First Minister’s Question Time
Engagements
1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-01754)
Engagements to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.
In 2007, the Scottish National Party pledged to ensure that children in primaries 1 to 3 would be in classes of 18 pupils or fewer. When he was asked in 2007 whether he could guarantee that that would be achieved in one parliamentary session, the First Minister told the chamber, “Yes, I can.”
Nearly seven years on, is the First Minister closer to or further away from reaching that goal than he was when he took office?
I remind Johann Lamont that this Government was re-elected in 2011. As she probably knows, there has been not just a financial crisis, which the Labour Party had a substantial hand in, but—pertinently—a reduction of more than £3 billion in the Scottish revenue budget. That has meant that public authorities have had to deal with that position. Although local authorities have been sheltered from that reduction by central Government, they face extreme financial pressure nonetheless.
In order to protect pupil teacher ratios—as Johann Lamont is well aware—in 2010 we negotiated with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities an agreement that that ratio should go to no more than 13.5 pupils per teacher. That has been held to by COSLA. We would like to see substantial improvements in pupil teacher ratios, but I think that we should recognise—in fairness to local authorities the length and breadth of Scotland—that the agreement that was reached in 2010 has been upheld in difficult financial circumstances.
So, in summary, “It wisnae me.” Talk about being in government and doing what you are supposed to do. Pupil teacher ratios are now worse than they were when Labour was in power, so even that defence does not help the First Minister.
The answer is of course that, seven years on, the number and proportion of classes of 18 pupils or fewer have gone down not up. Pupils in primaries 1 to 3 are now less likely to be in classes of 18 or fewer than they were when Alex Salmond became First Minister. I thought that Scotland was on pause; now we find that it is on rewind.
The number of primary school pupils on the school roll has gone up since 2007. That would suggest that—just to keep pace, let alone meet his own targets—for the First Minister to be serious about his pledges the number of primary school teachers ought to have increased, so can he tell us how many more primary school teachers have been hired since he came to office?
I correct Johann Lamont. This Government came to power in 2007, so let us compare the situation with the one that existed when Labour was in power in 2006. The number of pupils in primaries 1 to 3 in classes of 18 or fewer is better than the 2006 figure. Johann Lamont should at least accept that the Labour Party was in power in 2006 and that the SNP was in power in 2007. That is rather pertinent, because one of the first acts of the SNP Government when it came into power—I remember Fiona Hyslop making the announcement—was to increase the teacher training numbers by 300.
Let us look at the figures in detail across primary schools. In 2006, the average class size in primary 1 was 23.1; it is now 21.2. In primaries 1 to 3, it was 23.6; it is now 23.2. I accept and agree that those are not the improvements that we would have looked for if we had had different financial circumstances over the past few years, but given that I have given Johann Lamont the figures, she ought to accept that there have been improvements in those primary categorisations since 2006. I think that we can reach agreement on the fact that, in 2006, Johann Lamont was a minister in a Labour Government and that, in 2007, I was the First Minister in an SNP Government.
Our figures in primary school education were better before the First Minister came to power than they are now.
What the First Minister said sounds like one of those answers that prove that the world is not round in order to get him through the next half hour. At some point, he needs to come back to the real world, where parents, teachers and children are. The reality is that he does not appear to have believed even in his own education policy; it was simply grist to the mill to change people’s votes and not to change the lives of our children and their educational opportunities.
The number that I referred to is down, too. We have almost 1,000 fewer primary school teachers now than we had when the First Minister came to office. This is a First Minister whose promises on education are bogus, and the only things that are more bogus than his pledges are his attempts to keep them.
The First Minister put class sizes at the heart of his education policy. In recent years, secondary school rolls have reduced, which should make it easier to have smaller class sizes. Has the number of teachers fallen faster or more slowly than the rate at which the number of pupils that they have to teach has dropped?
The agreement with COSLA in 2010 has been adhered to. The figure was 13.5 in 2011, 13.5 in 2012 and 13.5 in 2013.
Perhaps Johann Lamont and I can agree on the comparison of primaries 1 to 3 between 2006 and now. The figure was 23.6 in 2006 and it is now 23.2. Over primary as a whole, the figure was 23.2 in 2006 and it is still 23.2. I accept that that is not the improvement that we were looking for, but it is simply incorrect of her to say that the position has worsened since the Labour Party was in power in 2006. Perhaps she could acknowledge that.
I was struck that Larry Flanagan, the Educational Institute of Scotland’s general secretary, said on “Newsnight Scotland” last night that one local authority is responsible for the drop in teacher numbers. I thought that that could not possibly be true—how could one local authority in the whole country be responsible for the drop of 175 in teacher numbers?—so I checked the figures, and I found that a single local authority had a decline of 181 teachers between 2012 and 2013. In that sense, it is—as Larry Flanagan said—responsible for the entire Scottish reduction of 175.
Which is that single local authority? It is Glasgow City Council. Perhaps Johann Lamont should not come along here to challenge the SNP Government on teacher numbers; why does she not take a trip to Glasgow city chambers and speak to her colleagues?
I hope that the First Minister was watching “Newsnight Scotland” last night, because his education secretary made the astonishing defence that up was down, that good was bad and that better was worse. The education secretary lives in a fantasy world; I suggest that the First Minister should stop listening to his education secretary and look at what is happening on the ground.
If the First Minister wants to look at what councils are doing, let us look at Dundee City Council—the last time that I looked, it was an SNP administration. In its area, the number of pupils in primaries 1 to 3 who are in classes of fewer than 18 has gone down in one year by two thirds. That tells us that the problem is not for individual councils but for his Government.
Instead of getting civil servants to find some bizarre defence from the figures, it is about time that the First Minister got his Government to confront what is happening in the real world to real families. There are now almost 3,000 fewer secondary school teachers than there were when he came to office and almost 4,000 fewer teachers overall. Class sizes are going up, not down.
There is a pattern here, which we have seen in great form today. The First Minister makes a pledge based not on its merits but on how good a soundbite it is. He then hands the onus to someone else—usually councils. He starves them of cash and blames them when they fail to meet the bogus pledge that he tried to con the public with in the first place. That is cynicism on stilts, and it is not worthy of this Parliament at all.
Here is the question—[Interruption.]
Order.
The children are obviously not away to their pantomime today. [Interruption.]
Order.
If we cannot trust the First Minister on his key pledge in his 2007 manifesto, and if somehow Scotland does vote yes next year, who will he blame when we find out that his white paper is not worth the mouse pad that it was googled on?
Johann Lamont should look behind her for that particular punchline, which was pretty bad.
Johann Lamont referred to being starved of cash. Yes, of course—there has been a starvation of cash as a result of Westminster austerity bearing down on the Scottish people. She suggested that it is local authorities that are being starved of cash. Unfortunately for her, during 2006-07, when she was a minister, local government’s share of Scottish Government expenditure plus non-domestic rates income was 34.7 per cent, whereas it is now 36.8 per cent. Of course there is a squeeze on spending, but local government is doing better than general public expenditure.
Yes, there has been a starvation of cash—that has been the case under Johann Lamont’s Government and the Government with which she is now aligned in the bitter together campaign in terms of what has been allowed for the Scottish people.
Johann Lamont mentioned Dundee City Council, which actually has the second-best teacher ratio in Scotland. That is not the situation that we find in Glasgow, which has now moved above the agreed ratio of teachers to pupils that was decided with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. She says that that is a complex point, but it is not complex at all.
There has been a decline—which I regret—of 175 in overall teacher numbers in the year to September 2013, but there has been a decline of 181 in the city of Glasgow. That means that, as Larry Flanagan indicated last night, the city of Glasgow is responsible—it is a single local authority, but a big one—for that whole decline that we have seen in Scotland over the past year. I think that Johann Lamont should go along and speak to her colleagues on Glasgow City Council. It would be refreshing, given that they employ teachers in Scotland, if she would do so and accept her party’s burden of responsibility in these matters.
We have had success with the legislation that members may remember was brought in to stop class sizes in primary 1 containing more than 25 pupils. In 2006 there were 16,845 primary 1 pupils in classes of more than 25. The figure is now 580, which I think would, in anybody’s terms, be seen as a reasonable improvement. That is a joint success for the Government and for the local authorities that have responded to the legislation.
Let us talk for a moment about the success of pupils and teachers in Scottish schools. We have had record examination results, which is a substantial achievement by teachers and pupils. We have record numbers of school leavers in positive destinations in Scotland—the figure is 89.5 per cent, which is a substantial achievement by teachers and the education system in Scotland.
We now know, from the programme for international student assessment—or PISA—survey, that the attainment gap in maths, reading and science between the most disadvantaged and the most advantaged areas of this country has closed and narrowed for the first time. Again, there is far more distance to travel, but that is nonetheless a substantial achievement.
Instead of taking the view that Glasgow is not responsible for its own decline in teacher numbers—despite the fact that it is responsible for the entire decline in Scotland this year—and even though Johann Lamont refuses to go along to the city chambers, can we at least agree that, in these difficult economic circumstances, the teachers and pupils of Scotland have turned in a substantial and first-class performance?
Prime Minister (Meetings)
2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S4F-01756)
No plans in the near future.
Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister of Spain stated that an independent Scotland—[Interruption.]
Order.
—would join the same queue as everybody else to get into the European Union, echoing the words of the European Commission President and the foreign ministers of Spain, Ireland, Latvia and the Czech Republic. The First Minister told the Parliament that every one of those people was wrong and then selectively quoted a letter that he found on the internet to back up his case. However, the Commission’s official position had already been given to the Parliament when the First Minister stood up, in a letter dated 5 November and held by the Scottish Parliament information centre. Will the First Minister tell the Parliament why he chose to google a pro-independence website rather than read from the official letter that was given to Parliament, and will he read from that letter now?
The letter that I quoted was absolutely genuine and was from the Commission—there was no difficulty about that. [Interruption.]
Order.
Ruth Davidson cites the foreign minister of Ireland, who is on record as saying that she supports Nicola Sturgeon’s position. To repeat, that position is that, in the 18-month period between the referendum of next year and Scotland becoming an independent nation in 2016, we will negotiate our position from within the European Union. Is that 18-month period a satisfactory time in which to negotiate that position? I think that it is perfectly reasonable. That quote is not from me or the European Commission but from Professor James Crawford, the legal expert who was employed by the United Kingdom Government to put forward the case. When James Crawford looked at the period and said in response that it was a reasonable timescale, that particular argument was removed from the unionist parties’ scaremongering menu.
I think that the First Minister has inadvertently misquoted the Irish foreign minister there, so let me quote her directly. She said:
“If Scotland were to become independent, Scotland would have to apply for membership and that can be a lengthy process”.
The First Minister used a diversionary tactic, because he did not want to quote from the letter in SPICe, but I will. It states:
“The EU is founded on the Treaties which apply only to the Member States who have agreed and ratified them ... a new independent state would, by the fact of its independence, become a third country with respect to the EU and the Treaties would no longer apply on its territory.”
It goes on, and it is unambiguous that an independent Scotland would have to negotiate entry into the European Union from the outside. The opt-outs that we currently have from the euro and the Schengen agreement would be voided and our budget rebate would no longer apply.
So we have a First Minister who misled the people of Scotland once, telling them that he had specific legal advice on Europe when none existed. He misled them a second time by trying to pretend that a letter that he had googled was the final word on EU entry, and it turns out that he has misled them a third time, because an official position on EU entry had been given to the Parliament but, rather than detail its contents, he used the internet letter instead. He is the Pinocchio of Scottish politics. Every time he speaks on Europe—
I am sorry, Ms Davidson—
—his nose grows another inch.
Ms Davidson, sit down. I do not consider that language appropriate. You can continue.
My apologies to you, Presiding Officer, if I have caused offence in the chamber.
I have outlined three occasions on which, on a single issue, the First Minister has misled the people of this country. If the people cannot trust him on this issue, why should they trust him on any issue?
The letter that I read out from the Commission official has been confirmed as genuine. It was read out in good faith—[Interruption.]
Order.
Well, the letter has been confirmed as genuine, not on the internet but in the hard copy that we now have. The letter from the Irish foreign minister will be put in SPICe and, when Ruth Davidson looks at it, she will find, if I recall correctly, that it actually says that the Irish foreign minister supports Nicola Sturgeon’s position. If we go back to the debate of only two weeks ago, I remember pointing out explicitly to Ruth Davidson that the European Commission had said that it would comment on a precise legal scenario, and it has repeated that many times. Why do we not have a precise legal scenario? It is because the United Kingdom Government refused to go to the Commission with the precise legal scenario. [Interruption.]
Order.
I know that Ruth Davidson is getting exercised by this, but that is the case. The United Kingdom Government has refused repeatedly to go to the European Commission with the precise legal scenario, despite the Scottish Government’s offer to do so. Why might that be? It is for the same reason as the Spanish Prime Minister says that the cases of Catalonia and Scotland are totally different and refuses to say that he would veto an independent Scotland’s membership, despite Johann Lamont’s confident assertion of that only two weeks ago—it is because it is known and recognised that, when Professor James Crawford said that 18 months was a reasonable timescale to negotiate Scotland’s position from within the EU, by definition, he knew what he was talking about.
Why is it a reasonable timescale? It is because we are part of the acquis communautaire and will be negotiating our position having conformed to European regulations. That is why, having been a part of the European Union for 40 years, we are not placed in the same circumstances in negotiations as an accession state. In the time that it would take Ruth Davidson to go to her Prime Minister and ask him to agree to the Scottish Government’s suggestion to go to the European Commission with the precise legal scenario, perhaps she can revise her view and stop putting forward the incredible suggestion that resource-rich, people-rich, fish-rich Scotland would not be welcome in the European Union. [Applause.]
One further point about that timescale—[Interruption.]
First Minister, if I could—
Which set of negotiations is likely to be more successful? Is it the UK Government negotiating its way out or the—
First Minister—
Or the Scottish—
First Minister, when I address you directly, I would appreciate it if you could resume your seat. I was trying to say that I wanted you to come to a conclusion.
Cabinet (Meetings)
3. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-01753)
Issues of importance to the people of Scotland.
I can tell the First Minister that I was genuinely pleased that nursery education has secured such a prominent place in his white paper. It is good that we can agree that nursery education is a priority, even though he and I will disagree about the best constitutional arrangement to deliver it. However, he says that his new plan can be delivered only with independence, whereas I want to take the first steps now for two-year-olds. Cannot we put aside our differences on the constitution to do it? The commitment in the white paper is now combined with extra funds from Westminster. It means that he can act in next year’s budget. Will he consider putting extra support for two-year-olds in that budget?
Let me try to reach the point of consensus that Willie Rennie asks for. I agree that childcare is a fundamental priority, and Willie Rennie has pursued this issue many times in the chamber. There are two points on which I do not agree. First, I do not agree with his interpretation of what is happening south of the border at present, and I can give substantive evidence for that. Secondly, the funding of the transformation in childcare that is pointed to in the white paper requires access to the revenues that will be generated by the substantial expansion of women coming into the workforce—revenues that flow to the Westminster Exchequer under the current constitutional arrangements. Even if his colleague Danny Alexander wanted to give those revenues to the Scottish Government, it is highly unlikely that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would follow that example.
If we can agree that a transformation in childcare is the way forward both in addressing inequality in female access to the workforce and for the future of children in Scotland, surely we can also agree that the benefits from that policy should flow into a Scottish Exchequer so that the policy can be comprehensively funded.
No one expects the First Minister to deliver full-time places from the age of one from next August. No one is saying that. Even his plan will take until 2024. Parents across Scotland will be mystified as to why he will not act now on childcare for two-year-olds. He has the power and he has the support across the chamber, his party policy backs it, and now he has the extra money. There is nothing on earth that should stop him delivering for two-year-olds from next August. I am sorry to say that he has given a good impression of a man imprisoned by his obsession with independence. The children should not lose out because we cannot agree on the constitution. Can he at least confirm that new provision for two-year-olds will be put on the table for talks between our parties in the budget?
I will deal with those issues in turn. It is true, as I have said, that I do not think that Willie Rennie’s interpretation of what is happening in England is borne out by the facts. The United Kingdom Government press release of 12 November admitted that around 30 per cent, or 38,000, of eligible two-year-olds were not receiving their entitlement to 15 hours of free childcare per week, and that is pertinent to this debate, given that when we previously argued about standards in childcare, it turned out to be my argument, along with that of Willie Rennie’s party leader, that prevailed over their Tory partners in government.
On the consequentials in the autumn statement, it is true that I have a quote of what Danny Alexander said on 6 December. He thinks that we should spend the consequentials on increasing childcare but, in the same briefing, he also said that we should spend them on free school meals, helping business, and dualling the A9. I know that the Liberal Democrats have long believed in the single transferable vote, but we cannot have a single transferable consequential when it comes to allocating Government expenditure.
I want to say what the difference is between the expansion that Willie Rennie is suggesting, which I would like to see and which we describe in the white paper for the first year of an independent Scotland, and our further proposals. That substantial expansion would cost £100 million. We go on to explain how a real transformation in childcare and an expenditure of £700 million would require us to have access to the revenues that will be generated by women being released and freed to go back into the workforce. When Willie Rennie agrees with me that we need both sides of the balance sheet—the revenues that are generated by Scotland—to afford our joint interest in transforming childcare, then we will have reached a real agreement.
The people of Scotland, knowing what independence can deliver, and knowing that Johann Lamont last week described childcare as an independence issue, know that it will be one of the defining issues of the independence referendum.
Autumn Statement (Implications)
4. To ask the First Minister what the implications are of the autumn statement for Scotland’s budget. (S4F-01767)
It is quite clear that the UK Government’s austerity approach has let Scotland miss out on opportunities for growth. Let us remember that, even under the better figures being released during the autumn statement, the UK economy remains smaller than it was prior to the recession. Despite the fact that Scotland has paid more per person in taxes every year for the past 30 years than the rest of the UK, our spending power has been cut over the five-year spending period in real terms by over £3 billion. It is therefore quite ludicrous for the Westminster Government and those in this chamber who support it to suggest that the consequentials of perhaps £100 million in revenue terms can compensate for the withdrawal of £3,000 million-plus from real Scottish spending as part of the austerity programme.
Make this brief, Mr Mason.
The First Minister will be aware of the hammer blow from the Conservative-Lib Dem statement that the retirement age is to rise yet again, meaning that Scottish youngsters who are leaving school this year will have to work for more than 50 years—
Question.
—to get the state pension. It takes no account of Scotland’s lower life expectancy. What will Scotland’s pension policy be following a yes vote?
Briefly, First Minister.
That is indicated in the white paper. Of course, it is pertinent to look at life expectancy in Scotland and the rest of the UK when deciding what the right retirement age is. That is one of the examples of where Scotland’s priorities can be met when Scotland controls all areas of revenue and spending.
Junior Doctors’ Hours
5. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is on whether the number of hours worked by junior doctors is acceptable. (S4F-01757)
The Government has monitoring in place to ensure that junior doctor rotas comply fully with the working time regulations. Junior doctors work no more than 48 hours per week on average. We continue our work with national health service boards and professional bodies to review best practice and how it can be used to improve the working lives of junior doctors.
Briefly, Mr Findlay.
Two years ago, junior doctor Lauren Connelly tragically died in a car crash on her way home from hospital. Lauren had just finished four days of straight day shifts and the first night of a seven-day run of night shifts. In the weeks prior to the accident, Lauren had been rostered to work up to 107 hours. She, like many other junior doctors, routinely worked in excess of those hours. Lauren’s father is not looking for someone to blame or scapegoat; he just wants to ensure that no other junior doctor has the same experience as Lauren, and that no one else suffers the grief and misery that his family has suffered.
Will the First Minister agree to meet Brian Connelly and me to look at ways in which we can bring about the change that is needed to avoid a repeat of this very sad situation?
Obviously, I express my condolences to Dr Connelly’s friends and family. I cannot comment specifically on this case because it could still be subject to a fatal accident inquiry, as I understand the position. On that basis, I cannot comment on the individual case. However, I want to stress the condolences that I know everybody in the chamber offers to Dr Connelly’s family.
I would be happy to arrange a meeting such as Mr Findlay requested. It has to be that we cannot comment on the exact circumstances of the crash—that is the rule—but nonetheless I would be happy to arrange the meeting.
I think, however, that we need to recognise that although, of course, constant monitoring and discussions with the British Medical Association should take place to see whether further improvements can be made, the average number of hours per week that junior doctors work has reduced from 58 hours in 2004 to up to 48 hours today. It is also the case that we have twice-yearly monitoring to make certain that the rules are being applied. Yes, of course, as we do with the BMA, we are perfectly happy to have meetings to discuss how further improvements can be made, but let us recognise that over the piece there has been progress and let us hope that further progress can be made.
Independence (Food Bills)
6. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is on recent reports that shoppers in an independent Scotland could face higher food bills. (S4F-01758)
There is absolutely no reason whatever to expect the retail prices in Scotland to be higher than they are at the present moment. Far from food prices rising because of independence, the truth of the matter is that they are rising within the United Kingdom at the present moment. The latest Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development statistics on food price rises for the year to October showed that food prices within the UK are the fourth highest in the OECD, with our small independent European neighbours experiencing lower price rises and, in some cases, falling prices.
I also welcome, of course, that the supermarkets have clarified their position and that another fairly obvious and ridiculous scaremongering attempt by the better together campaign has fallen apart in the past few days.
Briefly, please, Mr McMillan
Does the First Minister agree that the no campaign’s reaction to the story is just a lot of nonsense and that it falls apart when it is subject to scrutiny from any politician or the public of Scotland? [Interruption.]
Order.
I hear the deputy leader of the Conservative Party saying that the no campaign has said nothing on the issue. However, the no campaign did react on the first day of the story when they saw the opportunity to have another scaremongering campaign. I agree that they have been pretty quiet since the story has totally fallen apart in terms of the reaction of the supermarkets.
I recall the leaflets about the UK’s triple A credit rating, which was never withdrawn. I recall, of course, the claim that “Doctor Who” could not be broadcast in Scotland, despite the fact that 90 countries worldwide were enjoying it. My personal favourite from the Labour Party was that we would have to drive on the other side of the road in an independent Scotland; and of course there was the corker, which I admit the deputy leader of the Conservatives distanced himself from, that roaming charges would go up in an independent Scotland, which was said on the very day that the European Commission was putting forward their total abolition.
Before we end First Minister’s question time, I have—
On a point of order, Presiding Officer.
Sit down, Mr Findlay—I am speaking.
Before we end First Minister’s question time I want to say that I consider that 27 minutes to get through the three Opposition party leaders’ questions and exchanges is far too long. When I became Presiding Officer I said that I wanted to be fair to back benchers. It is hardly fair to them that they have got precisely three minutes to ask their questions.
I have spoken privately to the business managers on many occasions, asking that this be brought to the attention of their party leaders. I will look at this very carefully next week because, quite frankly, I consider the position unacceptable and I am not putting up with it in the future.
Mr Findlay, you have a point of order.
I am absolutely sure that in replying to my questions the First Minister did not seek to deliberately mislead Parliament. However, on the case that I mentioned, it is my understanding, having spoken to the family, that no fatal accident inquiry will occur. Perhaps I can invite the First Minister—through you, Presiding Officer—to return to the chamber at some point to correct the record.
That is not a point of order.
I do not think that I should have to return to the chamber and the matter should not be a political issue. I was quoting from the notes that I have here, which say that the accident is still under investigation, which may result in a fatal accident inquiry.
This absolutely should not be a political issue, so I will have that point clarified for Neil Findlay and I will make sure that that information is relayed to the family. If there is any misunderstanding, it can be properly cleared up in that fashion.