Plenary, 24 Sep 2009

Meeting date: Thursday, September 24, 2009

Official Report 792KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Engagements

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day (S3F-1894)

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

I know that the whole chamber will wish to take this opportunity to record its appreciation as a national Parliament for the life of Bill Speirs, the former general secretary of the Scottish Trades Union Congress. Bill made a substantial contribution to Scottish life for many years and will be greatly missed by us all. [Applause.]

I thank the First Minister for those words, which I am sure are echoed across the chamber and throughout Scotland.

On 5 September 2007 the First Minister was asked a straight question: would he reduce in this parliamentary session class sizes to 18 in primary 1, 2 and 3? For once, he gave a straight answer; he said, "Yes". But that was not true, was it?

The commitments were set out in the concordat with local government, which was published in 2007 and which said that there would be "year on year progress" towards lower class sizes of 18 in primary 1 to 3 in Scotland. Throughout Scotland, there has been year-on-year progress. Class sizes in Scotland are now at a record low, thanks to the actions of this Government and many local authorities around Scotland.

But some local authorities have not been quite so much in favour of a class size reduction policy. Is that not true?

Indeed. Twelve out of 13 Scottish National Party-led councils have failed to make progress and have reduced their teacher numbers. That was certainly not the straight answer.

Last night on television, Fiona Hyslop was asked five times when the class size promise would be delivered. She could not answer. This morning, Fiona Hyslop did not speak, so Keith Brown was asked when the promise would be delivered. He could not answer. Let us try the organ grinder. Will the First Minister tell us when the promise will be delivered?

Under this Administration, there will be year-on-year progress towards that class size target, which is in dramatic contrast to Labour's failure to meet its class size target when it was in government. Not only are we determined to make that year-on-year progress at this hugely difficult economic time, but we are going to have class sizes that are lower than those either under the previous Labour Administration or anywhere else on these islands. That will be the aim of the Scottish Government and our local authorities.

Of course, Iain Gray did not wish to comment on the fact that the largest local authority in Scotland, which is under Labour control, is itself responsible for 20 per cent of the decline in teacher numbers in Scotland. Why on earth should that be? Would anyone on the Labour benches care to comment?

As Benjamin Franklin once said,

"He that is good for making excuses is seldom good for anything else."

The issue is not just about class sizes. A year ago, the First Minister told us that nursery teacher numbers were "substantially increasing". They were not; they were falling. Moreover, in his manifesto, he said that he would

"maintain teacher numbers in the face of falling rolls".

However, he has cut 1,000 teachers out of our schools. The promises on class sizes, nursery teachers and school teachers—not one of them was true, was it?

We now know for the first time just how many nursery teachers there are in Scotland: there are 2,590. Unfortunately, that figure cannot be compared to figures in previous years, because the Labour Administration double-counted hundreds of nursery teachers because they worked at several schools. In other words, under the Labour-Liberal Administration, if a nursery teacher worked in two schools, they were counted twice; and if they worked in three schools, they were counted three times. I am not sure that Iain Gray was fully familiar with that double and treble-counting policy, but I am sure that he welcomes the fact that we now have an accurate estimate of nursery teacher numbers in Scotland.

Would it not be wonderful if every council in Scotland shared the enthusiasm of this Government for lower class sizes? Would it not be wonderful if our largest local authority was not engaged in the practice of cutting teacher numbers, increasing class sizes and closing primary schools, despite receiving more per head than any other local authority in this country?

I am delighted that we have accurate figures for full-time equivalent nursery teachers in pre-school education. What those figures show is that last year there were 34 fewer nursery teachers and the year before that there were 14 fewer. The numbers are not going up; they are going down.

The First Minister was elected on a false prospectus. In a tight election, he made cynical promises to children, parents, teachers and students—promises that he never intended to keep.

Here is how one of those teachers feels:

"Think I will send Hyslop a calculator—she obviously does not have one … and if I could—her P45." [Interruption.]

SNP members can laugh. The teacher continued:

"I can just photocopy mine and change the names."

The education secretary is making Alex Salmond look like a fool. Will the First Minister make that teacher's day and give Fiona Hyslop her P45?

If Iain Gray had attended the education debate, he would have heard that story being told. I am concerned about the future of teachers and post-probationers in Scotland. [Interruption.]

Order, Mr McAveety.

I think that a serious employment situation is facing all teachers in Scotland. That is why the Government is taking action to address those circumstances.

I agree that it is no consolation for any individual teacher that teacher unemployment is lower in Scotland than in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, but Labour members should reflect for a second on why unemployment among teachers is higher elsewhere in these islands. Might that be something to do with the public expenditure profile that is being set by the Treasury in London, or does the Labour Government in London deliberately make teachers unemployed?

I am interested in individual teachers, such as Alice Thompson, the probationer of the year, who was employed by Glasgow City Council only after it was shamed by publicity into offering record probationer employment, and following the scheme that was introduced by the education secretary to help the implementation of the curriculum for excellence, which employs 100 extra teachers in Scotland—real action by the education secretary, not more cries of, "We was robbed in the last election" by Iain Gray.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S3F-1895)

I met the Prime Minister last week and I have no plans to meet him in the near future.

Neither does Obama.

Order.

Let us take a look at the First Minister's own report card on education: raising standards—fail; teacher numbers—fail; outdoor education—fail; physical education—fail; and now the flagship class size pledge trumpeted by the SNP—fail. Posted missing in making any comment to the Parliament about this mess is the minister, the hapless Fiona Hyslop. Who should parents blame for the mess? Should they blame the cocky head boy, Alex Salmond, or his silent and wretched prefect, Ms Hyslop?

Annabel Goldie should have a care before making sweeping statements about Scottish education. [Interruption.]

Order.

In 2009, the standard grade pass rate was 98.5 per cent, the higher pass rate was 74.2 per cent, and the advanced higher pass rate was 77.8 per cent. Each of those statistics represents a new record of achievement in Scottish education. In generally running down standards in Scottish education in a way that contrasts with the figures, which show the highest improvement rate in history, Annabel Goldie should consider that she demeans the teachers and pupils who achieved those wonderful results.

For all his bluster, the First Minister has been found out and found wanting. He has failed. The Daily Record talks about "a cynical election soundbite", the Daily Mail says that there has been a "humiliating climb-down" and The Sun says that the First Minister is the "School Dunce". Very few people have any confidence left in the Scottish National Party's approach to education. I ask again, who is to blame for the shambles? The First Minister is the head boy. Is he big enough to admit that he got it wrong? Will he put on record his full, unequivocal and unconditional support for his Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning?

I put on record my approval and endorsement of a cabinet secretary who has, with the pupils and teachers of Scotland, helped to achieve the record levels of attainment that I spelled out for Annabel Goldie.

Annabel Goldie should reflect on what I am about to say, although I know that she did not ask the question that I am about to refer to. Only last week, the Labour deputy education spokesperson, Mr Macintosh, asked and encouraged me to reduce to 25 the statutory level of class sizes in primary 1. I listened to a speech that he made a week later in which he attacked the self-same policy that he advocated only last week. Luckily for the cabinet secretary and me, the move has been welcomed by the Educational Institute of Scotland and local authorities throughout the country, even if it has not been welcomed by Annabel Goldie and, this week, Ken Macintosh. [Interruption.]

Order.

I think that Miss Goldie deserves a chance to ask the question again. [Interruption.] Order.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

You should wait until the end, please, Mr Macintosh.

It would be much more to the point if the First Minister answered my questions instead of issuing a diatribe to the Labour ranks. I want to know who has caused the mess. Whatever is happening, I believe in choice in education, but the policy is restricting choice, not expanding it, and parents do not like that.

The First Minister should be brief.

By listing the attainments in Scottish education by teachers and pupils under the realm of the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning I specified exactly the achievements of Scottish education and directly answered Annabel Goldie's question. I weigh in the balance any suggestions that I receive on how to improve education, whether they come from Annabel Goldie or Ken Macintosh. However, I think that the welcome that the policy of reducing the statutory maximum number of pupils to 25 has received from the EIS and local councils throughout Scotland carries slightly more weight than even Annabel Goldie's refusal to acknowledge it.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-1896)

At its next meeting, the Cabinet will discuss a range of issues of importance to the people of Scotland

The First Minister is aware that ITV is involved in a dispute with STV that is damaging for viewers. I spoke to STV this morning; it is clear about its legal defence. Is the First Minister aware that the television regulator, the Office of Communications, offered binding arbitration earlier in the year? STV accepted that offer to sort things out, but ITV refused it. Will the First Minister agree to speak to the United Kingdom Government and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Ben Bradshaw, to push ITV into those mediation talks? Scotland does not need a perpetual dispute between broadcasters. Could this not become a case of legal disputes coming first and viewers coming second?

I agree with the suggestion. I am aware of the offer of arbitration and urge ITV to take it up. The Minister for Culture, External Affairs and the Constitution will be happy to abide by the suggestions that Tavish Scott makes, which are both helpful and constructive.

Does not the First Minister understand the fear that people have of the consequences for broadcasting in Scotland? He has put forward plans to end the BBC in Scotland without any guarantee that the BBC will still be made available here. Is that not another case of more for the lawyers and less for the viewers?

Let us consider the programme guide under Alex Salmond's broadcasting corporation. "The One Show" becomes "The Only One Show"; only the First Minister is on it. Especially for him, we will see a return of "Grandstand", and we know who will star in "Monarch of the Glen". If "Only an Excuse" is brought back to our screens, this time round it will see live coverage of First Minister's question time—[Interruption.]

Order.

We already know the "Weakest Link": it is Fiona Hyslop. Alex Salmond will be on every news item on "Reporting Scotland", unless the plan is for him to read the news instead of Jackie Bird. All programming will be fixed because the SNP Government plans to appoint the director general.

In North Korea—[Interruption.]

Order. I wish to hear the question even if members do not. Indeed, I would like a question, Mr Scott.

In North Korea, TVs and radios come pre-tuned to Government stations. How can we avoid that happening in Scotland?

I do not know what happens on television in North Korea, but I know what happens in the Republic of Ireland. All BBC programmes are available there, not only on the BBC but on RTÉ. I hope that that calms the concerns of Tavish Scott and the Liberal Democrats that they might not be able to watch their favourite programmes; I give them the undertaking and guarantee that they will.

You said that you wanted to hear the rest of the question, Presiding Officer, but I am not certain that that sentiment was shared unanimously across the chamber. What Tavish Scott was saying was the sort of thing that someone might dream up after having one or two piña coladas and a little too much sea air at their party conference.

In light of the statement that the prosecutor in England made yesterday on assisted suicide, does the First Minister agree with Debbie Purdy that the issue can be addressed properly only by elected representatives and through the introduction of primary legislation? Would he back a free vote on such legislation?

Following the recent decision of the House of Lords in what was an English case, the Director of Public Prosecutions was required by the court to issue guidance on the factors that will have to be taken into account in England when a decision is made as to whether to consent to a prosecution for assisted suicide. As Margo MacDonald is well aware, we have no statutory offence of assisted suicide in Scotland. The Lord Advocate therefore made it clear that she does not think it appropriate to issue similar guidance in Scotland.

Although the offence of assisted suicide does not apply in Scotland, the circumstances could amount to culpable homicide. The Lord Advocate therefore commented:

"I recognise the importance of this issue but any change in the law"—

that is, the law relating to homicide—

"should properly be a matter for Parliament."

I agree with that statement. Legislation is, properly, a matter for a legislature. I say to Margo MacDonald that, on a personal level, I am not convinced by the arguments that she has put forward.

The First Minister will be aware that, over the past eight years, there have been 24 fires and leaks at the Hunterston nuclear power station in my constituency. The most recent incident happened in May, when 2,600 litres of low-level radioactive effluent was accidentally released into the Clyde. Does he share my concern about those incidents, the lack of public disclosure and the potential threat that the incidents pose to human health and the environment? Will he reassure my constituents that the Scottish Environment Protection Agency will work closely with HM nuclear installations inspectorate and British Energy to ensure that there are no further incidents at Hunterston?

I give the assurance that we will work closely with the relevant bodies to do our absolute best to protect the environment and safety of Scotland; the assurance that there will be no further incidents is extremely difficult to give. Such incidents have taken place throughout the history of the nuclear industry. I guarantee that I will demand timeous release of the information, because the public have the right to know as quickly as possible about such serious incidents. However, no one on earth can guarantee absolute nuclear safety.

---

Inquiry into Future Fisheries Management

To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government will take in response to the interim report of the inquiry into future fisheries management. (S3F-1905)

As Maureen Watt knows, we have conducted an extensive consultation and have prepared a range of initiatives to help the fishing industry in Scotland. She will have seen that we now have the estimated sea fisheries statistics for 2008, which show that the value of Scottish landings stood at £395 million—an increase of £13 million, 3 per cent up on the previous year. There was also a welcome, if marginal, increase in the number of those employed.

However, indications are that this year is much more difficult for our industry, because of the impact of the recession on fish prices and interaction with the common fisheries policy. The interim report of the inquiry into future fisheries management is particularly pertinent because it comes at a time when major and, I hope, welcome changes to the common fisheries policy are under way.

Does the First Minister agree that the Scottish fishing fleet is leading Europe in developing innovative measures to make fishing a sustainable and profitable industry and that the United Kingdom should, therefore, give clearer priority in the coming discussions on what should replace the discredited common fisheries policy to securing regional management of fishing grounds? Does he believe that, as with environmental issues, in relation to which Scotland plays a leading role, the Scottish ministers should be at the top table in any discussions?

I do. I hope that all members share that opinion, both for fisheries policy and for the upcoming environmental summit in Copenhagen.

Rightly, Scottish fishermen have earned plaudits across Europe for their groundbreaking conservation efforts. The Scottish Government will continue to work closely with the industry, through initiatives such as the Scottish fisheries council. Equally, we are working hard to ensure that we return powers over fisheries to Scotland.

The green paper on the future of the common fisheries policy recognises, at long last, many of the problems that we have been highlighting for years, such as micromanagement and

"detailed Council regulations that leave very little flexibility".

I agree with the inquiry report, which describes the green paper as "the last best opportunity" to overcome the

"systemic failures of the current regime".

Maureen Watt and her colleagues on the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee have a key role to play. I hope that all members who care about the future of one of our great industries will unite to put across their views in response to this "last best opportunity" to address the "systematic failures" of the common fisheries policy.

The First Minister is aware of the problem of discards and how it affects our fishing industry's future stocks. What steps is the Scottish Government considering and, indeed, advocating, as part of its input into the reform of the CFP, to bring the practice to an end?

The Scottish fisheries council is working on exactly that issue. As the member will know, there are indications that the European Commissioner for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries has an open mind and is flexible about addressing the question of discards, which has benighted the common fisheries policy for as long as it has been in existence. I hope that the indication of flexibility that has been part of the rhetoric of preparations for the green paper will be carried through into action to make the common fisheries policy rather more sane and sensible than it is at present.

---

Glasgow Airport Rail Link (Cancellation)

To ask the First Minister whether Transport Scotland was asked to assess the transport and economic consequences of the cancellation or scaling back of the programme of major transport projects in order to assure the capital budget's sustainability and, if so, whether the cancellation of the Glasgow airport rail link was considered the least damaging option. (S3F-1909)

The Scottish Government faced and continues to face tough decisions on where to prioritise its capital investment against a background of deteriorating public finances, with a real-terms reduction in the capital budget of £500 million for 2010-11. As with all the Government's portfolios, ministers must ensure that the programme for the finance and sustainable growth portfolio is achievable within the constraints on the budget. Therefore, following a review by Transport Scotland of the potential scope and resultant capital and compensation costs associated with work within the Glasgow airport campus, which have been subject to significant increases over recent months, we have had to take the decision not to proceed with the branch link element of the Glasgow airport rail link.

That will be a no, then. I say to the First Minister and the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth that the M74 extension is not a Glasgow project; it is Scotland's top transport priority in the current programme. The Southern general hospital is not purely a Glasgow hospital; it is a national facility serving the whole of Scotland. GARL was not a Glasgow transport project; it was to serve tourism development, economic growth and integrated transport objectives across Scotland.

Every major city in Europe with a railway and an airport links the two together. Why not in Scotland? Does the First Minister understand the outrage that is felt not just in Glasgow but across the wider business and tourism community in Scotland at the wrong-headed choice that his Government made?

I think that the M74, at a cost of £692 million, is both a Glasgow project and a national project, affecting and benefiting people across Scotland. Is it not strange that the Labour-Liberal Administration never got round to completing that vital motorway link for Glasgow and Scotland?

Given the way in which Des McNulty framed his question, I suspect that he condemns Steven Purcell for his foolish claim that the Forth replacement crossing is somehow an east of Scotland project. The Forth crossing, like the M74, is a project that benefits both an area and the whole of the country.

I do not think that, in the current environment, with large-scale declines in capital spending imposed by a Labour Treasury at Westminster, anyone could justify spending £70 million to remove the fuel dumps, the runway and the car parks from Glasgow airport before even an inch of railway line was laid. How could anybody justify that in the current circumstances?

If the finance secretary had simply not addressed the realities of the budget, what would Des McNulty have cut? Would he have cut the Southern general hospital, the largest capital project in the history of the national health service in Scotland, which is both a Glasgow project and a Scottish project? Would he have cut the national indoor sports arena, which is a project for the city of Glasgow that will also be of benefit to the rest of Scotland?

Des McNulty and the Labour Party had better face reality. There are more capital projects worthy of Scotland in Glasgow now than under any previous Administration—and no one outside the ranks of Glasgow City Council Labour and Labour MSPs thinks that we should have given BAA £70 million before even an inch of railway line was laid.

---

Curriculum for Excellence

To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Government intends to respond to recent criticisms that have been voiced by teachers, academics, business leaders and unions concerning the curriculum for excellence. (S3F-1903)

The curriculum for excellence is the most significant development in Scottish education for a generation. The importance of implementing the curriculum for excellence has been recognised across the Parliament, including by Elizabeth Smith.

Progress is well under way, thanks to the unparalleled level of involvement of teacher and headteacher unions, colleges, universities and others. The vast majority of those concerned are now working towards full adoption of the curriculum for excellence by August 2010. Where concerns or suggestions have been raised about implementation, we have listened and acted on them.

For example, the Scottish Government has extended the time for achieving full adoption of the curriculum for excellence by one year, to August 2010. A £4 million investment was made recently for 100 additional teachers to help each school in every local authority to prepare for full adoption.

On 23 September the assessment strategy was published. The strategy was prepared by the curriculum for excellence management board, which comprises universities, academics, teacher and headteacher unions, colleges, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education and the Scottish Qualifications Authority.

Yesterday, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning published the strategic vision and key principles for assessment for the curriculum for excellence, which says:

"Teachers in schools will assess children's progress in literacy and numeracy using the experiences and outcomes and the guidance in the relevant Principles and Practice papers and further guidance which will apply to standards."

Will the First Minister explain what that means for testing?

It means exactly what Larry Flanagan, the Educational Institute of Scotland's education convener, said on 23 September, when he addressed the matter. He said:

"Curriculum for Excellence offers an opportunity to regain professional control of teaching and learning",

which he said was

"a change, certainly, in contrast to the over-prescriptive practice"

of the previous regime.

Elizabeth Smith should examine the contributions of her colleagues, because it is exactly the issue of regaining professional control of teaching and teaching standards in Scotland that is at the heart of the curriculum for excellence and it is exactly that approach that has been praised by some of her colleagues in debates in the Parliament. I hope that she is not reneging on support for that principle, which is at the heart of the new curriculum for excellence.

We started late, so I will take a final supplementary question.

Can the First Minister tell us exactly where in the curriculum for excellence there is reference to an assessment of whether children can read when they leave primary school?

Curriculum for excellence has at its heart improving the basis of education in Scotland. I compare the criticism of the curriculum for excellence that has been made by a range of commentators with the investment that has been put into the new curriculum by a range of interests throughout Scotland. I say directly to Rhona Brankin that I hope that she does not make this vital innovation in the future of education the new Labour Party political football—which Labour always kicks into its own net.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Is it in order for you to ask the First Minister to clarify what he said earlier? If it is, will you point out to him that if he had answered the question that I asked him at last week's First Minister's question time, he would have realised that asking a question on broken promises on class size does not constitute an endorsement of his policy? Will you also point out to him, if it is in order to do so, that if he—or even his Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning—had taken the time to attend, let alone contribute to this morning's debate on education, he would have some sense of the disappointment, concern and anger that the Parliament feels over the deception of the Scottish public.

If the First Minister wants to respond, I will let him do so.

I will respond and provide that clarification to Ken Macintosh. Last week, he asked:

"Does he"—

that is me—

"believe that legislation is needed to set a new limit of 25 and that that would help him to achieve his class size targets?"—[Official Report, 17 September 2008; c 19731.]

When he said that, I believed that he wanted legislation, because he said so, and I believed that he thought that that would contribute to achieving our targets, because he said so. In future I will pay more attention before I believe a word that Ken Macintosh says.

In response to Mr Macintosh's point of order, I can say only that what the First Minister said is a matter of public record, and that it is for others to make of it what they will. The rest of what Mr Macintosh said was not a point of order.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. When the First Minister was asked the direct question by Ken Macintosh last week, was it in order for him not to answer truthfully that the Government intended to drop its class size policy in a week's time?

That is not a point of order—we have been through this too many times in the Parliament.

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—