Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Thursday, December 16, 2010

Official Report 1208KB pdf

---

First Minister’s Question Time

---

Engagements

1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-2781)

Engagements to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.

Last week’s blizzards obscured the news that our schools have 800 fewer teachers than they had a year ago. Indeed, Alex Salmond has now cut 3,000 teachers from our schools in three years. How many more does he plan to cut?

If I could persuade Labour councils such as Glasgow City Council to put the same priority on teachers as other councils throughout the country do, we could, of course, maintain the excellent record of record pupil teacher ratios throughout Scotland.

I would have thought that Iain Gray would be prepared to welcome the context. With dramatic cuts coming to Scotland from Westminster—started by Labour and continued by the Tories through the Con-Dem coalition—it should be a matter of satisfaction that we have secured a settlement for local government that is much better than anybody predicted, and much better than Iain Gray forecast, except for Labour councils, which might not want to implement it. That settlement means that education can be protected far more in the face of Westminster-driven cuts.

Let us look at what Scottish National Party councils such as Renfrewshire Council are doing under the deal. I have a leaked council briefing note that contains a cunning plan from Renfrewshire Council to cut another 60 teaching posts. It has already cut 240. The plan is:

“a revised operating model ... In which part of the pupil school week is delivered in primary schools by non teaching staff.”

Councillors were told that classes could be covered by community education workers or—get this—even volunteers. Does the First Minister support that SNP plan to replace teachers with volunteers?

I have learned to beware Iain Gray citing documents, because there are so many mistakes and misapprehensions in them. However, I have some definite news from Renfrewshire Council. On securing the class size target of 18 pupils or fewer in primaries 1 to 3, it has managed to get from 8.3 to 33.1 per cent this year. Even Iain Gray and the serried ranks of Labour members should be prepared to admit that that is a significantly good performance in the face of difficulty.

On the situation throughout the country, I now find that two thirds of the reduction in teachers throughout Scotland has occurred in Labour councils. As we know, there are not that many Labour-controlled councils left in Scotland, but they have still managed to achieve two thirds of the total teacher reduction in Scotland. It is time that Iain Gray got a handle on some of his local councils.

It is time that Alex Salmond got a handle on what is happening in his councils. I admit that I could not believe that that council was really suggesting that it would replace teachers with volunteers for part of the school week, so I checked that and was told that the director of education had said that he thinks that having non-teachers teaching classes is what the curriculum for excellence is all about.

Meanwhile, SNP Dundee City Council has cut £4 million from its schools. However, we have not to worry. The council’s education convener, Liz Fordyce, says that that will make the schools better. Why did she not cut £8 million and make them absolutely fantastic? Is it really SNP school policy that cuts are good for our schools and children do not really need teachers?

As gently as I can, I remind Iain Gray that Alistair Darling, when chancellor, promised cuts in Scotland that were deeper and tougher than those of Margaret Thatcher. Two thirds of the cuts that are being imposed on Scotland were generated by the Labour Government at Westminster.

Let us talk about Dundee. I mentioned the success of Renfrewshire Council in increasing the number of classes with a class size of 18 pupils or fewer. In fairness, I should have mentioned Dundee, which has gone from 6.5 to 27.2 per cent this year.

Furthermore, because the employment of post-probationers has concerned many of us in the Parliament and many councils in Scotland want to do better on that, I point out that Dundee City Council has led the way in employing 68 per cent of its post-probationers this year—that is 41 out of 60. It is closely followed by SNP-led Fife Council, where the figure is 66 per cent. If only all councils were doing that. Midlothian Council—Labour controlled—is employing just 29 per cent of its post-probationers and the figure in Clackmannanshire Council is 33 per cent. Glasgow City Council, Scotland’s largest council, with the principal responsibility for the decline in teacher numbers, is employing merely 42 per cent of its post-probationers. If we all agree that the employment of teachers is a priority, let us prevail upon those recalcitrant Labour councils to join the rest of us and employ the teachers.

Even the First Minister’s silly pantomime voices cannot hide the fact that, for the first time in 40 years—in an SNP council—pupils are to be taught by those who are not qualified to teach. That did not happen even under Margaret Thatcher, but it is happening under Alex Salmond. I gently remind him that he promised parents that they would have the same number of teachers that they had under Labour; he promised teachers that they would have the same number of jobs that they had under Labour; and he promised pupils that they would have the new schools that they had under Labour. He has let them all down. Is not his legacy on education failure, failure, failure?

Luckily, we have not delivered the number of new schools that was promised by Labour, because Labour in its manifesto promised 250 and we have delivered 330. I am sure that the people of Scotland would not want our ambition restricted to the low levels of the Labour Party.

As Iain Gray was moving into the pantomime routine, I could hear someone saying in a sedentary comment, “Oh no, we don’t.” I remember that his leader tried that in Parliament yesterday and was told to look behind him, which would be good advice for Iain Gray. That is what happens to Labour leaders in Scotland. That is why Iain Gray is in post. However, I can see that he has taken preventive action. In Scotland on Sunday, Kenny Farquharson, a reliable commentator, revealed to us that

“Perhaps the most recognisable figure on the Labour front bench is Andy Kerr, the former finance minister, but the gossip at Holyrood is that he may soon be heading for the back benches.”

Rather than looking behind him, Iain Gray is taking preventive action to save his position.

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S3F-2782)

I have no plans to meet the Secretary of State for Scotland in the near future.

Last week, the First Minister’s economic advisers indicated that there was a crisis in the funding of our Scottish universities and that they supported a graduate contribution. Last night, Universities Scotland confirmed that it sees a fair graduate contribution as necessary. Ominously for the First Minister, it also said that the time for talking is over. I know that a green paper is to be published this afternoon and I am not looking for detail, but does the First Minister at least accept the principle of a graduate—not a student—contribution? Yes or no.

We will let Michael Russell spell out the green paper this afternoon, and then Annabel Goldie will be able to address the ideas in it and the Scottish solution that is coming forward. It will be quite different from the position that Annabel Goldie’s party has imposed south of the border. I cannot believe that even the Scottish Conservative party believes that we should go down that route, and the Scottish Liberal Democrats will certainly not believe that.

Annabel Goldie should not misrepresent the position of Scotland’s universities. Professor Anton Muscatelli, who has been quoted by Annabel Goldie in the past, said:

“We are pleased that the Scottish Government has recognised the importance of universities at a time of major demands on the public finances.”

Support has come from the students of Scotland. The NUS said:

“Given the cuts we have seen in the rest of the UK, this is great news for students and a result the Scottish Government should certainly be proud of.”

It was referring, of course, to John Swinney’s budget proposals.

I think that the decision south of the border to withdraw the Government from university finance and to place the burden virtually entirely on the students and families of England is a disastrously bad decision. When Michael Russell outlines the discussion paper—the green paper—later this afternoon, Annabel Goldie will find that we have certainly ruled out going down that disastrous road.

It is ludicrous that the Scottish Government can run around briefing the media ahead of a green paper but the First Minister cannot even answer a simple question of principle in the Parliament. He directs me to Mr Russell. Heaven help us. Just listen to what Mike Russell said on the radio this morning. First, there was not a crisis, then he admitted that there is a funding gap, then he said that the money is already there, and then he said that it will all be sorted out after the election.

Quite simply, Alex Salmond is putting his party’s skin before his country’s needs, because it is all about limping through to May. He may criticise me, but my party is prepared to face the facts and is not hiding from the truth. We are ready to do what needs to be done, and the time for talking is over. Instead of another year of fudge, evasion and delay, will the First Minister give certainty, leadership and a solution?

Annabel Goldie should beware of following her colleagues south of the border. They have the human shield of the Liberal Democrats. I doubt that the Scottish Conservatives will be able to rely on the Liberal Democrats to take the flak for them in Scotland.

Annabel Goldie says that we should acquaint ourselves with the facts. I absolutely agree. Perhaps she should pass them on to David Willetts, the universities minister in the House of Commons—a Conservative who was once reputed to have two brains, if I remember correctly. On 9 December, as he was attacking the Scottish position, he declared:

“more Scottish students study at English universities than English students study at Scottish universities.”—[Official Report, House of Commons, 9 December 2010; Vol 520, c 622.]

In fact, 12,000 Scottish students study in England and 22,000 English students study in Scotland. Maybe one of his brains was not functioning when he made that remark.

All that I say to Annabel Goldie is that she should not rely on the misinformation, the misunderstanding and the total misapprehension of the traditions of Scottish education that are so evident in the Tory Government at Westminster. We would take Scotland on a disastrous course if we followed the action south of the border. Luckily, we have a Parliament and a Government that is determined to find the right solution for Scotland.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

3. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-2783)

The next meeting of the Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.

As temperatures plunge again, is the First Minister aware that four in 10 Scottish householders, especially older people, are worried about the cost of heating their homes this winter and another third are already struggling with their bills? As people face eye-watering hikes in their heating bills, will he tell me how much his Government will spend on the home insulation scheme and the energy assistance package?

I heard Alex Neil explaining that very point just a few minutes ago. There is substantial investment in energy efficiency, the energy helpline and the assistance package in Scotland, far more comparably than south of the border. It is an important fact that, when we face the exigencies of climate, the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament protect the people who are most vulnerable to the full extent of our ability to do so.

I gently suggest to Tavish Scott that, if his party was pursuing a different fiscal policy, there would be more resources to apply to many vital needs across Scotland.

Does the First Minister recognise that the average household energy bill is more than £1,200—nearly double the bills that people were paying five years ago? Four of the big six energy companies have announced price rises averaging 6 per cent, double and treble the rate of inflation. That energy cartel is blaming a 25 per cent rise in wholesale gas prices since the spring but, as the First Minister knows, the big falls in wholesale prices before May were never passed on to customers. Is this market not rigged? Is it not big business versus the consumer?

The First Minister knows that the energy regulator, the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets, is investigating the prices that all of us pay. It says that energy companies have increased their profit margins from £65 to £90 on every home—[Interruption.]

Order. There is too much noise around the chamber.

Will the First Minister prepare evidence to give to Ofgem about the extra costs that Scottish households are facing?

I confess that the points that Tavish Scott draws to our attention are well made and should be progressed with the energy companies. I gently point out to him that Danny Alexander, Vince Cable and Chris Huhne—all Liberal Democrats—are the ministers with responsibility for competition in energy policy. However, if Tavish Scott were to revert to his previous position of Calman plus, those vital responsibilities could be transferred to the Parliament and this energy-rich country could provide heating for all of its citizens.

I will take a supplementary question from Duncan McNeil.

This weekend will see the third anniversary of the capsizing of the Flying Phantom tugboat, which claimed the lives of two of my constituents, Stephen Humphreys and Eric Blackley, and of a third crew member, Robert Cameron, who was a constituent of my colleague Trish Godman. Three years on, the bereaved families still have no date for a fatal accident inquiry. I am sure that the First Minister will appreciate the frustration of Helen Humphreys, widow of Stephen, when she says that she believes that the system is grinding her down. Will the First Minister agree to meet the families to reassure them of the Scottish Government’s support for such an inquiry, which is required by the families and to ensure that the health and safety lessons from the tragedy are learned and acted on?

I will gladly meet the member’s constituents. I know that Duncan McNeil is aware that fatal accident inquiries are matters for the law officers of Scotland. It should be possible to arrange for him to meet the law officers, as there is no difficulty with a constituency member doing that. He will understand that the decision about when to order a fatal accident inquiry rests with the law officers. However, if it would be helpful to his constituents, I will be glad to meet them.

What action is the Scottish Government taking in light of the announcement by Aptuit of its decision to close its operations at Riccarton in my constituency and in Livingston in Angela Constance’s constituency, with the loss of more than 300 jobs in the field of pharmaceutical research? In any discussions with the company, will the Government ascertain whether the closures are the result of a decision to relocate these research functions to Verona in Italy and, if so, why the company considers such a move preferable to sustaining that aspect of its business here in Scotland?

We were disappointed to learn of Aptuit’s decision to reduce its Scottish workforce. I know that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth has already spoken to Aptuit; indeed, he did so before its decision was announced publicly. We understand that the decision is due to global restructuring of the company’s worldwide business services. The cabinet secretary and I will meet Tim Tyson, the executive chairman and chief executive officer of Aptuit, in the new year. Aptuit will also meet Scottish Enterprise and Scottish Development International officials. We will continue to work with Aptuit’s senior staff in Scotland, in the interests of the employees who are affected by the announcement and to explore potential other options.

---

Homicide Rate Reduction

4. To ask the First Minister what progress the Scottish Government is making on reducing the homicide rate. (S3F-2788)

As the chamber knows, the progress is substantial. Homicide levels in Scotland are at a 31-year low. The statistics show a 20 per cent reduction in 2008-09, including a 39 per cent drop in the number of homicides involving sharp instruments. We have record numbers of police on the front line and record investment in the violence reduction unit. Our thanks should go to all of them and to the other social partners who are working incredibly hard to tackle violent crime—with substantial success, as the statistics indicate.

Will the First Minister commit to maintaining the increase in the number of police officers that has been brought about since the Scottish Government came to power and which has resulted in the record low figures for homicide in Scotland’s homes and streets?

We remain absolutely committed to front-line policing services and to maintaining our pledge to put 1,000 extra officers on Scotland’s streets. That has been a key factor in driving down the recorded crime rate to its lowest level in three decades. In the past year alone, the homicide rate has fallen by a fifth.

Despite the overall cut in Scotland’s budget, the package of measures that has been agreed with the leadership of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities will maintain at least 1,000 more police officers next year than when we came to power.

I hope that the Parliament recognises the importance of front-line policing. I was very disappointed to see that a correction from Fife Constabulary to a Labour press release had to be made in The Courier today. I understand that Fife Constabulary asked Labour to withdraw the press release from its website but was told, “We don’t take things down from the site.” If parties are caught out misinterpreting or misrepresenting the police force, they should at least make a belated correction, as The Courier has done today. Parties should try not to misrepresent the position, particularly when Scotland is proud of having 1,000 extra police officers on its streets.

Does the First Minister agree that all the evidence suggests that the way to reduce homicides and other severe crimes of violence is through a combination of effective policing and targeted diversionary initiatives, such as the Inverclyde initiative and operation reclaim in Glasgow? Does he welcome the fact that those initiatives have led to a typical reduction in crime of about a third? Will he commit his Government to continuing that approach, which tackles the causes of crime, removes knives from our communities and gives young people more positive alternatives, rather than trying to make populist noises that sound tough?

I recognise Robert Brown’s consistent support for the direction of travel on judicial and criminal justice policy. Those of us who have argued for such measures against the often knee-jerk reactions of some spokesmen from other political parties cannot feel complacent about the figures in Scotland, because too many homicides and too much crime still occur. However, the fact that recorded crime is at a 30-year low and that the homicide rate is at a 31-year low indicates that those of us who have argued for the measures that Robert Brown described can at least point to a substantial record of success, which was notably absent when other parties pursued different policies.

---

Sex Offenders (GPS Technology)

5. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is on using global positioning satellite technology to monitor sex offenders released into the community. (S3F-2790)

The Scottish Government takes very seriously the safety of our communities and the management of sex offenders. The multi-agency protection arrangements that are in place in Scotland are among the most robust systems in the world for managing sex offenders.

The satellite tracking pilot in England was not developed further, because of the cost and because the technology could not be made to work effectively underground or in buildings. James Kelly will have seen the report on the satellite tracking pilot from 2004 to 2006. However, we will continue to monitor developments in technology—including satellite tracking—to ensure that we have the most effective methods to help front-line professionals in protecting the most vulnerable in our communities.

The public are right to be concerned about safety in relation to sex offenders. That is demonstrated by the case of the convicted rapist John Daly who, within four months of being released from jail, carried out a sex attack on a teacher in my constituency. Does the First Minister recognise that improvements in GPS tracking technology continue? Does he accept the comment of Mike Nellis, the professor of criminal and community justice in the Glasgow school of social work at the University of Strathclyde, that such technology would increase public confidence? Will the First Minister agree to consider a pilot project that uses the technology?

As James Kelly knows from previous discussions, the pilot project took place in England between 2004 and 2006. I have said that we will continue to monitor improvements in technology, to see whether the difficulties that the pilot project encountered can be overcome. However, given the indications from that pilot and the lack of willingness from the previous Labour Government—and, as far as I know, the present Conservative-Liberal Government—to proceed in England on the evidence from the pilot there, it would not be right to announce a pilot in Scotland. It is far better to monitor developments to see whether the difficulties that the pilot exercise encountered can be overcome and to take action accordingly.

I do not wish to trivialise the significant problems that people have when offenders reoffend, but is the First Minister in a position to confirm that the vast majority of those on the sex offenders register comply with their requirements and do not appear to constitute a significant problem to the public?

That is correct, but the ones who do not do so are obviously of particular concern. As Nigel Don and James Kelly know, the Tayside pilot project is being rolled out across Scotland, so as to give further reassurance to communities. That is a welcome development in relation to public information. We tested the ability of that pilot project to answer some of the questions that many people had. It survived that test—it passed that test—hence it is being rolled out across Scotland, as I have said.

It is absolutely correct to say that the multi-agency protection arrangements that we have in place are very robust indeed, but if any sex offender breaks the monitoring conditions, that is a matter of great concern to people, and rightly so.

Does the First Minister agree that the type of individual we are dealing with has a compulsion to reoffend, in some cases, and that they tend to be exceptionally devious personalities? Does he agree that anything that we can do to protect the vulnerable sections of our society should be done?

I refer the First Minister to correspondence that I had with Mr MacAskill in 2007, when the Conservatives were the first to raise the issue. I also welcome Mr Kelly’s support today. However, that is inconsistent with the fact that, in 2008, both the Scottish Government and the Labour Opposition voted against our proposals on the matter. Will the First Minister again consider the advisability of having a pilot project under this heading?

There has been a pilot project. I always argue for pursuing Scottish solutions when I believe that it is necessary. However, if limitations in the technology were exposed in the pilot project south of the border, I do not think that they would be overcome because of the project being transferred to Scotland. Technology changes, and improvements can be made. Perhaps the limitations can be overcome—that is why we are monitoring the position.

Bill Aitken would not wish to give the impression that the Parliament has been inactive on these matters. In the previous session, the Justice 2 Committee reported in 2006, making 33 recommendations to strengthen society’s protection against sex offenders, and 31 of those recommendations have been implemented. Nine of them were implemented during the previous session, and 22 have been implemented since then. The Parliament has been acting on a range of activities, across the parties, to protect and strengthen Scotland’s communities.

---

Large Retail Properties Levy

6. To ask the First Minister what discussions the Scottish Government had with the retail community prior to deciding to introduce a new levy on large retail properties. (S3F-2793)

Through discussions we regularly hear from small independent retailers, who have been justifying the approach that we have taken in increasing business rates for the largest retailers. It is right that, in tough times, the additional burdens should fall on the largest retailers, for whom business rates account for only 2 per cent of turnover.

Last week, despite the unprecedented £1.3 billion reduction in our budget, we confirmed that the small business bonus scheme will continue. Next year, it will free up about £128 million for small and medium-sized enterprises to invest in their businesses in Scotland. That has removed the rates burden from 63,000 business properties across Scotland. Latest estimates show that almost 60 per cent of retail premises are now in receipt of some form of relief.

The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth made it clear to the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee last week that there was no advance discussion on the specific proposals. The announcement came out of the blue for retailers and has caused damaging uncertainty. The First Minister knows as well as anyone that jobs are needed to grow the economy, and that these jobs will come from the private sector. Uncertainty and increased costs will impact on future investment in Scotland.

Does the First Minister think that it is good practice to impose unexpected taxes on businesses? Will the First Minister agree to hold an urgent summit with the retail sector, together with members from Opposition parties, so that we can all hear what the industry’s concerns are?

The member should understand how finance decisions are taken. I would be interested to know how much discussion there was on the rise in VAT or on the rise in national insurance. Finance decisions have to be made by finance ministers to face the exigencies of the time.

Iain Smith totally underrates the enthusiasm across the retail sector for the small business bonus—which I do not think was supported by the Liberal Democrats in this Parliament. Nonetheless, small businesses in Scotland believe that it is very important.

On the relationship between benefiting town centres and smaller businesses where we can and asking those with the broadest shoulders to bear a larger part of the burden, perhaps, as well as consulting the larger supermarkets, Iain Smith should remember the words of Andy Willox, the Scottish policy convener for the Federation of Small Businesses, on 17 November:

“I welcome the move to redress the balance between town centres with independent retailers and supermarkets and out of town developments.

“The FSB warmly welcomes the moves to retain the Small Business Bonus which has been a lifeline to many small businesses up and down the country during the last two years.”

Of course we listen to all business concerns, but many of us believe that Andy Willox is correct when he says that small businesses are the lifeline of our economy. I hope that Iain Smith pays as much attention to those businesses as he does to others.

That concludes questions to the First Minister. I remind members that we are moving to members’ business, so those who wish to leave the chamber should do so quietly.