the Scottish people?

Linda Fabiani:

I can confirm that there has been no correspondence from the UK Government on that debate in the Parliament or on the Scottish people's wish that the UK Government should fulfil its commitment to hold a referendum. I suspect that there is a bit of shame there, in that the UK Government has backed off from its commitment and does not want to make it plain that Scotland wants the commitment to be honoured.

Ted Brocklebank (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con):

As the minister said, the Parliament voted on 19 December in support of the promised UK referendum on the reform treaty. In the light of the answer that she has just given, will she say whether the First Minister plans to press the issue with the Prime Minister? What other steps towards securing a referendum on the treaty is the Government planning?

Linda Fabiani:

The moral case for a referendum is clear. The UK Government promised a referendum and it should deliver one. Scottish National Party members of Parliament at Westminster have made clear that they will back an amendment to the European Union (Amendment) Bill that would provide for a referendum.


Basque Government

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it is monitoring any lessons for Scotland from the Basque Government's political initiative aimed at resolving the Basque conflict. (S3O-1782)

The Scottish Government is aware of developments in other parts of Europe and beyond.

Jamie Hepburn:

The minister might be aware that the President of the Basque country recently wrote to members of the Scottish Parliament about his initiative to end the conflict in the country. I am sure that the minister wishes the Basque people well in their efforts to forge a peace process. Does she think that such initiatives can help to inform our national conversation on Scotland's constitutional future? Will she ensure that all international representatives whom she meets are aware of the Government's ambitions for the future of our country?

Linda Fabiani:

I think that all members hope that people in all communities in Europe and world wide can have peace, to which they are entitled.

I am glad that the member mentioned the national conversation, which has been a great success and has captured the imagination of many people in Scotland. The national conversation is not just for Governments and politicians; it is for people the length and breadth of our country—and beyond, should folk want to contribute. The Government is pleased to have instigated the national conversation and interest is immense. For that reason, I am more than happy to tell people throughout the world what the Scottish Government is doing for the interests of Scotland.

Question 6 has been withdrawn.


Cultural Co-ordinators in Scottish Schools

To ask the Scottish Executive what its plans are for the future of the cultural co-ordinators in Scottish schools programme. (S3O-1838)

The Minister for Europe, External Affairs and Culture (Linda Fabiani):

On 26 November we notified all 32 local authorities of our decision to phase out by 2010 direct government funding for the cultural co-ordinators in Scottish schools programme.

We will continue to make significant funds available in the next two years and we have asked the Scottish Arts Council to consult widely, to agree steps that can be taken to sustain some of the good work that has been generated by the programme.

Karen Whitefield:

Does the minister agree with Tony Reekie, the chief executive of Imaginate, who said that failure to continue funding cultural co-ordinators will reduce the effectiveness of the Government's cultural policy? Will she do as he asked and reconsider the decision? If not, how will the Government ensure that children have regular and consistent access to quality cultural provision? Given that the Government also failed to guarantee cultural entitlement, is the failure to continue funding for cultural co-ordinators another blow for cultural activity in Scotland?

Linda Fabiani:

I have much more faith in our local authorities and their elected members and officers, and in the artists of this country, who can work with us towards 2010 to ascertain once and for all what we are already doing in this country. I have faith in the ability of our local authorities, artists and providers to ensure that access is widened.

Instead of putting sticking-plaster initiatives everywhere, let us consider what is being done and what needs to be done. We have to know what we have got before we can know where the gaps are. Let us consider the great work that our national companies, national collections and heritage bodies are doing. In the past eight years, no one bothered to pull together and consider that work, but I am doing it now. It is astounding that it was not done in eight years of devolved government in Scotland.

Malcolm Chisholm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab):

Will the minister confirm that she has received a large number of representations against the axing of culture co-ordinators, from a range of distinguished individuals and companies on the artistic front line? Will she also concede that the Scottish Arts Council wanted to expand the culture co-ordinators scheme, as stated by its representative at the Enterprise and Culture Committee on 23 January last year? Why, therefore, is she forcing the Scottish Arts Council to axe that highly successful scheme, especially when she claimed in her statement on 7 November in the chamber that she rejected ministerial interference in such decisions?

Linda Fabiani:

I will not confirm the member's first point because I have not had a large number of representations on the issue. The Government believes in non-interference in the arts. Our artists are wonderful and capable. Not only did the previous two Administrations micromanage and ring fence funding to local authorities, they did it to the Scottish Arts Council. I am hearing about all the great work that is done by the cultural co-ordinators, but no one can tell me how those cultural co-ordinators were employed, or how many were new posts and how many were people who were already doing fantastic work in local authorities and who will continue to do fantastic work in local authorities. Without that information, there is no point in standing in the chamber and bemoaning the issue. The Government will strengthen the area. We will ensure that people have access to the arts, which will be provided by those who are best at providing it.