For entirely understandable reasons, question 6 has had to be withdrawn. That should not be an excuse for questions or answers to be any longer than usual.
Engagements
To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-2261)
Later today, I will have engagements to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.
Will the First Minister confirm that curriculum for excellence will begin in all schools—primary and secondary—this August?
As the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning has said, we follow the management board’s advice, which is to continue with curriculum for excellence. Iain Gray will have noticed—despite comments to the contrary—the substantial support that curriculum for excellence has throughout the education sector.
The curriculum management board now includes teacher representatives—that is one change that this Administration has made. I am therefore sure that Iain Gray sees the sense and logic of the cabinet secretary’s following that board’s advice.
My question was fairly straightforward. I support curriculum for excellence and agree that its principles have widespread support. That is why I would like the reassurance that it will be introduced in our schools as planned, in August. The First Minister has had three years: he has already delayed the new curriculum’s introduction by a year.
The First Minister talks about the involvement of teachers, but they tell us that they do not know what is happening. Some say that they do not know what they will be teaching first years in secondary school in August. When I was a teacher in the 1980s, I saw plenty of changes in the curriculum, but I never saw a shambles like this. I always knew what I would be teaching before classes arrived at the door.
Time is running out.
Members: What about a question?
Here is the question. [Interruption.] The question is coming now, but we will wait long enough for the answer. That is for sure. [Interruption.]
Order. Let us have the question, please
What action is the First Minister taking now to sort out the situation in time for August?
The answer is much shorter than the question—we will follow the curriculum management board’s advice.
In trying—I have no doubt that he is—to help Scottish education, Iain Gray gives the impression that many voices are raised against curriculum for excellence, but that is simply not true. I will quote some voices from the past week. Greg Dempster, who is the Association of Head Teachers and Deputes in Scotland’s general secretary, said:
“We are against any delay. Many schools have been working hard and any announcement of delay will cause that momentum to diminish.”
John Stodter, who is the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland’s general secretary, said:
“We are not in favour of holding off because it would be a big demotivating factor for many teachers.”
Now, I think—[Interruption.]
Order. There are too many sedentary interventions from Labour members. Please keep it under control.
The sedentary interventions are a sign of discontent among Labour members with their leader rather than about the issue. The standing interventions show the broad-based support for curriculum for excellence throughout Scottish education. At some point, that support will be extended to include the Opposition leader and the Opposition party in the Scottish Parliament.
The First Minister needs to pay attention. I, too, am against delay. That is why I ask him whether he can guarantee that he will take the action that is required to introduce the new curriculum in August. I ask that question not just for myself, but for the parents of the 55,000 Scottish pupils who will start secondary school in August. Those parents do not know what their children will learn or how they will be taught. I wonder whether the First Minister knows that. How many subjects will pupils take? How many exams will they sit? In what year will they move to the exam curriculum—secondary 3 or S4?
Right. Let me give Iain Gray the detail on the support that the Government has introduced. There have been four additional in-service days and investment of £4 million in 100 extra teachers to provide support for implementation. There has been the provision of curriculum guidance, including on assessment, assurance and moderation, with the online national assessment resource to support teachers further this autumn. Those are actions that the education secretary has already taken over and above the previous Administration’s lack of planning. I am sure that Iain Gray will welcome them.
I am also sure that Iain Gray was a fine teacher when he practised education. What a pity it is to see such a fine teacher going wrong in politics.
Once again, the First Minister needs to pay attention to the question. I did not ask how many in-service days there were.
He did.
No. For the avoidance of doubt, I will ask my questions again, because I think that the First Minister has no idea. These are the questions that parents are asking. When their children go to high school for the first time in August, how many subjects will those pupils take? How many exams will they sit? In what year will they move to the exam curriculum—will it be in S3 or S4? The Scottish Government has given different answers to those questions and the First Minister has given no answer to them.
Iain Gray asked three questions; let me give him three answers. The first answer is the same; the second answer is the same; and the third answer is fourth year. I hope that that is clear enough for him. The fact is that this Administration has supported curriculum for excellence—although it seems that the Labour Party is equivocal at best in its support. [ Interruption. ]
Order, order.
Iain Gray asked me in his second question what additional support had been provided and what measures have been taken to introduce the change in the Scottish education system. I answered him specifically as to the changes that had been introduced. I know that he did not like the answer, but it was the answer to his question. Every one of the actions that have been taken is over and above the inactivity of the Labour Party when, unfortunately, it was in charge of the education system in Scotland.
Curriculum for excellence is a tremendous innovation in Scottish education. There is huge enthusiasm for it across the education sector. Parents, pupils and teachers in Scotland are looking for a lead from Parliament, and for it not to play about with the issue but to recognise the importance of our children’s education, which might be rather more important than the Labour Party’s looking for some confusion or political advantage. Labour members must rise to the occasion and get behind the curriculum.
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S3F-2262)
I have no plans to meet the Secretary of State for Scotland in the near future. I was at the joint ministerial committee in London yesterday, which concerned several important agreements. The Scotland Office was represented by the secretary of state’s deputy.
We all know that there is nothing the First Minister likes better than flashing a toothy smile for the benefit of any passing camera, but all is not well in the world of Scottish dentistry. At a cost of £2.5 million every year, the Scottish National Party Government wants to allow the names of patients to remain registered with a dentist for ever, even if that patient has not turned up for years or not turned up at all. That may allow the Government to trumpet that more and more patients are registered with dentists, but it does not mean that any more are being treated by dentists. That is why the stupidity of the approach is obvious to most people, not least to the British Dental Association in Scotland, which says:
“It has ... been pointed out that the change is a politically expedient way of artificially improving the statistic”.
Does the First Minister agree that, in layman’s terms, that means cooking the books? How can he defend that?
We have already increased registrations in dentistry, but let us look at the specific achievements since the Government took office. We have met the manifesto commitment to establish the new dental school in Aberdeen—I had the great pleasure of opening it myself. We have met the manifesto commitment to reintroduce a school-based dental service—which was launched by Shona Robison—in the childsmile programme on 3 December 2007. We have met the 2008-09 dental health improvement, efficiency, access and treatment target for 80 per cent of all three to five-year-old children to be registered with a national health service dentist.
The facts are that there are more dentists and that more treatment is taking place across Scotland than in the miserable record that we inherited from the previous Administration. I would have thought that the substantial achievements—from the admittedly depressing series of statistics that we inherited—would give Annabel Goldie cause to smile before she asks her second question.
Let me bring the First Minister back down to earth. I had hoped that Ms Sturgeon’s whispering sweet nothings into his ear might have enlightened us all, but clearly she failed. The facts are that in Moray barely a quarter of adults are registered with an NHS dentist, in Aberdeenshire only 41 per cent of adults are registered, and in the Scottish Borders fewer than half are. Teeth are rotting while we speak—that is hardly a tribute to the Government’s stunning success with Scottish dentistry.
On the registering-for-ever approach, the First Minister’s Government has chosen to ignore the dire warnings of NHS dentists in Scotland, who warn that the change will undermine the importance of regular check-ups and will, which is most alarming of all, increase the chances that serious conditions such as mouth cancer will go undetected.
All that will cost £2.4 million a year, just to make the SNP Government look better. That £2.4 million could be much better spent on giving more patients real treatment, than wasted on phoney propaganda for the SNP. The Conservatives have lodged a motion to annul this nonsense. Will the First Minister support it?
I point out that the reason for the change to continuous registration is to prevent patients from being deregistered from the national health service. That is the basis of the change.
Annabel Goldie asked what Nicola Sturgeon was drawing to my attention, so let me tell the Parliament. She was highlighting the figure of 15 per cent—the increase in dentists under this Administration—which is an extraordinary improvement on the situation that we inherited.
I have looked closely at this and I have tried to get an answer from the shadow chancellor on the Tories’ so-called emergency budget after the election, when they anticipate being in a position to introduce such a budget. Answer came there none. I put it to Annabel Goldie: if the Tories plan further savage cuts in public spending, one thing that might be affected is the number of dentists in Scotland. Does she feel no element of shame in putting forward a position in which she wants more dental treatment, more dentists and more public spending, when her colleagues in London are secretly planning to slash all those things?
Nobody disputes the extreme nature of the financial challenge that is being visited on this country—it is the legacy of Labour debt. Is that not exactly why the First Minister should be spending £2.4 million on treating people’s teeth and not on filling up meaningless patient lists with patients who never go for treatment?
Two things are absolutely essential to treat people’s teeth. The first is to ensure that people are registered with a dentist, and the second is to ensure that there are enough dentists to treat the people who are registered. Both of those things are in hand under this Administration. The increase in dentists and the increase in treatment are impressive achievements over the past three years.
It is entirely reasonable, not just for me but for the whole Parliament, to look to the Tories for further detail on the cuts that they are planning—not in the future but in this year—to the Scottish budget that we have all passed and that councils are using in passing their budgets. Every time Conservative members raise an issue about public spending in Scotland, they will be asked how they can argue for specific public spending when they are planning a general cut across the board.
Cabinet (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-2263)
The next meeting of Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland
The Scottish National Party Government announced a 4.2 per cent rise in CalMac Ferries fares on Tuesday. The increase will hit people in the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism’s constituency, Argyll and Bute. However, the £7.5 million ferry fare bribe in Dr Allan’s constituency, the Western Isles, remains untouched. How much of the extra fares that are paid in Argyll will go towards paying for that?
The road equivalent tariff pilot scheme, which was in our manifesto, has been broadly welcomed—not just in the Western Isles but throughout Scotland—by people who are looking for an approach that will help peripheral communities to cope with the disadvantages of peripherality. Tavish Scott should be thoroughly ashamed of describing the innovation of that pilot scheme, which was fully funded by Government resources, in the way that he did. I do not know what the membership of the Liberal Democrat Party is in the Western Isles, but whatever vast number of members the party had yesterday will, I am sure, be significantly reduced today, after people have heard Tavish Scott deprecate the road equivalent tariff in such terms
So the answer is, “Yes—people in Argyll will pay.” The First Minister mentioned his manifesto. Let us talk about that. Putting up ferry fares by 4.2 per cent was not in the manifesto.
Last week, we showed that the Government is doubling the business rates for some hotels in Scotland, because of the First Minister’s decision not to have a transitional relief scheme. Hotels on Mull, Islay and Bute, which rely on CalMac, face increases in their bills of 44 per cent, 144 per cent and 80 per cent. Now the First Minister is doubling the increase in ferry fares to get to those places.
The situation is just as bad for other businesses. How does raising fares help salmon and fishing industries in Shetland, which depend on ferries? The First Minister’s Government has decided to cut the speed of ferries from the northern isles, increase journey times and make vessels leave harbour before the fishing industry can load them. How is that fair? How can the First Minister do that without having the courtesy to ask businesses whether such a change will cripple them? If slowing down transport to save fuel is the future, will his ministerial BMW stick to 30mph when he goes home to Strichen?
I think that the BMWs were part of the Administration of which Tavish Scott was a member—[Interruption.] Ministerial car use has declined significantly since this Administration took office.
Let me point out to Tavish Scott some of the facts. Government spending on ferry services has increased by 38 per cent since 2007 and there will, despite the budget pressures, be a further increase of £2 million in the ferry budget for 2010-11, from £103 million to £105 million. Tavish Scott should welcome such a substantial increase at a time of extraordinary financial pressure on the public purse.
Tavish Scott also referred to the question that he asked last week at First Minister’s question time, I presume because he was not satisfied with the outcome last week. I point out that he seems, in blithely arguing for a transitional relief scheme, to be ignoring the fact that the 60 per cent of Scottish businesses that are gaining from the rating proposal, which include hotels, small businesses and a variety of other businesses, would have to pay for his transitional relief scheme.
I do not know whether Tavish Scott looks beyond his own interests when he asks questions, but simultaneously to alienate the whole of the Western Isles—
You can do that—
Order, Mr Rumbles.
To alienate the whole of the Western Isles and 60 per cent of Scottish businesses in a single First Minister’s question time is an achievement that even Michael Rumbles would find difficult to emulate.
There have been a considerable number of requests for questions on the matter of this supplementary question, so I hope that members will understand my taking the question from the relevant constituency member, Paul Martin.
I am sure that the First Minister and all members in the chamber will join me in expressing the deepest sympathy to the family of the Russian asylum seekers who tragically committed suicide in the Red Road area of my constituency. Will the First Minister look into the tragic circumstances of those sad deaths and take the necessary steps to ensure that proper resources have been, and will continue to be, put in place, and that we learn lessons for what future resources should be provided to deliver the services that are required to support not only asylum seekers in our communities but the communities in my constituency that have supported for so many years those who seek refuge in Scotland?
That tragic incident has shocked the local community in the member’s constituency, and communities across Glasgow and Scotland. I offer my deep sympathy to those who have been affected. I remain committed, as I hope the whole Parliament is, to fair treatment for all those who seek asylum in Scotland.
A great deal has been done through not just public authorities but voluntary agencies to support people who seek asylum in Scotland. However, I am sure that Paul Martin will be the first to accept that people in that position can often suffer circumstances of deep uncertainty about their future. I have said a number of times in the chamber that we have an obligation to asylum seekers that is equal to the obligation that we have to citizens across Scotland, because the asylum seekers are in our country and are entitled to our protection.
On looking further at the specific circumstances of this case, one potential route to take would obviously be a fatal accident inquiry. However, I am sure that Paul Martin will understand that the decision whether to take such a step is at the discretion of the law officers. I am sure that the Lord Advocate will have heard his question today and will respond in a timeous way.
I will take another supplementary from Derek Brownlee.
Last week’s Scottish Government economic recovery plan majored on the importance of the Scottish investment bank to support recovery. Parliament has voted additional funding to the SIB for this financial year. Will the Government ensure that it reaches businesses in this financial year?
That is the intention behind the Scottish investment bank. Indeed, the co-investment funds that fund part of it are being deployed across Scotland at the present moment. I am glad to have Derek Brownlee’s support for that initiative. However, I say to him that I would like clarity from the Conservative shadow chancellor on his approach to next year’s budget. I have had an equivocal response from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and an incredible response from the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. It would be useful in terms of investment through the Scottish investment bank and across the range of public spending in Scotland if we had clarity from the Westminster parties on what, if anything, they intend to cut from the budget that this Parliament has allocated in recent times, and which local authorities across Scotland are debating. Any assistance that Derek Brownlee can give us in seeking that information will be gratefully received.
Public and Commercial Services Union (Industrial Action)
To ask the First Minister what discussions have taken place between the Scottish Government and the Public and Commercial Services Union regarding the impact on the Scottish Government’s directorates of the current industrial action. (S3F-2267)
There have been no specific discussions between the Scottish Government and PCS regarding the impact on the Scottish Government’s directorates of the industrial action that took place this week, as it relates to the civil service compensation scheme, which is a reserved matter. However, Scottish Government officials are in regular discussion with all five Scottish Government unions and, under the terms of a partnership agreement, meet at various levels on at least 10 occasions per year
I point out to members that I have been a trade union member for more than 30 years. Does the First Minister agree that it is unfortunate, to put it mildly, that the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament have been dragged in to what is essentially a dispute with the United Kingdom Government’s Cabinet Office? What consultations has the UK Cabinet Office held with the Scottish Government regarding the issues at the heart of the industrial action by PCS?
It is, as the member said, a reserved matter and therefore Scottish ministers were not consulted on the proposals or, indeed, the on-going action. Of course, this Government would wish to see a speedy resolution of the dispute and would urge both sides to work together towards that end.
In the event of further strike action by PCS affecting the conduct of business in the Parliament, can the First Minister confirm that he will instruct all Scottish National Party MSPs to do their duty and turn up for work in this building on such days?
I am glad that my responsibilities have been enlarged to include the conduct of business in the Parliament. I think that the parliamentary authorities and the members concerned will be well able to conduct their business in a proper way, through democratic dialogue for the people of Scotland.
Alcohol (Minimum Unit Pricing)
To ask the First Minister whether the European Court of Justice ruling on minimum pricing for tobacco products raises questions regarding the legality of minimum unit pricing of alcohol. (S3F-2265)
Our proposals on minimum pricing will comply with European law. We consider that the proposal for minimum pricing is capable of complying with European law if it is a proportionate measure that is aimed at the protection of human health.
The Alcohol etc (Scotland) Bill has received a certificate of legislative competence from the Presiding Officer.
In my view, the debate on alcohol should try to rise above party politics. That is what the public expect, so I ask Jackie Baillie to reflect on the evidence that is being presented to the Health and Sport Committee, and to revisit her opposition to the policy.
The First Minister will be aware that the language and decisions of the European Court of Justice on minimum pricing in general, whether on tobacco or alcohol, have been wholly consistent over the past 30 years.
On 29 October 2009, I asked the First Minister whether he would share the substance of the Government’s legal advice on minimum pricing with all party leaders. Despite his positive response then, I regret that that has not yet happened. Will the First Minister now rise to the occasion, in the light of the increasing concerns about the legality of the proposed measure? If he is confident about the legal position, will he agree today to notify the provisions of the bill, and the associated subordinate legislation, to the European Commission so that we know, before stage 3, whether minimum pricing is legal?
Let me see whether I can help the member further. The opinion by the Advocate General that is often referred to
“relates to specific cases of minimum pricing for tobacco and cannot be interpreted as a judgement on the legality of minimum pricing in general. Indeed, the European Commission confirmed in a written statement to Catherine Stihler MSP earlier this year that EU legislation did not prohibit Member States for setting minimum retail prices for alcoholic beverages.”
I hope that that is clear enough for Jackie Baillie.
I said that the debate on the issue should rise above party politics. When I was visiting the House of Commons yesterday, as I mentioned to Annabel Goldie earlier—[Interruption.]
Order.
When I was pursuing my duties there as First Minister of Scotland, guess what was on the agenda? It was a debate on minimum pricing of alcohol, in which member after member—Labour members, Liberal Democrat members and, I understand, even a few Conservative members—made the case for minimum pricing of alcohol. They did so on a cross-party basis because Kevin Barron, the chair of the House of Commons Health Select Committee, drew attention to the fact that his committee’s report made that case on public health grounds in the strongest terms. I cannot for the life of me see why all that cross-party consensus should be breaking out in the House of Commons in relation to the situation in England, which has a huge problem with alcohol, although a smaller one than Scotland, when in this Parliament—I presume because the weather is colder in Scotland—somehow the consensus is suspended and people such as Jackie Baillie cannot rise to the occasion and try to find a way of rebalancing this country’s attitude to alcohol.
Is the First Minister aware that in evidence to the Health and Sport Committee yesterday, Gavin Hewitt of the Scotch Whisky Association claimed that if minimum pricing for alcohol became law, there would be substantial consequences for exports of whisky to markets such as South Korea? Does he agree?
There is no basis or evidence to support the view that minimum pricing in Scotland would have an impact on the acceptance of Scotch whisky in overseas markets. There are two simple reasons for that. First, we in this country currently have a price regime that has a discriminatory effect on whisky, spirits and other alcoholic beverages. Countries that have tried to use that as a reason for discriminating against Scotch whisky have been the subjects of action by the World Trade Organization.
Secondly, makers of Scotch whisky or any other alcoholic beverage have nothing to fear from a discrimination point of view from an action that must be, in order to observe legality, non- discriminatory. On the contrary, Scotch whisky is one of the drinks that would benefit from being subject to taxation or, indeed, minimum pricing based on alcoholic content. For many years, the Scotch Whisky Association lobbied members of Parliament at Westminster across all political parties, pleading and arguing for taxation by alcoholic content, so it is passing strange that when minimum pricing is proposed on that basis, those arguments are suspended.
I say to Christine Grahame that there is no basis for that fear, but there is the strongest possible evidence that minimum pricing is part of the solution to redressing Scotland’s attitude to alcohol.
Will the First Minister nevertheless accept that the legality of minimum pricing and its format and rate is a crucial requirement? Is he aware that minimum pricing for spirits was ruled as being a barrier to trade under article 30 of the Treaty of Rome? Given that the provisions in the Alcohol etc (Scotland) Bill are no more developed than they were in the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill, will the First Minister put in the public domain a clear and detailed analysis of how the minimum pricing scheme meets the necessity test and the material health benefit test so that the public, the industry and Parliament can have a clear and defensible view on the matter?
When I read out the quotation in my earlier answer to Jackie Baillie, I should have made it clear that it came from an analysis by Scottish Health Action on Alcohol Problems. It pinpoints exactly what has to be done to make sure that the minimum pricing scheme that we propose to use conforms to international and European law. It must be non-discriminatory: our minimum pricing proposals will be non-discriminatory. It also must be proportionate and benefit public health: our proposals will be proportionate in terms of the public health benefit. As the European Commission’s answer to Catherine Stihler MEP indicated, if they meet those criteria, our proposals will conform to international and European law.
It is extraordinary that Greg Mulholland MP said in the House of Commons yesterday that
“The Liberal Democrat parliamentary party very much supports a minimum price for alcohol.”—[Official Report, House of Commons, 10 March 2010; Vol 507, c 319.]
Has Robert Brown contacted Greg Mulholland to tell him that the entire Liberal Democrat Party in the House of Common risks going ultra vires on European law, or does he think that it would only be illegal in Scotland and not in England? Members need to stop hiding behind excuses and address the scale of the challenge that is facing Scottish society.
12:35 Meeting suspended until 14:15.