Skip to main content

Language: English / Gàidhlig

Loading…
Chamber and committees

Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Thursday, February 10, 2011


Contents


First Minister’s Question Time


Engagements



1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-2897)

The First Minister (Alex Salmond)

Later today I will be taking part in a conference call with the directors of Outplay Entertainment, Richard and Douglas Hare, who have announced today that they will be returning home from California to locate their new games company in the city of Dundee, creating 150 new jobs. The entire Parliament will welcome that announcement, which is a significant boost to the games industry in Scotland.

Iain Gray

New jobs are always welcome, but we are losing jobs all over Scotland, too. Two months ago, I told the First Minister that the Scottish National Party in Renfrewshire was planning to sack 60 teachers and to replace them with unqualified staff for part of the school week. He had no idea then what his SNP colleagues were up to. He thought that it might be a mistake or a misapprehension on my part. It was not. Renfrewshire Council now plans to implement that proposal in all primary schools in August. Does he support replacing teachers with unqualified staff, and is this the thin end of the wedge?

The First Minister

As Iain Gray well knows, the proposal is not to replace teachers, but to have various instructors, for physical education and a variety of other areas, come into the school classroom. He will welcome the announced intention of Renfrewshire Council to ask Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education to examine the matter and to confirm that it is fully in line with education guidelines.

That will be a lot better than what has happened with North Ayrshire Council, which dominated the headlines at the weekend by apparently trying to introduce a four-day week into Scottish education. Before he criticises Renfrewshire Council, Iain Gray should explain to us what on earth Labour-controlled North Ayrshire Council was doing by trying to introduce a four-day week.

Iain Gray

I am glad that the First Minister has brought up North Ayrshire. I know that he has had his spin doctors out, trying to whip up the story. Perhaps he should have checked first. I have with me an e-mail from the leader of North Ayrshire Council, which says:

“I can confirm that we were asked by the SNP Group to bring forward radical options”,

such as a

“4 day week”.

When I heard that, I spoke immediately to the Labour leader of North Ayrshire Council and I got his assurance that that will not happen. He went on radio and television and said that it will not happen. Will the First Minister get on the phone to the SNP leader of Renfrewshire Council and get him to tell us that his plan will not happen either?

The First Minister

Unfortunately for Iain Gray, I heard the interview with the leader of North Ayrshire Council after his phone call with Iain Gray. He said that he was withdrawing the proposal for a four-day week, and introduced a new proposal to start formal education at the age of six. I have the transcript. The only problem with starting formal education at the age of six—apart from the fact that it would be illegal—is that the phone call that took place between Iain Gray and the council leader needs further explanation. Did Iain Gray say to the leader of North Ayrshire Council that he should withdraw his proposal for a four-day week and instead start education at six? Did he give him an indication that the Labour Party would seek to make it legal not to have education starting below the age of five, or was the phone call a one-way conversation, with Iain Gray refusing to listen to his North Ayrshire leader’s daft ideas? Presumably we can now resolve that North Ayrshire Council ain’t intending to impose a four-day week and ain’t intending to start school at the age of six.

Iain Gray

I did not just speak to the leader of North Ayrshire Council about what was happening there, which is not a four-day week. When I asked Alex Salmond about Renfrewshire back in December, he did not know what was going on: he looked frantically through his big book, but he could not find an answer. So I thought that I would go to Paisley and find out what is happening by asking local parents to come and tell me. Five hundred of them turned up, and they told me what Renfrewshire Council is planning. It is planning to take people off the long-term unemployment register, pay them £11 an hour as sessional workers and use them to replace 60 fully qualified teachers. They think that that is an outrage, and they are right. Why will Alex Salmond not call a halt to that crazy plan right now?

The First Minister

I support Renfrewshire Council’s decision to call in Her Majesty’s independent inspectorate to confirm that what it is doing is in line with teaching regulations.

I will just correct Iain Gray on his claim at First Minister’s questions on 16 December 2010 that Renfrewshire planned

“to replace teachers with volunteers.”—[Official Report, 16 December 2010; c 31698.]

That is not what the General Teaching Council said last week when it made it clear that

“lessons during what is described as the ‘teaching week’ would always be delivered by teachers”.

The GTC went on to say that

“This ... was confirmed in our discussions with Renfrewshire”.

Of course, the Requirements for Teachers (Scotland) Regulations 2005 require that any teacher who is employed by a local authority must be a registered teacher. Teaching must be delivered by registered teachers: that is the position in Scotland—it is the legal position.

Given that Renfrewshire Council is, by calling in Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education, conforming with the legal position, I am sure that Iain Gray will reassure us that North Ayrshire Council’s Labour group is not going to proceed with its daft idea to start schooling—illegally—at the age of six.

I know what the position is in Scotland, and I know what the legal position is. I am not sure what the legal position is south of the border, but I note from The Daily Telegraph on 11 January this year that the former Foreign Secretary and Labour leadership hopeful David Miliband announced that he will become an untrained teacher. He will teach A-level government and politics at Haverstock school in Chalk Farm, north London.

Now, if even—[Interruption.]

Order. Order.

The First Minister

If even David Miliband is trusted to come in and teach A-level students in England, cannot people come in to teach physical education and other aspects outwith the curriculum and be trusted with the children of Renfrewshire, or is David Miliband in a better position than the people who come into the schools in Renfrewshire?

Iain Gray

If I was the First Minister of Scotland, and I was asked about what was happening in schools in Renfrewshire for which I am responsible, and I gave an answer that was about David Miliband’s career plans, I would be embarrassed.

As for the GTC, I have the letter that Mr Salmond was reading from, and this is what it says:

“GTC Scotland therefore takes the view”

—it is talking about Renfrewshire’s plans—

“that it would be both professionally inappropriate and potentially illegal”.

He did not read that bit of it out, did he?

As for HMIE, I do not know what it will say, but I know what 500 parents, grandparents and teachers in Renfrewshire told me on Friday.

The First Minister does not always take this line, does he? When Argyll and Bute Council planned to close schools, Mike Russell—who just happens to be the local SNP candidate—ordered SNP councillors to do a U-turn. When I challenged the First Minister on the SNP making 900 council workers redundant in Aberdeen, John Swinney ordered those SNP councillors to do a U-turn. So why will Alex Salmond not tell SNP councillors in Renfrewshire to do a U-turn on this irresponsible scheme? Is it just because he does not have any SNP seats in Renfrewshire that he is worried about?

The First Minister

No, actually, it is because I trust the independence of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education to look at the proposal and confirm that it is in line with the law. I do not think that we need it to look at the North Ayrshire Council proposal, which is obviously and clearly illegal.

Under Renfrewshire Council’s proposal, every part of the school curriculum will continue to be taught by teachers, but they will not have to remain in the classroom while the extra activities—which are termed “enhancements”—are undertaken. The only change is that the primary teacher will no longer have to sit at the back of the class or the side of the pitch while the sports coach takes the class.

Iain Gray seems puzzled as to the relevance of David Miliband’s attempt to do the same thing in England to the situation in Renfrewshire, Argyll or anywhere else. [Interruption.]

Order.

I will tell members what the continuing thread is and why Iain Gray did not ask me about Megrahi or the budget today. [Interruption.]

Order, order. First Minister, your microphone is off. I am sorry, but it is entirely up to Mr Gray what he asks about.

I am pointing out that Iain Gray did not ask about the budget or Megrahi and does not want to hear about David Miliband south of the border because, from top to bottom, the Labour Party in Scotland is an example of organised hypocrisy.

I apologise to the First Minister that I did not ask him the question that he wanted. [Interruption.]

Order.

It is Friday night tomorrow night. I will get those 500 parents in Paisley back. Will the First Minister come with me, look them in the eye and tell them that the council’s proposal is a good idea for their schools?

The First Minister

I will trust the independent judgment of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education. This Friday, I will be seeking to persuade people in Scotland that 25,000 modern apprenticeships is not only a fantastic deal for young people in this country but the reason why Iain Gray does not want to talk about the budget. The number is 60 per cent more than we inherited from the Labour Party. That is why the budget is good for young people all over Scotland.


Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)



2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S3F-2898)

I may well meet the Secretary of State for Scotland this coming Monday.

Annabel Goldie

The former United Kingdom Secretary of State for Justice, Jack Straw, claims that Kenny MacAskill tried to do a deal linking progress on airguns and slopping out with moves that could have paved the way for Mr al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, to return to Libya. Did Kenny MacAskill act alone or was the First Minister complicit with him in trying to cut that odious deal?

The First Minister

Neither. If Annabel Goldie examines the documents from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, she will see that that dispute is about 2007. In 2007, no one—not even Jack Straw—was attempting to return Mr Megrahi to Libya. The position then was that Jack Straw was trying to persuade the Scottish Government to accept a veto on prisoner transfer, as opposed to the exclusion clause that we wanted.

Testimony to the fact that Jack Straw failed in his attempt to persuade us in that direction are the eight letters from me and the cabinet secretary—four before the meetings in question and four afterwards—which make it clear that the Scottish Government did not at any stage drop its opposition to that proposal or its insistence that there should be an exclusion clause in the prisoner transfer agreement.

When Annabel Goldie takes a closer look at the record and understands the difference between 2007 and 2008 and the changes that occurred in the Labour Government’s policy in that period, she will see that the record clearly vindicates the Scottish Government’s position.

Annabel Goldie

Let us get this straight: the First Minister is telling us that it was a huge confusion and just a great big muddle. With all the conversations, correspondence, minutes, memos and meetings, he is saying that everyone else has got it wrong. That does not wash.

Let us move on to April 2009, when the First Minister himself asked Jack Straw directly whether he had a view on Mr al-Megrahi being sent back to Libya.

Alex Salmond has always maintained that the release of Mr al-Megrahi was an exclusively Scottish matter and no one else’s business, so why did the Scottish Government give the impression of wanting to cut a deal, and why was Alex Salmond so anxious to find out the UK Government’s view on Mr al-Megrahi being returned to Libya? What on earth was going on?

The First Minister

We had the American Government’s view and the Libyan Government’s view and submissions and indications from a range of people, but we did not have in public the United Kingdom Government’s view. I say “in public” because the UK Government’s policy changed in October 2008 to facilitate the return of Mr al-Megrahi to Libya, as the cabinet secretary’s papers indicate. That occurred in every level of government and every relevant Government department. I knew that at the time; indeed, I have said a number of times that that was the UK Government’s position. As we now know, there was a change this week, and we have things on the public record. It is extraordinary—even as extraordinary as Richard Baker’s remarkable interview on “Newsnight” on Monday—that the Labour Party in Scotland did not know that that was the United Kingdom Labour Government’s policy.

Annabel Goldie will see two things if she looks at a UK minute of 13 October 2008. Mr Straw was anxious to indicate the implications of Mr Megrahi dying in a Scottish jail. I said three things to Mr Straw: that the matter of the prisoner transfer agreement caused us deep grievance; that nothing that the Scottish Government would ever do or be seen to do would cut across the processes of Scots law; and that a case of compassionate release could be considered as a genuine case only through the due process of Scots law. That is exactly what the Scottish Government has always maintained, and that is why I believe that we have been vindicated by the release of the papers.

On the charge that many people have laid against the Labour Party this week, I gently point out to Annabel Goldie before she claims that the Conservative party as a whole had a consistent position on the matter that both Lord Trefgarne, who is a former Tory minister, and Daniel Kawczynski wrote to the Scottish Government separately. They did not write to say that we should follow the due process of law. Lord Trefgarne said that we should pay attention to commercial interests, and Daniel Kawczynski said that we should use Mr Megrahi as a bargaining chip. The record shows that the Scottish Government has been consistent throughout the affair. We have acted in good faith and followed due process; others have been guilty of organised hypocrisy.


Cabinet (Meetings)



3. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-2899)

Issues of importance to the people of Scotland will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet.

Tavish Scott

The national centre for excellence in traditional music, which is based at Plockton high school, provides many talented children with an opportunity to build a national and, indeed, international career in music. It is surely the embodiment of Scotland’s education system and the curriculum for excellence. It builds young people’s talents and skills and their belief that they are Scotland’s future. The centre opened in 2000 with direct Government funding, which was initially continued in 2007. A year later, Highland Council had to assume complete financial responsibility, and it now faces agonising budget decisions. Will the First Minister consider how best to fund the national centre for all? We all want to secure its future.

The First Minister

Resources were, of course, transferred to the local government settlement for Highland Council to use. In case there is any misapprehension, there are, of course, Liberal Democrats in the Highland Council administration.

I know that the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning met John Farquhar Munro, the local MSP, yesterday to discuss the issue. The cabinet secretary assured him of the Government’s determination to ensure that that vital national centre is maintained to help music education across the Highlands. I hope and believe that that enthusiasm will be shared by the Highland Council administration.

Tavish Scott

It is a big step for a 14-year-old to leave home, live in the Plockton school hostel and attend classes in a new place. Young people who make that decision show their commitment to Scotland’s traditional music. The First Minister’s Government is assisting in other local authority areas. For example, travel to the new Burns museum in Ayrshire is being supported by the Government, not just the local council, and Stirling Council, rightly, is not expected to pick up the cost of a makeover of the battle of Bannockburn site.

Does the First Minister therefore accept that the national centre should be funded by the Government, Creative Scotland and the local authorities, such as Highland Council and Shetland Islands Council, that place children at Plockton to further their musical development and careers? Will he ensure that his Government now takes the lead in organising that financial package?

The First Minister

I repeat that the money was put into the local government settlement. There is an obvious difference between that and the provision for local authorities across Scotland to allow them to ensure that every young Scot will—I hope—at some time in their school days be able to visit the marvellous new Robert Burns museum in Alloway, or the provision for the national resource project involving Historic Scotland and the National Trust for Scotland to ensure that we have a magnificent new visitor centre in time for the 700th anniversary of the battle of Bannockburn in 2014.

In not recognising Highland Council’s responsibilities in the matter, Tavish Scott rather skates over the issue. Occasionally, he should try and take yes for an answer. I was not at yesterday’s meeting between Michael Russell and John Farquhar Munro, but I know that John Farquhar Munro is a passionate advocate of his constituency and the Highlands, and I know that Michael Russell is deeply interested not just in music education, but in giving our children in the Highlands and Islands the maximum opportunities. Although I have not had a read-out on the meeting, I would be very surprised indeed if, between them, those two gentlemen had not made some progress to ensure that Plockton high school can continue to offer its vital educational experience for the children of the Highlands and Islands.

I will take a supplementary from Richard Baker.

Thank you. I will not dwell on the irony of this First Minister making allegations of hypocrisy.

Mr Baker, at this stage, a supplementary really should just stick to the question.

Richard Baker

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

What support has been given to the victims affected by the dropping of cases as a result of the Cadder judgment? Is the First Minister aware that, a year before the judgment, practitioners in Scotland warned that his Government was in breach of the European convention on human rights on the matter? Does he agree that those events require the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to make an emergency statement to Parliament?

The First Minister

Where do I start with Mr Richard Baker? I might start with the fact that the highest court in Scotland ruled, by a majority of seven to nil, that Scottish justice was compliant in these matters. I do not know whether Richard Baker is saying that the Lord Advocate should have acted against a ruling of seven Scottish judges in the highest court in our land. When every party in the Parliament supported the emergency legislation that was necessary, it was recognised that the Crown Office and the justice secretary had dealt expeditiously with the extraordinarily difficult position that we had been presented with.

It has been noted today that if the Lord Advocate had not acted immediately when it looked as if the Supreme Court—not the highest court in Scotland, but the United Kingdom’s Supreme Court—was going to deliver an adverse judgment, many thousands more would have been affected. Emergency legislation was passed expeditiously, with the support of Richard Baker.

I am delighted that the Parliament united to pass that emergency legislation. What surprises me is to read today’s comments by Richard Baker attacking the justice secretary, when he, as a member of this Parliament, was prepared to support that legislation to deal with a situation that affected many thousands of our fellow citizens. It is his inability to look at such issues in terms of justice and the rights and expectations of our citizens, and his desperate attempts to gain some petty party advantage in such difficult situations, that have been the mark of Richard Baker throughout the current parliamentary session and why he was reduced to such a confused, rambling wreck on “Newsnight” last Monday.


Schools (Four-day Week)



4. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is on schools being switched to a four-day week. (S3F-2902)

The First Minister (Alex Salmond)

As has been indicated, the Scottish Government does not support a move to a four-day week in schools. We now know that Iain Gray had to order his councillors in North Ayrshire to fall into line over the phone.

It seems to me that cutting a full day out of the school week, which Labour-controlled North Ayrshire Council seems to have been planning—

The SNP asked for it.

The First Minister

—would have had a significant impact on pupils, their families and staff, not least of which would have been the difficulties and costs for parents of arranging one day of child care per week. The council has offered no explanation of why it thought that that was a good idea, but given that the Labour council leader quickly dumped the plan after it became public we might have thought that he did not need a desperate phone call from Iain Gray.

A four-day school week has no educational merit whatever. Contrary to the insinuation from Mr Gray, the SNP group was not aware of the Labour proposal before it hit the media—[Interruption.]

Order.

Kenneth Gibson

The First Minister is aware that Labour-controlled North Ayrshire Council’s grant will fall by £5.5 million in the year that begins in April. The council said that the cut would be £64 million, which caused widespread consternation among staff and service users. Given that the council’s general services budget will still be more than £340 million and that there is an underspend of £5.4 million, does the First Minister share my concern that, although difficult decisions have to be taken, North Ayrshire Council and other Labour councils are scaring parents, playing politics with children’s education and worrying staff, by overplaying budget reductions for their perceived electoral advantage?

The First Minister

I got the account of David O’Neill’s interview on BBC Radio Scotland’s “Good Morning Scotland” on 7 February. The Labour leader of North Ayrshire Council confirmed that the council had had a proposal to cut an entire year from school education by increasing the school age to six years old and keeping children in nursery for longer. He does not seem to have divulged in public the information that he divulged to Iain Gray.

There are people who genuinely think that compulsory school education should start at six. It is unfortunate that they would have to look at the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, which says that education must be offered to a person who has

“attained the age of five years and has not attained the age of sixteen years.”

Therefore, although I am relieved that North Ayrshire Labour has been blown off course in its daft plan for a four-day week for Scottish pupils, I am still concerned that a leader of any council in Scotland should advocate the illegal position of school education starting at six. We need more than another phone call from Iain Gray. No wonder he has his head in his hands.


Local Government Expenditure



5. To ask the First Minister what advice the Scottish Government has given to local authorities that are considering reductions in spending regarding services and facilities that should be protected. (S3F-2907)

The First Minister (Alex Salmond)

As John Park knows, our priorities were to protect 1,000 extra policemen on the streets, the council tax freeze, which has saved families more than £300, free personal care and small class sizes. We did that in agreement with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which took as its main objective the retention of local councils’ share of the public sector cake. COSLA also wanted as much protection for local councils as possible, without denying councils the opportunity to take their own local view on the proposals.

John Park

When the First Minister announced the establishment of the Christie commission on the future delivery of public services, he said:

“This Government is determined to ensure these services to which we all hold so dear, continue to be delivered in a manner that keeps the social fabric of Scotland intact.”

I give the First Minister an example in which that has not happened. He might be aware that the outdoor education centre at Ardroy, in Argyll, which is operated by Fife Council, is likely to close, following a decision of the council today. Some 5,000 people have campaigned to keep the facility open and many people expressed concern to me about not just the impending decision but the unacceptable way in which the views of Fife Council employees, in particular, have been suppressed in recent weeks.

It looks like it might be too late for Ardroy, but will the First Minister today send a message to all public service decision makers, to insist that they engage in a meaningful way with all communities as they make the difficult decisions that lie ahead? If decision makers do not do that, there will be no social fabric left at all, let alone any to keep intact.

The First Minister

The member should bear in mind that local councils must make decisions that are based on the budget and local priorities. I repeat:

“COSLA’s main objective was to retain our share of the public sector cake which we have done. It is doubly pleasing that we have delivered as much protection for our members as possible without boxing councils in and denying them the opportunity to take their own local view on the proposals we have developed with government.”

That is a direct quotation from a press release from Councillor Pat Watters, COSLA president and Labour councillor from North Ayrshire Council—[Interruption.] I should have said South Lanarkshire Council; I admit that Ayrshire has been very much on my mind.

The important point that Pat Watters made is that the settlement for Scottish local government was far better than the settlement for local government south of the border. The outline from Mr Swinney of a flat cash settlement for the next few years is infinitely better than the prospect that councils face south of the border.

I say that to John Park so that he will realise that these are extraordinarily difficult times for public sector finance. Our complaint about Labour members is not that they are worried and aware of the implications at the local council level; it is that they believe that we should all have a collective amnesia about why local government, central Government and every other public service are under such pressure. They are under pressure because of the wrecking of the United Kingdom’s finances and a programme of cuts that are deeper and tougher than those of Margaret Thatcher, which was planned by the Labour Government at Westminster and which is being implemented by the current coalition Government. It is recognition of the fact that the Labour Party is responsible for that situation that we are looking for.


Forestry (Public Ownership)



6. To ask the First Minister what recent discussions the Scottish Government has had with Forestry Commission Scotland regarding the value of forestry under public ownership. (S3F-2911)

The First Minister (Alex Salmond)

Roseanna Cunningham and Scottish Government officials regularly meet Forestry Commission Scotland to discuss a range of issues. The Scottish Government has made it very clear that, although there may be plans to take forests out of public ownership by the Lib Dem-Conservative Administration at Westminster, the Scottish Government has no such plans. Unlike the Con-Dem Administration, the Scottish Government recognises the enormous economic, social and environmental benefits that our forests and woodlands deliver.

In addition, we have made clear our intention to plant 100 million trees by 2015, which forms a major part of our drive to cut CO2 emissions. We are making excellent progress towards that goal and I am pleased to say that I made a small personal contribution to that when I visited Cochno Hill in November last year.

Jim Hume

We are talking about Scottish issues. Everybody knows that it was the Scottish Lib Dems who forced the Scottish National Party Government into a U-turn on its plan to sell off our Scottish forests to the bankers. Since then, the Government has stated that it is against the privatisation of our forest estate. Now, we hear from a Government adviser that Scottish forests are

“being sold piecemeal to the highest bidder.”

There are facts to prove that. Since 2007, there has been a net loss of 26,000 acres of Scottish forest estate, with the Government netting a forest land sales profit of £28 million. Where have those profits gone, and when will the First Minister admit that selling off our forests is still on his agenda?

The First Minister

The revenue is going to purchase better-value land, which is being planted by the Forestry Commission. The plan is to increase forest cover in Scotland from 17 per cent of the area of our country to 25 per cent. We are on target to have 100 million more trees planted in Scotland over the next few years.

Given the ambition of those plans, I do not think that it is reasonable for a Liberal Democrat member to attack the Scottish Government on our ambitious plans for forestry, especially in the light of the fact that plans may be announced by the coalition Government in England that have direct implications for Scottish jobs in Edinburgh. The fact is that hundreds of jobs in Edinburgh are at risk as a result of the coalition Government’s policies. I do not think that Jim Hume should come to the chamber and say that we cannot talk about what is happening in London given the implications of that for jobs in Edinburgh.

Margo MacDonald (Lothians) (Ind)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. In his answer to John Park, the First Minister admitted that local authorities have full responsibility for policy making in their areas. With the greatest of respect, I question why the leader of the Opposition and the First Minister were allowed to hurl insults at each other about what local authorities should or should not do. I ask you to call together the leaders of the parties and remind them of the standing orders.

That is not a point of order for me, and whom I decide to meet is a matter entirely for me.

I suspend the meeting until 14:15.

12:34 Meeting suspended until 14:00.

14:00 On resuming—