General Questions
Teachers (Workforce Planning)
The cabinet secretary says that he is satisfied with workforce planning, as he said last week in reply to a question on teacher numbers from my colleague Rhona Brankin. Is he satisfied with the situation for the coming year in terms of placing requests? What measures is he planning to ensure a decrease in the number of placing requests and legal challenges from parents, which is surely a measure of dissatisfaction?
It has been evident over many years that there has been a mismatch between the number of teachers being trained and those entering employment after their induction year. We have taken action in this Government to address that situation by initially reducing intakes to initial teacher education courses by 42 per cent between 2009 and 2010. We have also brought forward the publication of the teacher census to better inform the planning process. I will take decisions on workforce planning at the end of this year and I am determined that I will do so on the best information available on the numbers of teachers leaving the profession and the local authority demand for teachers.
I have said not that I am satisfied, but that we need to improve the system—by definition, I am not satisfied. I am completely mystified by the connection that the member makes between workforce planning and the issues she raises on the numbers. The reality is that we need the right number of teachers for the right number of pupils in the right number of schools. That was my answer to the question from her colleague last week, to which the member referred. I hope that the member is not suggesting that we have the wrong number of teachers for the wrong number of pupils in the wrong number of schools.
Speech and Language Therapy Services
Does the minister agree that the work of successive Governments in passing legislation on additional support for learning and reinforcing rights for pupils and parents is being undermined by the shortage that is experienced by parents across Scotland in accessing the services?
No, we do not accept that that work is being undermined. We accept that additional pressures have resulted from the additional support for learning legislation, but we have attempted to resource those additional pressures so that we can live up to the aspiration of ensuring that the services are provided at the required level throughout the country. We will aspire to achieve that objective.
Question 3 has been withdrawn.
The answer was astonishingly complacent. As the minister knows, the royal college identified in its survey significant shortcomings and a distinct postcode lottery across Scotland in the provision of speech and language therapy services. For example, it found a wait of up to 10 months in some areas and said that that lamentable situation would get worse. Does the minister accept that children in the best health board areas enjoy 14 times more access to speech and language therapy provision than those in the worst areas? Indeed, for adults who require rehabilitation services, the difference is 16-fold. What priority does the Scottish Government give to speech and language therapy? What action is it taking to increase provision to ensure adequate and continuing provision across Scotland?
Of course, the legacy of the previous Administration was not encouraging, but positive action is being taken. For example, the number of therapists increased this year by more than 3 per cent; in the previous year, it was more than 6 per cent. We recognise the challenges in this area, and we are responding by putting in additional resources when and where the priorities lie.
The Scottish Government is committed to ensuring that all patients have appropriate and timeous access to the services they need in NHS Scotland. It is, however, for national health service boards and local authorities to determine the level of service provision that is required for speech and language therapy based on local needs. The Scottish Government is working with NHS boards and local authorities to develop a partnership approach and supportive guidance on how education and health services can work together to best provide for children with additional support needs, including speech and language therapy. It is anticipated that the guidance on working together to improve outcomes for children and young people will be available in June 2010.
NHS Tayside (Meetings)
Officials of the health directorates meet regularly with representatives of NHS Tayside. The next regular meeting with all national health service board chairs, including the chair of NHS Tayside, is on 29 March 2010.
I understand that NHS Tayside held a briefing for local MSPs last Friday afternoon. If Murdo Fraser had opted to turn up for that briefing—
—he would be fully aware of the discussions that had taken place and of the up-to-date situation, and his question would perhaps have been different as a result. Although a single-site hospital option has been part of the thinking, NHS Tayside has emphasised that it has reached absolutely no decisions. Further, it has made clear that it does not intend to develop detailed options for around 18 months, until it has evaluated the service changes that have already been implemented in the area.
When the cabinet secretary next meets NHS Tayside, will she raise with it the Angus community medicine rehabilitation and design project, which, given that it proposes to remove beds from Brechin infirmary and Montrose infirmary, has caused a great deal of concern to local people, particularly the 22 north Angus general practitioners? Does the cabinet secretary accept that NHS Tayside has lost the confidence of local people and health professionals as a result of the way in which the matter has been handled? Will she ask for an independent investigation into the matter in order that public confidence can be restored?
Two days’ notice—ridiculous!
Order, Mr Fraser.
Beauly to Denny Power Line (Community Engagement)
I have no knowledge of that, but I know that we have a process whereby there will be a construction procedure approach and handbook that will be committed to ensuring that mitigation measures are very much in line with the interests of the local community. I very much urge communities to continue liaising with the developers and with their planning authorities, because ultimately that will give them the best satisfaction.
Labour has welcomed the decision to have a new, upgraded Beauly to Denny line. However, over the section from Crieff to Plean in my constituency, I have sought mitigation, including undergrounding of some sections, as has been agreed for some of the feeder lines in the Highlands. Bruce Crawford and Keith Brown have both suggested to the groups opposing the pylons that they should continue to campaign for undergrounding. Is that not a cruel deception? Will the minister make clear today whether he is still talking to the power companies about the undergrounding of some mainline sections around Stirling? Or is undergrounding around Stirling no longer on the table? My constituents are entitled to clarity on the issue at this point.
I have imposed a number of stringent conditions on the Beauly to Denny replacement line, including a requirement on the developers to establish a tourism, cultural heritage and community liaison group. That group provides a focus for bringing issues to the attention of developers and ministers.
In view of the massive disruption and, indeed, damage likely to be caused by the construction of the overhead line and substation expansion, community councils around Beauly have asked whether there are any plans to compensate communities that will be affected, in a similar manner to the way in which communities that have been affected by the construction of wind farms have been awarded community benefit.
We anticipate major tidy-ups and mitigation in Stirling and around Plean, to which Dr Simpson referred. I am waiting to hear from the developers exactly how that mitigation will shape up.
Transport (Ayrshire)
Is the minister aware that business in North Ayrshire has identified improvements to transport infrastructure as the biggest factor in increasing confidence and investment in the local economy? When will the projects in the strategic transport projects review that will affect North Ayrshire, such as the bypass at Dalry and the upgrading of the A737, be fully allocated a budget and a timescale?
I am delighted that the vital A737 Dalry bypass remains a priority in the strategic transport projects review. Does the minister agree that the Labour Party should apologise to the people of North Ayrshire for deliberately misleading them by telling them that the project, which is on-going, has been shelved?
We recognise the important role of effective road and rail links in supporting Ayrshire’s economic regeneration. We have improved the rail service to Kilmarnock and have upgraded the A77 at Glen App and Haggstone. We are also introducing class 380 rolling stock on services in Ayrshire and we are consulting on further improvements to the A77 at Burnside. In addition, the strategic transport projects review has identified a number of interventions that will benefit Ayrshire, including the upgrading of the A77 around Ayr, bypasses around Maybole and Dalry, and future enhancements of the rail service between Ayrshire and Glasgow.
The minister is aware of the imminent move by Stena Line ferries from Stranraer to Cairnryan. Can he give me an assurance that the Government remains committed to the maintenance and development of the railway line south from Ayr through Girvan to Stranraer?
The railway line to which the member refers is an important part of our infrastructure. We will continue to support that railway line and the services on it, and we will make further investment in improvements to the A75 and the A77 in support of the Stena Line move.
Contrary to Labour Party leaflets that are currently circulating in the member’s constituency, work is in progress on the planning for the Dalry bypass. It is the first time that a Government commitment has been made to that intervention. The class 380 rolling stock is the subject of a £200 million contract, which shows the Government’s earnest good faith in making the necessary investments in response to the legitimate requirements of business in North Ayrshire. The Government is addressing the historical neglect that took place under the previous Administration.
The A70 from Ayr to the M74 is one of southern Ayrshire’s major economic development routes; yet, to date, it has not been designated a trunk road. I have raised the issue before with the minister. Will he give it further consideration and agree to adopt the A70 as a trunk road so that the route can receive the investment that it needs to improve road safety and boost the economy of southern Ayrshire?
The member will be aware that the local authorities have this year received an increase in funding above the level that they would have received otherwise. It is a substantial increase. We do not plan to review the trunk roads network across Scotland; I look to the local authority to make the appropriate decisions to meet local needs.
It is certainly unhelpful, and it has led to unreasonable concerns among the local community, that the Labour Party is publishing leaflets that are wholly at odds with the action that is taking place.
Central Heating Scheme
I am still concerned that the instruction is not getting through, especially if there have been subsequent changes. The detailed four-stage process on the Energy Saving Trust’s website does not refer to the minister’s new rules. We need to know whether the minister is making policy on the hoof. If he is not, will he publish the clear instruction that he has spoken about and, for the avoidance of doubt, will he make it clear that he stands by that commitment and ensure that everything that is referred to on the website is published?
I am happy to take additional measures to ensure that things are absolutely transparent. If Rhona Brankin or any other member has any constituent who is a borderline case and thinks that the rule has not been properly applied, I am happy to pursue the matter on behalf of that member and their constituent.
The first benefit is that people no longer have to pay the huge VAT bill that the Tories imposed back in the early 1990s. That makes a difference in itself.
Despite the minister’s clear instructions and stated intent to assist people in fuel poverty, why has the Scottish Government, despite the coldest winter for many years and the fact that many people are still waiting for insulation and central heating measures, spent only half of the £60 million that was identified for the energy assistance package?
Question 8 was not lodged.
Guidance was issued to the Energy Saving Trust and Scottish Gas on 23 October 2009, stating that,
I have downloaded information from the Energy Saving Trust’s website. The trust says:
I make it clear that the full budget will be spent by the end of the financial year. More than 7,000 central heating systems have already been installed this year under stage 4—that is not to mention the throughput through the other stages of the energy assistance package. It would, of course, be exceptionally helpful if the United Kingdom Government agreed to my request to improve winter fuel payments for people in Scotland who are being penalised because of our weather. The UK Labour Government refuses to pay the additional amount that we have requested.
“The Government Economic Strategy”
“The Government Economic Strategy” focuses on the achievement of long-term objectives that are designed to increase levels of sustainable economic growth in Scotland. Those objectives have not changed since the strategy was published in November 2007, but the global recession has had a fundamental impact on the economic environment in which the strategy is implemented. In response, the Scottish Government has put in place an economic recovery plan. That plan was launched in January 2009 and is regularly updated—it was most recently updated on 3 March. The recovery plan sets out policies and activities in support of recovery in the Scottish economy, and is fully consistent with “The Government Economic Strategy”.
I am well aware of the economic recovery plan, but the issue is the fate of the Government’s strategy. It is, after all, the so-called purpose of the Government, but it now seems a bit like the proverbial dead parrot, because it was published two years ago and it has never been debated since. That may be due to the fate of the arc of prosperity, the inability of the Government to meet its growth targets or its never wishing to talk about the bank bail-out. Will the Government’s economic strategy ever be updated and debated, or will it simply be allowed to die, like so many of the Scottish National Party’s early promises?
We have moved to the dead parrot from the hungry caterpillar. Wendy Alexander has given so much to our parliamentary discourse, and we now have a new addition.