Plenary, 11 Dec 2008

Meeting date: Thursday, December 11, 2008

Official Report 712KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Engagements

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-1270)

Later today I will have meetings to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland.

In September, Fiona Hyslop said, with regard to new teachers, that the General Teaching Council for Scotland survey

"does not show that an increasing number of post-probationers are not getting permanent jobs."—[Official Report, 11 September 2008; c 10704.]

The latest GTCS survey came out yesterday. Will the First Minister tell us whether the number of new primary teachers in permanent jobs is up or down? While he is at it, what about new secondary teachers in permanent jobs? Is that number up or down?

The survey shows that 79 per cent of probationers have moved into teaching employment. I share the desire of all members to see that figure increase, although a declining trend has been evident in the survey for some time. That is why the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, in conjunction with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the local authorities and the GTCS, have had a working group. That group met in June, reported in October and made 12 recommendations on how we can more effectively move probationary teachers into employment after they have done their probationary year. That is effective planning. I accept that that should perhaps have been done earlier, but at least this Government is addressing the problem in a way that it was not addressed over the past eight years.

The latest GTC survey bears further examination. It shows that one in five new teachers has been unable to find teaching work—down almost 9 per cent on last year. The number of primary teachers in permanent jobs is down on last year, and the number of secondary teachers in permanent jobs is down from 70.9 to 58.1 per cent. New teachers on supply lists are up—they are included in the percentage that was quoted by the First Minister—to 30.2 per cent from only 18.7 per cent last year.

After the first full year with the Scottish National Party in charge, this is what the Educational Institute of Scotland has to say:

"The rate of unemployment among new teachers has risen dramatically, and the quality of employment for those who do find work has deteriorated."

The EIS believes that that is an alarming situation and that it needs urgent action. What urgent action does the First Minister plan to take?

Urgent action is the 12 recommendations that have been brought into place. Incidentally, I would not criticise the use as supply teachers of people who have completed their probationary year. One of the recommendations of the joint working group was to use the talents of new teachers as opposed to bringing retired teachers back into the workforce. I hope that that would be very much welcomed.

Maintaining the teaching population at a record level of around 53,000, along with declining school rolls, should allow for the reduction in class sizes that we want. Vacancies arise throughout the school year due to retirement. Although we are extremely concerned that in October—at the start of the survey—705 probationers were still to find employment, in the last month alone, since the start of November, 423 vacancies have been advertised in the Times Educational Supplement. The vacancies are arising. When the survey is redone at the start of the new year, I hope that it will show—as the trends did last year, when we got to 93 per cent of probationers in employment—a sharp uptake and that young people who are moving into the education profession are getting the career opportunities that we all want them to have.

Teachers have always retired during the course of the year; even when I was a teacher—30 years ago—they retired during the course of the year. The point is that, at this stage of the year, far fewer new teachers are in permanent jobs than was the case last year and many of the jobs that the First Minister says have been advertised are, of course, promoted posts that newly qualified teachers cannot apply for.

There are more than 700 new teachers and every one of them has a story. Lynne and Cara McAllister are sisters and both are newly qualified teachers. One is a secondary teacher and one is a primary teacher, and both are unable to find permanent teaching jobs that use their skills and talents. Cara went on the supply list, as the First Minister suggests people should do. She has had six days' work in six months, and is now looking for jobs outside teaching.

GTC Scotland says:

"We are currently producing some of the most talented teachers we have seen in Scotland".

Those are talented teachers who, under the SNP, are going to waste. What hope does the First Minister offer Lynne, Cara and the hundreds of other young teachers like them? When will they get the chance that they want to play their part in building Scotland's future?

To assist young teachers is exactly why the education secretary convened the working group and exactly why the 12 recommendations were made. I hope that Iain Gray is more familiar with those recommendations than he has indicated so far, and I hope that he supports them. They are effective action.

I point out—I would have thought that this was reasonably obvious—that when there are advertisements for promoted posts, opportunities are created for new teachers to move into the profession. I hope that Iain Gray agrees that we should see a sharp rise in probationers taken into employment when we see the new survey in the new year.

On one issue, I accept that I have considerable concerns. I think that it is agreed across the chamber—Jackie Baillie certainly agrees—that the money supply to local authorities is increasing over the next three years. It is increasing in terms of both local authorities' budgets and the share of the Scottish budget. However, as I look across local authorities, I see widely diverging patterns of new teachers being employed. Of course, there are differing factors of demographics and population, and those factors have to be taken into account. However, to show that I am not making a party-political point, let me address two authorities that lie cheek by jowl and which are under different political control. From the most recent information, from 2007, we note that West Lothian Council took on an extra 111 teachers, that South Lanarkshire Council took on another 103, and that teaching jobs are at record numbers. My question is, if those authorities can do that under the concordat, why are some local authorities apparently so reluctant to employ teachers? Is there any Labour Party instruction in the matter? That is what we want to know.

I cannot answer that question. I cannot explain, for example, why Perth and Kinross Council—under SNP control—is cutting teacher numbers by almost 6 per cent. Why would that be?

The problem is not whether I support the First Minister's or his education secretary's working group; the problem is that young teachers are not convinced by that working group. Lynne McAllister, after a first-class honours degree and a year of teacher training with nothing to show for it, is going to Canada to see what prospects there are there. Her sister Cara is looking abroad, too. Next year, 2009, is meant to be the year of coming home to Scotland, but for Lynne and Cara it could be the year of giving up on Scotland. They do not want to go, but they need to hear more than a celebrity chorus of "Caledonia" from the First Minister. They need to hear him say that they have a future here in Scotland as teachers.

We cannot afford to lose the brightest and best of our young people. What action will the First Minister take today to convince Lynne and Cara that they can find a job as teachers here and stay in Scotland where they want to be?

The effective action that we are taking is what the education secretary has provided for under the working group. I will remind Iain Gray of just a few of the proposals, one of which is to increase the payments that teachers receive to help them to move to areas where there are vacancies. As we know, there are vacancies in many areas of Scotland. Another is to achieve greater reconciliation between workforce decisions and the national planning process. A third is to use post-probationary teachers in supply vacancies, rather than relying on recently retired teachers. Those are just three of the 12 measures agreed between the partners to take effective action.

I accept that local authorities have to make their own decisions, but across the board in local authorities we now have the final budget estimates on education for 2007-08, over 2006-07, and we can compare them with previous years. The outrun figure for last year shows, thanks to the effective interventions of the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, a 6.8 per cent increase across Scotland in the revenue budget for education. In the last year of Labour control, the figure was 0.6 per cent.

It may be that local authorities around Scotland are rebuilding after the eight wasted years of Labour and Liberal control. I believe that, given the effective action taken by the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, we will see in the next probationer survey an increase in the number of probationers moving into teacher employment and every one of us will welcome those fantastic young people being given their opportunity in education.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the man who thinks he is saving Scotland when he will next meet the man who thinks he has saved the world. In deference to you, Presiding Officer, I will ask the question that was lodged.

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S3F-1271)

That was better.

I have no immediate plans to meet the Prime Minister in the near future. However, like everyone else, I am in awe of his talents and self-proclaimed abilities. [Interruption.]

Order. That is enough, thank you.

In opposition, the First Minister's colleague Michael Russell called for an independent watchdog to be set up to ensure that all Scottish Executive advertising was "justified and non-political". This week, it was confirmed that the Scottish Government is spending nearly £700,000 of taxpayers' money on advertising its discredited home reports. What happened to Mr Russell's watchdog idea and how would a watchdog have justified such spending?

I remind Annabel Goldie that home reports were passed by a considerable majority in this Parliament. Indeed, as I recall, every party, bar the Conservatives, voted to introduce them. Given that parliamentary mandate—which we do not get for every measure that this Government brings forward—does she not think it entirely reasonable that the information on home reports and their introduction is spread across the population? Does she suggest that, having voted to introduce home reports, we should deny people information about how to use them?

Let us examine what Alex Salmond's priorities really are when it comes to spending taxpayers' money on Government public relations. Here we are: £700,000 is spent on PR for home reports, but the Government is spending less of the advertising budget on child protection, tackling domestic abuse or warnings about sex offenders. This Government clearly thinks that home reports are more important than those issues. Unbelievably, it is spending more of its PR budget on home reports than it has spent on either alcohol or drugs abuse. We now know the warped priorities of the Scottish National Party. Less worthy and important than home reports are the issues of child protection, domestic abuse, the scourge of alcohol and the scars of drug addiction. That is absolutely shameful. What do those lopsided and bizarre priorities say about the Government? Does the First Minister really have the brazen effrontery still to argue that spending £700,000 to advertise a sales tax is justified?

The Scottish Government has a broad range of advertising to try to promote a range of issues in the public interest. Annabel Goldie should acknowledge that we are introducing a new measure that most of us believe will be extraordinarily helpful, particularly for first-time buyers moving into the housing market, who are getting, for the first time, a range of information in what should be, can be and almost certainly will be the most important financial decision of their lives.

I do not believe that Annabel Goldie seriously argues against having an effective information campaign. Incidentally, that was targeted at the first-time buyers market and at those who are moving into the housing market. Surely we should provide effective information to ensure that policies that the Parliament has passed are available to the people whom they are designed to benefit. It would be extraordinary to introduce a significant new policy but to provide no information to the population to ensure that the policy achieved its benefits when rolled out. The Tories confuse their own political opposition to home reports with what is in the general public interest.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-1272)

At its next meeting, the Cabinet will discuss issues that are of importance to the people of Scotland.

Is the First Minister serious when his Government says that, after the new Forth crossing, all 28 other transport projects that were mentioned yesterday are of equal priority? Will that be the case even if the Treasury declines the opportunity to make an interest-free loan to pay for the Forth bridge? Is the Scottish Government's position the reason why The Press and Journal says today that

"The SNP is trying to be all things to all people"?

[Interruption.]

Order.

That was in The Press and Journal.

That is enough advertising, Mr Scott.

The Courier says:

"Talking up the prospect … is all very well but, as of now, it has all the substance of a mirage."

I am still laughing at being accused of being all things to all people by the Liberal Democrats. That is the most extraordinary question that Tavish Scott has come up with.

The strategic transport projects review has received a broad welcome. I have a range of quotations from transport users and transport groups around the country who have been galvanised by the review's strength and vision. If the Liberal Democrats are capable of being all things to all people, given the excellent projects that are proposed in every part of the country—lo, even unto areas that the Liberal Democrats represent—surely Tavish Scott can find something to welcome in the most ambitious transport plan that has been presented to Scotland for a generation.

The difficulty is that The Press and Journal also said that the review was all spin and wrapping paper. The Scotsman says:

"All of this has a fishy smell about it."

I ask again: are the 28 remaining transport projects all of equal status? Are they all at equal risk if the SNP cannot make its sums add up? Is the truth not that the one real SNP priority is to create a war of words with the Treasury?

What is it about the Government and transport? It has a rail franchise with no business plan, a bridge with no funding and a Scottish Futures Trust with no money. The Government must tell us the timetable for all the projects and which will survive into plan B. When will the First Minister stop being all things to all people?

I have said some hard things about the Treasury in my time and I have no doubt that I will say a few more, but they pale into insignificance after the extremely vehement attacks that Tavish Scott has launched on the Treasury over the HBOS merger.

Let me see whether I can bring the Liberal Democrats up to date with the international financial reporting standards. They mean that all the available mechanisms for funding public transport projects now come on balance sheet. There are no more public-private partnership dodges or private finance initiative alternatives—they all come on balance sheet. Given the excellence of our proposal for the Forth crossing, it is entirely sensible to ask for the capital cover to ensure that we can follow through on a transport plan for all of Scotland.

I heard the member who I am now calling Seven-Minute McNulty explain tolling on the Forth crossing as some sort of alternative from the Labour Party. If Tavish Scott and the Liberal Democrats dislike the cut of our excellent transport review, they can tell us at some point what they would keep and what they would leave out.

I remind all members that I do not encourage the use of nicknames in the chamber.

I will take one constituency question from Malcolm Chisholm.

The First Minister's answer to every question on cuts is to say what he alleges will happen in 2010-11. Will he for once concentrate on the present and the cuts that are happening in many schools in my constituency, the result of which is fewer front-line staff and resources? How can he describe as efficiency savings the 1.5 per cent cut to school budgets that is currently being imposed and the 2 per cent cut that is proposed for next year? I am thinking in particular of what John Swinney said recently:

"What might be described as crude cuts in services can in no way pass the test for efficiency savings."—[Official Report, 20 November 2008; c 12632.]

The member may recollect that the efficiency savings of 2 per cent across the range of budgets that the Scottish Government is asking for are less than those that Wendy Alexander demanded last year in her famous hungry caterpillar speech. Of course, the key difference in our treatment of local authorities in terms of efficiency savings is that authorities will retain every penny of those savings for investment in front-line services. That did not happen under the Labour Administration.

Given that Malcolm Chisholm believes that I imagined the £500 million of coming cuts a year from the Labour Government at Westminster, I note the release of Professor David Bell's advice to the Finance Committee, which indicates £505 million of cuts in each of the two years. Given that evidence, even members on the Labour benches—Iain Gray in particular—will have to admit that £1 billion of cuts is coming to Scottish public services by virtue of Alistair Darling, Gordon Brown and Jim Murphy.

---

Drink Driving

To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to combat drink driving over the Christmas and new year period. (S3F-1276)

The Scottish Government is committed to improving the safety of people on our roads, and is delighted to support the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland in all its campaigns in that direction, particularly its festive drink/drug driving campaign. The festive campaign was launched here at the Scottish Parliament on 8 December and supported by my colleague Mr MacAskill.

The Scottish Government is working closely with the police on the campaign and is providing supporting publicity through the Road Safety Scotland don't risk it message. That includes three weeks of radio publicity and two weeks of roadside billboard messages, both of which commenced on 1 December, as well as a substantial amount of online advertising. Topics include morning-after driving, the repercussions of someone losing their licence, and encouraging the public to report cases of drink driving to the police. The support for that campaign from the Scottish Government alone comes to a total of more than £86,000.

I welcome the Scottish Government's initiative to tackle drink driving over the Christmas and new year period. That said, the current legal alcohol limit for drivers of 80mg per 100ml of blood does not help, given that it is far higher than the limit in other European Union countries. Does the First Minister agree that a big step forward in tackling the issue of drink driving would be to bring Scotland into line with most other European countries by reducing the legal limit to 50mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood?

I agree that the limit should be reduced in that direction. We are not alone in thinking that; prominent and respected organisations including the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland, the British Medical Association and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents have called publicly for a similar reduction in the drink-driving limit.

Obviously, legislation on that subject is reserved to the United Kingdom Government. Over recent months, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change have corresponded with the UK Government on the matter. We were therefore disappointed to find that the "Road Safety Compliance Consultation" document, which was published on 20 November, did not include a direct question on lowering the drink-driving limit.

Our view is that the evidence to support a reduction is extremely strong. There is growing consensus on the matter north and south of the border. Indeed, I understand that the UK Government's chief medical officer has indicated his support for exactly that move. The current drink-driving limit was set more than 40 years ago. We believe that the time is right to look at the limit again.

---

Police Agencies

To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Government will ensure that the Scottish Police Services Authority and the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency are as effective as possible in fighting crime and supporting local police forces. (S3F-1291)

The Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency has been extremely effective in the fight against serious organised crime in Scotland. Last year, the agency seized 220kg of class A drugs, with a street value of £15.8 million, which was a threefold increase on the previous year, and it identified more than £4.6 million of criminal assets for seizure, which was an 8 per cent increase on the previous year. The SPSA provides effective and efficient support services to Scottish police forces. For example, it provides training for the record numbers of new recruits at the Scottish Police College, as part of the Government's commitment to providing 1,000 additional police officers in our communities.

As there is considerable interest in the question, I remind members that it is about the effectiveness of the organisations. I ask them not to impinge on disciplinary matters in the board of the SPSA, which are sub judice.

In light of recent speculation on the relationship between the two agencies, will the First Minister assure us that there will be clarity on that key issue? Given the wider leadership issues in the SPSA, is it right for it to continue to propose the closure of the Aberdeen forensics laboratory on the basis of a flawed consultation process and despite the opposition of Grampian Police?

The SPSA board continues to operate under the leadership of interim convener Councillor George Kay and it continues to provide vital police support services. Following a public appointment process, we announced on 8 December the appointment of Vic Emery as convener of the SPSA board. He will take up his appointment in January 2009. Those changes do not have a bearing on the decisions on the future of forensic science and fingerprinting services in Aberdeen. There is a pressing need to invest in modern police forensic science facilities, which is why we are funding the new forensic laboratory as part of the Gartcosh crime campus project and why we gave approval in May for the SPSA to proceed with the new forensic laboratory in Dundee. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice has asked the SPSA to engage in a fresh consultation on the delivery of forensic science services to the north and north-east of Scotland and to let him have further advice. That consultation is under way. In the meantime, there has been no decision to close the Aberdeen laboratory.

The chief constable of Grampian Police has told me that he believes that the relocation of the forensic and fingerprint service from Aberdeen to Dundee would not improve the fight against crime in the north-east. Given the opposition to the SPSA's plans to close the Aberdeen-based service, will the First Minister give a commitment to ensure that a genuine consultation, including an option to retain the service in Aberdeen, is published to replace the current paper, which was issued by the SPSA and which focuses only on the SPSA's reasons to remove the service in Aberdeen and replace it with one in Dundee?

As I said, the consultation is under way. Consultation exercises usually take place on a proposal that is going forward. As I said, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice has asked the SPSA to engage in a fresh consultation on the delivery of forensic science services to the north and north-east. That is exactly what we expect and what will be done. On the timing, obviously, by definition, the consultation will not be complete until the new leadership is in place at the SPSA.

I hope that the First Minister is aware that the on-going alleged consultation in no way satisfies the normal criteria for consultation. Will he and his cabinet secretary colleagues take an active personal interest in the detail of that consultation? At present, it just has 10 reasons to close the Aberdeen laboratory and none of the questions that should be asked about the available options.

On my personal interest, I met representatives of the Scottish Police Federation in the north-east of Scotland on Monday this week. I will certainly pass on Brian Adam's comments to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, who is sitting beside me listening avidly, and ask him to ensure that the consultation exercise is beyond reproach.

Does the First Minister not then accept that the consultation document that has been issued offers only a single option, namely the closure of the Aberdeen laboratory? Will ministers take the opportunity to withdraw that document?

It is not unusual for consultation exercises to take place on a proposal—that is what normally happens. On investment in forensic science throughout Scotland, I would say that the Government's attitude is beyond reproach. I cannot anticipate the results of the consultation exercise, but I am certainly prepared to give the assurance that the cabinet secretary will ensure that the consultation exercise is proper and thorough-going.

I remind Lewis Macdonald that when we were left by the previous Administration consultation exercises on other public services to centralise the health service and to remove vital services from the north-east of Scotland, in both children's cancer treatment and other vital services, it was decided after effective consultation by this Government to resist that attempt at centralisation.

---

Pork Industry

To ask the First Minister what discussions the Scottish Government has had with the Food Standards Agency concerning supplies of pork to consumers. (S3F-1273)

Government officials have been in daily contact with the Food Standards Agency to ensure that the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment and the Minister for Public Health are fully informed about developments on the incident that originated in the Republic of Ireland. The cabinet secretary has commissioned regular briefing on the matter.

The Scottish Government is conscious of the potential damage to the pork industry from the incident and has taken measures to reassure the Scottish public. Officials are liaising with the red meat promotional body, Quality Meat Scotland, which is sending brand ambassadors to Scottish supermarkets to reassure customers about the guarantees of origin, welfare and standards offered by Scottish products carrying the specially selected pork brand.

Specially selected pork is quality assured and no specially selected producer will have sourced their feed from the Republic of Ireland or Northern Ireland. Some 99 per cent of Scottish pork carries the specially selected label.

Concerns remain about food labelling and animal feed. Will the First Minister give a guarantee that no contaminated feed from Ireland or elsewhere is entering Scotland or being used on Scottish farms? Will he also put further pressure on UK authorities to develop food product labelling so that countries of origin can be identified accurately, particularly in the processed meats sector?

I appreciate John Scott's concern. When we have food difficulties, such as contamination, we are all rightly concerned. Having looked at the issue in this case, I do not think that there is any argument but that the Food Standards Agency has worked quickly and effectively to withdraw any potentially contaminated products from Scottish shelves. Equally, there is no argument but that those who are charged with the responsibility to promote Scottish produce have also acted effectively and quickly to protect the Scottish brand.

I have substantial sympathy with the member on the labelling of products. As I said a few seconds ago, the specially selected product label under the Quality Meat Scotland banner does exactly that and 99 per cent of Scottish pork carries that specially selected label, which guarantees sourcing and customer reassurance.

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—