Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Thursday, February 19, 2015

Official Report 904KB pdf

---

First Minister’s Question Time

---

Engagements

I am sure that I speak for all members when I wish everyone in Scotland’s Chinese community a happy new year.

To ask the First Minister what engagements she has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-02599)

I, too, wish everybody in the Chinese community a very happy new year.

I have engagements later today to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.

Today also marks the first anniversary of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014. Can the First Minister tell us whether the proportion of local authorities reporting sufficient childcare for full-time working parents in Scotland is higher or lower than that in England?

The fact is that we do not yet have sufficient provision of funded childcare to meet the needs of all full-time working parents. That is precisely why the Government is committed to a further substantial extension of the provision of childcare. We have said that, if we are re-elected, over the next session of Parliament, we will increase provision to 30 hours a week for all three and four-year-olds and for eligible two-year-olds.

However, let us look at the progress that has been made. Since 2007, entitlement to early learning and childcare has increased to 600 hours, which is a 45 per cent increase in hours for three and four-year-olds and which saves families an average of £700 per child per year. The uptake of that provision is high. The latest annual statistics, which were published in December, showed that registration of three and four-year-olds was at 98.5 per cent. So this is a success story, but we still have work to do.

In January, I met the campaign group fair funding for our kids to discuss the experiences of some parents who are having difficulty in accessing the childcare to which their children are entitled in a way that suits their working patterns. We are working to address that. This is a success story, but of course we are determined to ensure that all parents and children who are eligible get the benefit of the Government’s significant expansion of free childcare.

The First Minister knows only too well that she first made that promise of 600 hours in 2007 and that it has taken eight years to get to the point that she is at now. The answer to my question is in fact that the proportion here is lower than in England. A Family and Childcare Trust report that was published today shows that just 15 per cent of councils in Scotland say that sufficient childcare is being provided for families who are trying to juggle work and family life, whereas the figure is 43 per cent in England and it is higher in Wales, too. For many working families in Scotland, childcare is essential and it cannot be prescriptive. Some families need support first thing in the morning and others need it at the end of the school day. Can the First Minister tell us whether the number of councils in Scotland that report sufficient childcare for full-time working parents has gone up or down in the past year?

To be frank, Kezia Dugdale is somewhat missing the point. I am not saying that we are yet in a position in which we have sufficient funded childcare for all full-time working parents. That is why we are committed to a further extension of childcare to 30 hours per week, which will take us to the position of children getting the same number of hours in nursery as those in primary school already get. However, we have made significant progress. When we took office, the previous Labour Administration had been providing 412.5 hours, which is approximately 14.5 hours per week. We have increased that to 600 hours a year, which is a 45 per cent increase, and we are funding local authorities to the tune of £329 million to provide that.

Kezia Dugdale makes a reasonable point, which I discussed with the fair funding for our kids campaign, that some parents—I stress that it is some—are having difficulty accessing their childcare in a way that suits their working pattern. Two specific issues were raised with me, which were the arrangements that some councils have with partner nurseries that limit the number of funded places per nursery, and the limitations of the half-day place that is offered in council nurseries. The Government is doing two things to tackle those issues in the medium term. First, under the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014, we have put a statutory obligation on local authorities to ensure greater flexibility and to consult with parents. Secondly, we plan a substantial increase in hours beyond what we are doing now. The half-day place will cease to be relevant when children are eligible for 30 hours per week.

I have also tasked my officials with looking in the shorter term at how we address the issues that some parents are having, but—for goodness’ sake—this is a massive success story. We have gone from an entitlement of 412.5 hours a year of free childcare to 600 hours a year and we have extended the eligibility for two-year-olds. We will continue to make progress from the rather derisory position that we inherited from the last Administration.

The First Minister says that the situation is getting better. It is not; it is getting worse. Today’s report confirms that fewer than one in six councils in Scotland are providing enough childcare for working parents. That is down from one in four councils last year. On the SNP’s watch, things are getting worse for families who are trying to juggle family life and work. One year ago today—[Interruption.]

Order.

One year ago today, this Parliament gave parents of three and four-year-olds the right to 600 hours of nursery care a year. We supported that and we voted for it, but today’s report makes it clear that parents across Scotland are unable to access that right, which we gave them.

It is true that, six weeks ago, the First Minister met the fair funding for our kids group—and it has not heard from her since. I spoke to the group this morning and in fact Jenny Gorevan from fair funding for our kids said:

“They give us supportive words but precious little action”.

So there we go. The group told the First Minister that thousands of kids in Scotland are missing out on childcare and that parents are having to give up their jobs as a result. The fair funding campaign asked for an audit of delivery of the 600 hours childcare policy so that we can see the scale of the problem and fix it. Will the First Minister deliver that audit today?

We will continue to monitor and audit the policy. That is why I can stand here and tell Kezia Dugdale that the latest statistics showed registration of three and four-year-olds was at 98.5 per cent. I am sure that the fair funding for our kids group will welcome the fact that since the meeting that I had with it on 9 January—[Interruption.]

Order.

—I have tasked my officials to look not at the longer-term solutions, because we know what they are, but at the shorter-term solutions to the particular issues that some parents—I stress some parents—are having. I would have thought that Kezia Dugdale would have welcomed that approach from the Government.

I know that in this week of all weeks Labour is having some difficulty with getting its figures to add up properly. [Interruption.]

Order.

However, there is no way that even—[Interruption.]

Order.

There is no way that even the innumerate Labour Party can describe an increase in funded childcare from 412.5 hours a year—which is what Labour provided—to 600 hours a year, which is what we are providing, as a deterioration. That is a significant improvement and, frankly, Labour—which never ever made it a budget priority in any of the discussions that it had with John Swinney—should be welcoming it. [Interruption.]

Order. Mr Bibby!

However, I do not think that that increase goes far enough, which is why I am committed to moving to a situation where our three and four-year-olds and eligible two-year-olds do not get 600 hours a year, but get 1,140 hours a year—30 hours a week. That is my ambition. When will Labour get round to backing it? [Interruption.]

Order.

The First Minister says that we have never ever prioritised the issue, yet it was in our budget ask last year, so that is just nonsense. She is celebrating the success of a policy; she should try to celebrate it in front of parents in Glasgow, who are telling her that there are thousands of children across Scotland who are unable to access—[Interruption.]

Order.

—the right that her Government gave them—[Interruption.]

Order. Ms Cunningham!

The First Minister should look those parents in the eye and tell them that they have never had it so good. They know that it is not true; we know that it is not true; and I think that the First Minister knows that it is not true. Parents across Scotland have one simple question for the First Minister: is it not about time that she made good on her childcare promises?

I tell members what I am going to do right now—I am going to look Kezia Dugdale in the eye and remind her who runs Glasgow City Council. [Interruption.]

Order.

If Kezia Dugdale has issues with the delivery of the childcare policy in the city of Glasgow—[Interruption.]

Order.

—I suggest that she should make an appointment and speak to her Labour colleagues, who run Glasgow City Council.

Now, 98.5 per cent of three and four-year-olds have registered for free childcare. I looked parents in Glasgow who have frustrations about the delivery of this in the eye and made a commitment to them that we would work to deal with the issues. However, no matter how hard Kezia Dugdale tries to manipulate the figures—and I note that this week she is not asking about the health service; I wonder why—she cannot get away from the fact that an increase in free childcare from 412.5 hours to 600 hours is a significant step forward under this Government. If we are re-elected—and let us face it: although there is no complacency, all the polls today suggest that we might well be—we will take that to 30 hours a week for three and four-year-olds and eligible two-year-olds. This Government has delivered on childcare, and we will continue to do so.

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when she will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S4F-02594)

I have no immediate plans.

On 11 December, the First Minister told me in this chamber that, when it came to education, she would always keep “an open mind” about educating our children. She added:

“I will listen to ideas from wherever they come”.—[Official Report, 11 December 2014; c 17.]

An idea has come out this morning. The parents of St Joseph’s primary school in Milngavie are campaigning to keep their school open; they want to take the school out of local authority control and run it as a trust. They insist that education elsewhere in the area will be unaffected. They just want their children to get the education that they believe in, in the town where they live. Given what she said last December, will the First Minister make a commitment today to meet the parents, listen to their concerns and examine their proposal with an open mind?

As Ruth Davidson will have heard from my exchange with Kezia Dugdale, I will meet parents who are interested in and concerned about their children’s education, whatever the issue is that they want to discuss with me. I also repeat that I will listen to any ideas and suggestions that are put forward. If I do not agree with those particular suggestions, or if they cannot be delivered, I will look parents in the eye and explain to them why that is the case.

As for the specific issue that Ruth Davidson has raised about St Joseph’s primary, I well understand the concerns that any parent will have for their children’s education if a school that they value is going to be closed. The self-governing schools model was, of course, introduced into Scotland by the Tories; however, only two schools took up the self-governing option, and the legislation was repealed by this Parliament in the Standards in Scotland’s Schools etc Act 2000. That is the position, but I am very happy to discuss the issue with representatives of the parents, if they so wish.

On the wider point about listening, I am very keen to hear ideas. I gave Ruth Davidson an open invitation to send me ideas; I might be wrong, but I am not aware that she has done so. Last week, I talked about the need to close the attainment gap in schools and my willingness to look at best practice where that exists. I think that we can find some in the London challenge, and other best practice can be found in Ontario. I am absolutely determined to continue to deliver the best education for our children and, where there are challenges in our education system, to work hard to address them.

I am pleased with the First Minister’s response, because this is a simple case to understand. What we have got are parents who are energised, enthusiastic and positive about their local community and who have a genuine worked-out plan for improving their children’s schooling. So far, they have been faced with a Government wall that simply tells them, “We know best” when it does not.

There is, as the First Minister has recognised, a massive performance gap between our poorest and richest areas; Scotland is stagnating in international league tables; and parents are watching in horror as this Government and councils fight over the basic task of hiring teachers for local schools. Frankly, it is not good enough. Last week, we welcomed it when the First Minister moved an inch by backing the London challenge, but Scotland needs her to move a mile. We need a parent-power law that allows schools to opt out of local authority control if they so wish. Why can the First Minister not back that today?

Ruth Davidson might find it helpful if I point out—I think that I am right in saying this; if I am wrong I apologise in advance, but I am pretty sure about it—that the council that is closing the school that she is talking about, East Dunbartonshire Council, has the Conservatives as part of its administration. Perhaps, therefore, her first port of call might be not me but her colleagues in East Dunbartonshire Council.

On the general issue, Ruth Davidson is well aware of the position in terms of grant-aided schools in Scotland. The Scottish Government currently funds eight grant-aided schools, seven of which are special schools, because they tend to be for national centres of provision. I have already outlined the position around the repeal of the former legislation.

I have said that I would be happy to speak to those parents. Perhaps, as well as discussing this issue, I can advise them on how they can persuade the Tories in their local council to take a different decision on the school.

Ruth Davidson raised some other issues. I make no apology for drawing a line in the sand with regard to teacher numbers. I want to maintain the number of teachers working in our schools because I see that as important to raising attainment. I hope that Labour and the Tories will tell their councils that they should be backing that as well.

It was revealed this week that Longannet power station in my constituency is facing renewed threats to its future, with talks apparently breaking down between Scottish Power and the National Grid.

Given that Longannet employs hundreds of workers in west Fife, and given that the plant is responsible for 25 per cent of the power that we use in Scotland, what action is the First Minister taking to get all the parties back round the table to deliver a secure future for Longannet, for the local community in Kincardine and for Scotland’s future energy needs?

I very much share the member’s concerns about the future of Longannet and I think that she is right to raise the issue in the chamber today. She is probably aware that, on Monday, I wrote to the Prime Minister to ensure that he is aware of the serious threat to the future of Longannet.

To put the issue in a nutshell, Longannet is under imminent threat because of the costs that it faces in connecting to the grid. It costs Longannet £40 million to do that, whereas a power station in London or the south-east is paid £4 million to do it. The situation is deeply unfair and, in the interests of Longannet and the people who work there, and in the wider interests of Scotland’s security of energy supply, the United Kingdom Government really needs to intervene and help us to get this sorted out.

It transpired this week that the 17th century old Parliament hall in Edinburgh was transferred from the collective ownership of my constituents to Scottish ministers without knowledge or recompense to the common good fund. The City of Edinburgh Council failed in its role as steward of the fund, but is now seeking to resolve the situation. Can the First Minister assure my constituents that any requests from the council to restore ownership of that common good asset to the council will be considered seriously and favourably?

I will briefly state the background to this issue, of which I am sure that Alison Johnstone is aware.

The Scottish Government’s position is that title to Parliament hall was taken by Scottish ministers in good faith, and that that was done with the full knowledge and consent of the council. The Scottish Courts Service and the Faculty of Advocates, therefore, have now got good title to that property.

Of course, I am more than happy to ask the relevant minister, Marco Biagi, to meet and discuss the matter with the City of Edinburgh Council, but as far as I can see there is no fault here on the part of the Scottish Government. Further, of course, title has since been passed on, so it may very well be that there is no easy solution to the issue of restoring title to the City of Edinburgh Council. I think that any questions on how the situation has arisen probably have to be directed to the council.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-02592)

Matters of importance to the people of Scotland.

I want to look at what senior police officers have been saying recently. They told us that stop and search for under-12s had ended, but it had not. They told us that the numbers that were released were wrong, but privately admitted that they were right. The police told us that they were forced to release the information, but that was wrong, too. Is this really good enough for our police and for Scotland?

The police, including the chief constable, will be before the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing later today and I am sure that they will answer those and many more questions.

Willie Rennie made a number of different points in one question, so I will try to answer them in turn. The clear policy is that there should be no non-statutory searches of under-12s. Information has been provided to police officers about the range of ways in which they can engage children under 12 short of relying on non-statutory stop and search.

In terms of the wider issue about non-statutory stop search, as we discussed at the previous session of First Minister’s questions, the chief constable is now considering ending the practice altogether. A short-life working group has been established to consider that and its implications. The group will report to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice by the end of March and then the Parliament will be updated and will be able to debate the issue in full.

The chief constable wrote to the Scottish Police Authority on Monday this week to make clear Police Scotland’s position on the release of the information. It is probably easier if I quote briefly from the letter:

“our decision”—

as in, the police’s decision—

“to release the data ... was on the basis of an assessment that, despite our concerns about its accuracy or reliability, there was a risk that we would have been the subject of an adverse decision notice if the appeal process continued.”

The chief constable also apologised in that letter for any concerns that have been raised as a result of how he expressed the matter, but the bottom line is that Police Scotland considered that it was obliged under the law to release the data.

Of course, the data has been released. I could understand concern if we were talking about the reasons for withholding information, but the information has been released, which has allowed the correct and legitimate scrutiny that is now being applied to the subject.

I knew all the things that the First Minister just told me. I want to know what she thinks about the matter. I want to know her opinion about what has been happening to police officers, what they have been telling the Parliament over the past six months and their failures to be straight with the Parliament about the facts.

The police code of ethics reads:

“How we deliver is as important as what we deliver.”

That is exactly what I am concerned about and I am sure that the First Minister recognises—she must recognise—that trust in Police Scotland has been shattered because of the series of events that we are discussing. [Interruption.]

Order.

There is clearly something wrong with the system that her Government created. What is she going to do about it?

The first thing that I will continue to do is support our police in the hard and vital job that they do on our behalf day in and day out.

The police are rightly before the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing later today and will answer the questions on what information they have given to parliamentary committees or to the Scottish Police Authority. The bigger and substantive issue is about the future of non-statutory stop searches. If Willie Rennie wants my opinion on things, I made my view quite clear at the previous session of First Minister’s questions that the situation on non-statutory stop searches is unsatisfactory at the moment. It is unsatisfactory because of the degree of public understanding about it and the degree—or lack of—public acceptance of it.

That is why the chief constable is absolutely correct to say that he is now considering ending the practice, but there are clearly practical implications of doing so. That is why the process that is under way through the short-life working group is the right way to do it. By the end of next month, the group will have reported to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Parliament as a whole will be able to debate the issue if it is so minded.

To this extent, Willie Rennie is correct: it is vital that we have total trust in our police service. I trust our police, have confidence in them and will continue to back them in the work that they do.

---

Austerity (Impact on Public Services)

To ask the First Minister what impact on-going austerity will have on the finance available for public services in Scotland. (S4F-02613)

Over the course of the current spending review, the Scottish Government’s discretionary budget has been cut by nearly £2.9 billion in real terms. All three Westminster parties have signed up to deliver billions of pounds of further cuts over the next parliamentary term. Coalition plans amount to cuts of around £1,800 per head on day-to-day public services between 2009-10 and 2019-20. Those cuts have imposed, and will continue to impose, a significant burden on households throughout the country.

Of course there is a need to reduce the deficit, but it should be done more gradually than either of the largest United Kingdom parties proposes. It is time for a clear alternative to austerity: plans that will get the deficit as a share of our gross domestic product down, but also allow us to spend the money on infrastructure, innovation, protecting our public services and protecting the vulnerable. I will be proud to argue that alternative to Labour-Tory austerity in the weeks ahead.

I thank the First Minister for that answer, and I thank her for the passion that she has put into this, especially around—[Interruption.]

Order.

Labour members do not like it.

Can we just get a question, Ms McKelvie?

The impact of the welfare cuts has been particularly great on women in our society—around 85 per cent of all the welfare cuts have had a direct impact on women—and it is usually low-paid women who are affected.

What measures will the Scottish Government take to mitigate the impact on the hard-working low-paid women of this country?

Research by the House of Commons library shows that more than three quarters of the impact of the UK Government’s tax and welfare changes is being borne by women. That is outrageous, a scandal and completely unacceptable.

Disabled people are also losing out. In Scotland, it is estimated that more than half of those who claim disability living allowance will have their benefits cut by at least £1,100 a year and, of course, the Institute for Fiscal Studies found that the changes to the tax and benefit system are harming the poorest 10 per cent of households more than any other section of the population. That is the reality of the Labour and Tory austerity plans.

We will continue to make the case for a more rational and more compassionate economic policy at Westminster. If we have influence in the Westminster Parliament, we will be a voice against Labour-Tory austerity and a voice that stands up for the poor, the vulnerable, women and our public services.

---

Advanced Highers (Delayed Implementation)

To ask the First Minister what plans the Scottish Government has to allow schools to delay the implementation of the new advanced higher qualifications. (S4F-02610)

The Scottish Government has no plans to delay the implementation of the new advanced higher.

No one thinks that it would be ideal for the new exams to be delayed, but when the Educational Institute of Scotland says that pressure means that the advanced higher might be marginalised or dropped, when the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers says that levels of workload are unsustainable and when headteachers tell a committee of this Parliament that the situation is a total disaster, surely we have to listen and take some action.

Is Seamus Searson of the Scottish Secondary Teachers Association not right to be alarmed by the lack of respect for teachers’ professional judgment that the Government has shown on this matter?

We will continue to discuss the issue with and listen to teachers’ unions. The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning does that on an on-going basis.

The level of change to advanced highers is very different from that for highers. There has, of course, been a year of dual running of the old and new highers, but the content of advanced highers has changed less than was the case for highers. Teachers have been provided with a great deal of support over the past two years to help with the implementation of the new advanced highers. In our view, there is no evidence to suggest that dual running is necessary, but we will continue to discuss matters with teachers and teachers’ unions, as we have done throughout the process. In addition, we will continue to agree with teachers’ unions, which say, as we do, that teacher numbers in our schools should be maintained.

---

Methadone

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is on prescribing methadone to drug users as a rehabilitation process. (S4F-02607)

The Government is committed to tackling the damaging impact of drugs in Scotland through our national drugs strategy, “The Road to Recovery”, which focuses on the needs of the individual and provides a range of interventions.

Opiate replacement therapies, including methadone, are just one component in a package of care, treatment and support that can be offered to individuals to help them to recover from drug addiction. Opioid replacement is an essential treatment that has a strong evidence base, and the use of methadone remains a central component of the treatment for opiate dependency. That view was endorsed by the independent expert group on opioid replacement therapies in its report to the Scottish Government in August 2013.

Is the First Minister aware that more than 40 per cent of all drug-related deaths in Scotland are now linked to methadone, compared with 14 per cent in England? Given that and the lack of information about the number of individuals who have become drug free by going on a methadone programme, does she consider that the policy on prescribing methadone is fit for purpose?

In my initial answer, I outlined the role that methadone plays in our wider drugs strategy. I am sure that the member will understand that the factors that lie behind the number of drug deaths are complex. Although what she talks about will undoubtedly be one such factor, there will be other factors at play.

On the prescribing of methadone, for the third successive year there has been a decrease in the dispensing of opioid replacement therapies, including methadone, in the community. Further, for the past three years the quantity of methadone dispensed in the community—and indeed the total cost involved—has also decreased. Clearly, there are big issues there for how we get to grips with drug addiction and help those who suffer from drug addiction.

Methadone has a role to play. Margaret Mitchell is right to say that it is only part of the solution and that we must be very careful about it. However, I hope that the figures that I have cited give her some reassurance. I know that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice would be happy to discuss it with her in more detail if she so wishes.

The First Minister will be aware of the expert review of opioid replacement therapies, published in August 2013, which found that only a quarter of alcohol and drug partnerships held detailed information about the length of time that individuals had been on opioid replacement therapies such as methadone. Will the First Minister confirm whether all ADPs now collate that information? If not, why not?

I am more than happy to provide a full written answer to the detail of that question. It is important that we understand the scale of the issue that we are dealing with and the direction of travel, so it is a reasonable point for the member to raise. I will ask the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to provide the specific information that the member is seeking.

That ends First Minister’s questions. I remind members that the plenary session this afternoon starts at 2 pm.