Plenary, 22 Feb 2007

Meeting date: Thursday, February 22, 2007

Official Report 746KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-2733)

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

I remind the First Minister that in his manifesto for the last election he promised that every maths and English class in secondary 1 and secondary 2 would be cut to a maximum of 20 pupils. However, in a letter from the Education Department a few weeks ago, local authorities were told that it is now only the average class size that has to be as low as 20. Why has the policy changed?

The question contains an inaccuracy, because both in the chamber—where we first debated the issue in 2004—and in letters to directors of education at the end of 2005, it was made clear, following representations from directors of education and from head teachers, that where teachers requested some flexibility in a policy that we had said originally was absolute, head teachers would have that flexibility to ensure that the interests of their pupils came first, but only under certain conditions and controls. It is simply wrong of Ms Sturgeon to claim that there is a recent discovery, announcement or change of policy. What there is, is a listening approach. We have listened to head teachers who want to ensure the best possible education for youngsters.

I remind the First Minister that the original pledge was that no pupil would be in a class of more than 20, but under his new policy many pupils will be in classes of more than 20. Everybody knows that that is a substantial shift. Let us leave that to one side and focus instead on the First Minister's new policy.

Is the First Minister aware that even his watered down target is not close to being met? I draw his attention to figures obtained by my office under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002. Is he aware that, of the 25 councils that responded, not one single mainland authority is meeting the new target of an average class size of 20? Why is it that, even when he shifts the goalposts, the First Minister still misses the goal?

The second point is irrelevant, because the target is for this September not last September, as Ms Sturgeon herself said in her previous question.

As a result of the investment, every penny of which stands; the additional teachers, every one of whom will be in place; and the additional trainee places, every one of which has been achieved, we will of course reach the level of resources required to keep those classes to that size. In fact, we have increased the number of people studying to become primary teachers by more than 100 per cent since 2003, we have increased the number of people studying to be mathematics teachers by more than 75 per cent since 2003 and we have increased the number of people studying to become English teachers by more than 100 per cent since 2003.

The local authorities have every resource that they require to fulfil the requirement by September 2007, which is the date that they were set. We listened to those voices that said to us that the target should be, in the hands of the head teachers, open to flexibility. The Scottish nationalist party may laugh, but they may not laugh when I remind them that, back in 2002, Fiona Hyslop, who is of course the education spokesperson for the Scottish National Party, said:

"We should listen to what teachers and head teachers say. Head teachers have told me that they would prefer the flexibility of making their own choices, rather than the dislocation and disruption of … classes, which result from the requirement to meet the class size target."—[Official Report, 7 February 2002; c 6182.]

That is another example of the Scottish National Party saying one thing on one day and a different thing on a different day, or saying one thing to one audience and a different thing to another, or being prepared to say absolutely anything to try to win votes in an election. We put the education of pupils first.

I remind the First Minister that he helpfully distorted that quote once before, which allowed me to go back and check what was said. Ms Hyslop said that the Executive should listen to head teachers and reduce primary class sizes by using more teachers, not more composite classes.

However, I was asking the First Minister about his change of policy on secondary education that will leave many pupils in classes of more than 20. The First Minister now says that he wants to give himself until September to meet this target. When he first launched this policy, just before the last election, he said that it would be delivered by the end of the four-year term. Now, as well as shifting the goalposts on the policy, the First Minister wants extra time.

The problem is that the policy objective is not even close to being met. I point out to the First Minister that 12 of the local authorities from which I have received responses still have average English and maths class sizes of 25 or more. Is he aware that, in his own back yard of North Lanarkshire, the average S1 class in English and maths has more than 26 pupils? Is it not the case that, however we look at it, this is another broken education pledge from Labour?

That is absolutely not the case. In fact, today we have an average ratio in primary schools of 17 pupils per teacher. In our secondary schools, we have consistently managed to reduce class sizes by the employment of additional teachers and additional staff to work alongside them.

I point out, to those in the chamber and those beyond it, that any Scottish National Party policy of reducing class sizes will not happen because of its plans to end the school building programme and ensure that youngsters do not even have the classrooms that would be needed to implement the policy.

I assure Ms Sturgeon that 2007 was the target year for the implementation of the policy, and it will be met this year. I will read out to Ms Sturgeon the words of Mr Jim Dalziel—I do not think that I have ever met him—who is the head teacher of Eastbank academy in the area of Glasgow that she represents. Following the story at the beginning of the week, Mr Dalziel wrote in today's The Herald:

"The First Minister should be congratulated for having the vision to set what was a very ambitious target, achieving it, and now allowing the new minister, Mr Henry, to take it forward in such a sensible manner."

That is the role of a responsible Government—to set a clear target, to allocate all the required resources, to make the changes to the buildings and to teacher training that will deliver that target, and then to say to head teachers that if, on rare occasions, they wish to adjust those class sizes for the educational benefit of their pupils, we would listen to them and not run their classrooms for them. If SNP members believe that they should run every single classroom in the country, they are wrong. The education of pupils comes first, ahead of them and their political posturing.

The First Minister mentioned Glasgow. Glasgow City Council said, in answer to my freedom of information request, that it does not collect the figures on S1 and S2 class sizes. That is absolutely extraordinary for a flagship policy.

It is about time that the First Minister took some responsibility for his record, instead of making up scare stories about the SNP. I remind the First Minister that Labour was elected on a pledge of "education, education, education." Is it not the case that, as we have seen with nursery education, school discipline and class sizes, Labour's legacy is actually one of "broken promise, broken promise, broken promise"?

For the record, I will be very specific about the facts. The level of attainment in Scotland's schools has gone up consistently since the introduction of devolution. That has happened both in primary schools, where the level of attainment in reading, writing and mathematics has gone up from 70 to 79 per cent, and in secondary schools, where the level of attainment at S2 has gone up from 41 to 59 per cent—an 18 per cent increase. Those increases make a difference to every one of the youngsters concerned.

In every case, the 200 brand new or rebuilt schools that have already been provided are improving the education of the pupils who enter them every morning, and the new schools that we will continue to build after the election will improve the education of Scottish pupils, too. The SNP will pay a price for wishing to stop the school building programme, which would make it more difficult to reduce class sizes and to give youngsters the facilities that are required in the 21st century. The SNP cannot accept the fact that head teachers and teachers in this country are getting exactly what they require and what the SNP used to call for before it changed its tune in an effort to get cheap votes at an election. Over the years, the SNP and others called for more freedom for teachers and head teachers in our schools, which they are now getting. That is why results are improving and why head teachers and teachers support our policy.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues they will discuss. (S2F-2734)

I have no immediate plans to meet the Prime Minister.

I remind the First Minister that crimes and offences are up. Indeed, a crime or an offence is committed in Scotland every 30 seconds. Even more worryingly, that is just reported crime. The recent Scottish crime survey showed that three out of every four crimes are never reported. Why do the people of Scotland have so little confidence in Scotland's criminal justice system?

Miss Goldie misrepresents entirely the progress that has been made in the system. The number of police officers is up, more of them are spending time on operational duties and they are supported by community wardens and by better laws that allow them to take more action in the community. In addition, since devolution it has consistently been the case throughout Scotland that recorded crime has come down and clear-up rates have gone up. At last communities are beginning to have some confidence in a system that is being restored to order and is being applied properly after the years of decline and decay that we saw under the last Conservative Government.

The figures that I quoted to the First Minister are the Scottish Executive's. Crimes and offences are up. The First Minister has many shortcomings, but self-delusion is clearly at the top of the list.

He will be aware that, at present, prisoners who serve sentences of four years or less are released after serving half their sentences, while longer-term prisoners walk out after they have served two thirds of their sentences. His new sentencing proposals will mean that all prisoners—even those who serve sentences of more than four years—may be able to stroll out of prison at half-time or even earlier.

Last week the Scottish Conservatives lodged stage 2 amendments to the Custodial Sentences and Weapons (Scotland) Bill, which would have led to all prisoners serving at least 90 per cent of their sentences in jail. We know that the SNP is soft on crime and on criminals, but the First Minister claims to be a tough guy, so why did the Lib-Lab pact vote to give criminals an easy ride?

For the second time, what Miss Goldie says is simply untrue. The reality is that, for the first time, criminals who are put into custody once they have received a prison sentence will serve the full custody part of that sentence. That is a significant improvement on the system that the Tories introduced, which allows criminals not only to leave halfway through their sentences, but to do so without conditions. As well as ensuring that prisoners serve the full custody part of their sentences in custody, we will impose conditions on prisoners outwith the custody period. That is the right policy for Scotland's prisons and it will properly protect local people in their communities. If the Tories had any honesty, they would admit that we have improved a system that they damaged and would get behind our proposals and support them.

For the first time, the Scottish Executive will tie the hands of our judges by prohibiting them, by statute, from giving custody-only sentences.

Let me give the First Minister another chance to send a message to the Scottish people that he is on their side. The Scottish Conservatives propose that the criminal law in Scotland be changed so that persons who have been acquitted of serious criminal charges can be tried again if new and compelling evidence comes to light. If the Lib-Lab pact is really committed to justice, will it drop its amendment to our motion on double jeopardy and support the victims of crime in Scotland?

I say again that Ms Goldie's question is inaccurate. It is simply not true that the hands of judges are being tied. In fact, the new system not only improves the authority of the judge in the court, but ensures that the judge's sentence is properly carried out. The system is one that enhances the power and authority of the judges, not one that diminishes it.

It may have escaped Ms Goldie's notice that the Scottish legal system is different from the English legal system. We know that, during many years under the Tories, that sort of fact escaped their notice. That is why we will determine, at the right time and after due consideration, exactly what response to take here, in Scotland, on the issue of double jeopardy. We will not be bounced into that by the Tories or by anybody else. We will make our own decision in our own time, and we will do so in the interests not just of the Scottish justice system, but of Scottish victims and witnesses, too.

I will allow two supplementary questions from back-bench members.

As I hope the First Minister will be aware, the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service announced this week the closure of the protein fractionation unit—which makes blood products for the national health service and the Ministry of Defence—at Liberton, in my constituency, with the loss of 140 jobs. Can he assure me that all possible options will be considered to ensure that those experienced and, in many cases, long-serving staff will be redeployed within the NHS so that their skills will not be lost to us?

I will say two things. First, some of the existing jobs will be retained because some of the contracts are being retained. Secondly, those whose jobs are affected by the change in contracts will be assisted, if at all possible, within the national health service.

As Mike Pringle has raised the issue, I take the opportunity to be crystal clear on the misrepresentation that was made earlier this week of what is going on at that location. It is simply not true that any blood that is donated in Scotland either is being used for those blood products or has in any way been thrown away or misused. Poor quality blood or blood that it was not possible to verify as being of good quality from elsewhere in the world, which was brought into Scotland to make blood products, was, rightly, being destroyed. However, it is simply not the case that any Scottish blood donations are in any way being misused. I urge people throughout Scotland to answer the calls of the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service to continue to donate blood. They can be absolutely confident that their blood will be used for patients in Scotland.

The First Minister will be aware of yesterday's decision by the High Court to dismiss charges in relation to the tragic events at Rosepark nursing home. I fully appreciate the fact that the matter is still under consideration by the Crown Office; however, the families concerned will be anxious to see the matter brought back to court as soon as possible. Does the First Minister accept that the case further outlines the need for robust laws in relation to corporate killing in Scotland? Will he ask the Minister for Justice to meet me and the constituency member, Michael McMahon, to discuss how the matter can be taken forward and how lessons can be learned from the case?

On the second point, the Minister for Justice has been acting on the commitments that were given to Parliament on the issue. She has discussed matters with colleagues at Whitehall, and I am sure that she would be happy to update Karen Gillon and others on that.

On the first point, following Lord Hardie's decision to dismiss charges in the case, the Crown immediately sought leave to appeal the decision, which was granted by the court. As Lord Hardie made clear in his judgment, for the benefit of the relatives of those residents who perished in the fire and the injured residents and their relatives, the decision does not signal an end to proceedings. As proceedings are still live, it would be inappropriate to make any further comment at this time. Nevertheless, this morning I received an assurance from the Lord Advocate that Crown counsel is currently giving full and careful consideration to the opinion that was issued by Lord Hardie. It will give further detailed consideration to the full judgment when it becomes available and will decide what further action to take.

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland and what issues he intends to discuss. (S2F-2748)

I have no immediate plans to meet the Secretary of State for Scotland.

The First Minister will be aware that, in evidence to the Environment and Rural Development Committee recently, the company behind the controversial ship-to-ship oil transfer that is proposed in the Firth of Forth described itself as having an "excellent record" on ship-to-ship oil transfer, citing just three or four barrels of oil spilled in 10 years. However, SPT Marine Service Limited failed to report that it had spilled 35,000 gallons of oil in a pristine natural marine area in the Gulf of Mexico in 1995. Does the First Minister believe, with me, that the company attempted to mislead the Parliament? Is that the kind of science on which he is relying to safeguard the marine environment?

Let me say two things. First, as I am sure that Robin Harper would agree, it is important to state for the record that a spill that took place in 1995 occurred more than 10 years ago. However, I agree that the committee should look at the evidence that was submitted. It is up to the committee to decide whether it wishes to take any further action on that. It is not up to me to dictate to the committee.

Secondly, I make it clear that Scottish Natural Heritage, as our advisory body, will advise us and Forth Ports on the scientific implications of any proposal. It will not be the case that we will rely on the science of the company that is involved. We will rely on the science of Scottish Natural Heritage and the expert advice that it provides to us.

I thank the First Minister for that partial answer. However, we still have a problem. The company has misled the Parliament over its record and Forth Ports—which has a financial interest in the project going ahead—is acting as the public authority that is responsible for protecting the environment. To cap it all, Forth Ports is the final arbiter on whether its own project should be given the go-ahead. Is it not the case that Scotland's precious marine environment is still not being protected in the public interest? Does the First Minister agree that this intolerable state of affairs warrants further urgent attention from the Executive and himself?

Two issues are involved. The first is the role of Forth Ports. Forth Ports has a number of different roles in the matter but, as the responsible authority, it has an absolute duty to act within the law and to base its decisions properly on all the legislation that affects the issue. Regardless of what other interests it might have, if Forth Ports in any way compromises that duty, its decisions will be subject to legal challenge.

I want to reassure Mr Harper and other members that the decision by Forth Ports will be guided by the advice of SNH. In particular, under the habitats directive, if SNH decides that Forth Ports will need a licence for some aspects of the proposal, the decision will be referred to ministers. Therefore, the Scottish Executive could yet have a role in the issue. The decision on whether a licence will be required will be included in the recommendations that will be made by SNH. The matter is not a decision for Forth Ports Authority on its own.

At the end of the day, in making the main decision, Forth Ports will have a number of legal duties to take into account. If Forth Ports breaches those duties in any way, it will be subject to legal challenge.

---

Schools (Class Sizes)

To ask the First Minister what progress is being made towards reducing class sizes in schools. (S2F-2736)

We are making excellent progress towards reducing class sizes in schools. We are not only reducing class sizes to 20 in maths and English in secondary 1 and secondary 2 but reducing class sizes to 25 in primary 1.

The First Minister recognises that, to reduce class sizes, we need more accommodation and more teachers. When I met West Lothian Council education officials recently, they raised concerns about the difficulties that they face in providing additional classrooms, due to the area's increasing population and rising school rolls. Can the First Minister offer reassurance to local authorities such as West Lothian Council that they will be assisted to provide those additional classrooms? Can he also explain how he thinks that the Scottish National Party could deliver those class-size reductions, given that its policy makes a £1.1 billion gap in council revenues that would result in 167 fewer teachers in West Lothian schools?

I accept that this is First Minister's question time, but it would be of significant interest to the people of Scotland if we could occasionally ask questions of the SNP. I might just take that opportunity.

Under the school building programme, it is important that authorities plan for the reductions in class sizes that are set out in their obligations. In planning for those new facilities, the number of classrooms that will be available and the formation of the school need to take those obligations into account. It will also be important that we maintain the budgets that deliver those reduced class sizes and new school buildings. This Executive is absolutely committed to maintaining those budgets; it is a pity that the main Opposition party is not.

The First Minister clearly recalls my advice of five years ago that he should listen to head teachers and implement class size reductions. Is it not a shame that it has taken him five years to do so? Had he heeded an SNP pledge to cut class sizes to 18 in P1 to P3, is it not the case that he would not now have to take remedial action in S1 and S2? Is it not also the case that the gap between the top-performing and bottom-performing pupils in Scotland is getting wider? In which case, will he give us an idea of how many pupils are being left behind because of Labour's education policy?

I will happily give those pupils and their parents an idea of just how left behind they would be if the SNP had a chance to run Scottish education. Over the past six months, we have heard an absolute promise from Alex Salmond that, if he is able to return to this Parliament, he will cancel all unsigned contracts for school public-private partnerships, which would mean that all those school building projects that have not already begun would be stopped as of May this year. That would have a terrible effect on the education of pupils throughout Scotland who would be forced to stay in buildings that are now out of date and need to be replaced.

The SNP and Fiona Hyslop have been asked on several occasions to answer the questions that have been put to them about why they would cancel the PPPs and how they would replace that funding, but they have refused to answer. In addition, the SNP made it perfectly clear that it would take £1 billion out of local authority budgets in Scotland—Ms Sturgeon herself made that clear. We asked the SNP just seven weeks ago to answer questions about the number of teachers who would have to go as a result of that policy and yet again, we received no answers.

I am very happy to have a debate with Ms Hyslop and ensure that she has answers to her questions at any time. However, I ask the SNP to please answer our questions and look after pupils in Scotland.

---

Blood Products (Public Inquiry)

To ask the First Minister whether the independent public inquiry into the contamination of blood products will have the support of the Scottish Executive in accessing information held in Scotland. (S2F-2742)

The Executive has already made public all available relevant material that it holds, and will make that information available to Lord Archer's inquiry on request.

Although I know that the Executive has already ruled out a public inquiry in Scotland, I wish to place on record my conviction that that stance is untenable. If there is a case to answer in England, there is a case to answer in Scotland.

I want to press the First Minister on the documents that he will release. Is he aware that the documents already obtained by me under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 make it evident that there is cross-border communication and that there are comparisons that are relevant to the British inquiry? Is he further aware that the Executive has withheld hundreds of documents?

Given that the majority of the events to be scrutinised by the inquiry happened under the United Kingdom Department of Health before devolution, will he clarify today that if the inquiry asks for it, the Executive will make available all information, ask all relevant public bodies to do the same and hand over all information that is held, including the hundreds of documents that the Executive has kept secret?

Not only have we already made available all the relevant material, we did so in advance of any necessity to do so under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002. In addition, I point out that as I understand it, although Lord Archer's inquiry is entirely independent of Government, it covers the whole of the United Kingdom, not just England. Therefore, we will of course be happy to co-operate on that basis.

---

Civil Legal Aid (Interdicts)

To ask the First Minister what consideration the Scottish Executive has given to altering the civil legal aid rules for cases involving threats of harassment or assault. (S2F-2741)

We are working continuously to ensure that people have access to justice in both civil and criminal matters. That involves a wide range of activity including tackling criminal offences involving threatening behaviour as well as ensuring that assistance with civil legal problems is provided to those who need it, and paid for from public funds for those who cannot afford it.

The First Minister will recall that the first-ever committee bill passed by this Parliament was the Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Act 2001, which allowed a power of arrest to be attached to interdicts protecting individuals from abuse. Does the First Minister accept that the will of Parliament will not have been implemented if people, normally women, are dissuaded from seeking such interdicts because of financial considerations?

As Mr Morgan knows, we are reviewing the provisions precisely to ensure that they are up to date and applicable to the needs of 21st century Scotland. However, we should register the fact that about 60 per cent of applicants for civil legal aid are successful and, indeed, that 75 per cent of applications relating to interdict and protection from abuse orders are successful. Moreover, more than 80 per cent of those grants do not require the applicant to make any contribution. As a result, in the vast majority of cases under the existing scheme, no contribution is required from anyone. However, we are reviewing the scheme to find out whether any improvements can be made.