First Minister’s Question Time
Engagements
1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-01285)
Later today I will join the other party leaders for a photo call in support of the Disasters Emergency Committee’s on-going emergency appeal in response to the humanitarian situation in Syria. Millions of men, women and children have fled the violence and are trying to survive in freezing temperatures. They desperately need food, shelter and medical care. I am pleased to announce that the Scottish Government is today pledging £100,000 towards the appeal, which means that the running total from donations from Scotland is now £467,000. I urge everyone—I know that this call will be echoed across the Parliament—to help the Disasters Emergency Committee to meet its target of £500,000.
I welcome what the First Minister said and I hope that we can do our small bit to signal to people in Scotland that they should continue their generosity in supporting people in such terrible situations.
On Saturday I met a young girl who is in her sixth year at a school in my constituency. She has eight grade 1s at standard grade and five As at higher, and she is studying for three advanced highers at school and a fourth at her local college. She wants to be a doctor, but she has not been able to get even one interview at a Scottish university to study medicine. Can the First Minister think why that might be?
The pressure on medical places at university is intense and has been for some considerable time, but the Parliament should recognise that we had, thanks to the Government’s efforts and our policy of not charging for higher education, a record number of students in higher education courses in Scotland last year. That is an indication that, across the piece, the policy is a wise one. It is one that we intend to continue.
That will be no comfort whatever to my constituent, or to students throughout the country who are facing problems. Simply to assert that a policy is working is not enough; the Government has a responsibility to create opportunities for young people.
Let us look at the lived reality, rather than at what the First Minister asserts. We know that in Scotland just one in four students comes from the poorest backgrounds—for the rest of the United Kingdom, the rate is closer to one in three. We know that the drop-out rate at Scottish universities is 25 per cent higher than the drop-out rate in England. We know that although constituents like mine have to compete for a limited number of places with students from across Europe, English students can come north, if they have the money, to access unlimited numbers of places.
Does the First Minister recognise that on access, on drop-out levels and on university places, this Government is failing young people in Scotland who want to make the best of themselves?
Last year there was, in terms of full-time students, a record number of Scottish students in higher education in Scotland, a record number of English students in higher education in Scotland and a record number of international students in higher education in Scotland. I think that all three are a good thing; that is exactly what we should want from our higher education sector in Scotland. Would that have been the case if the Labour Party had had its way and imposed tuition fees, as it will do if it has its way in the future? Would that have been the case if the Lib Dem-Tory coalition had had its way and imposed tuition fees on Scotland?
We need only look south of the border at the collapse in numbers of full-time students in English higher education institutions to see where that policy would have taken us. It is not a matter of insignificance that we have introduced, and will maintain and defend, a policy of free higher education in Scotland. That is the future for the Scottish education system.
First, the First Minister is completely complacent. Secondly, it is one thing to talk about how to fund students who are at university, but the figures that I pointed out to him show that our access rates in Scotland are poorer than those in the rest of the United Kingdom, so it is nonsense for him to settle for a slogan rather than to find a solution for Scottish students.
The First Minister denies what is happening to young people all over the country, but what do we expect from a First Minister who claims that college spending is going up, when it is going down? What do we expect from a Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning who claimed that there are no waiting lists, when colleges have said that thousands are being denied college places? What do we expect from an education secretary and a First Minister who brutally cut college funding at the very point when we needed colleges most?
When colleges challenged him on waiting lists, did the First Minister say that that was something that the Government should investigate and get to the bottom of and ask, “Should we reflect on our spending priorities?” No. I will describe what the Government does. A private Government document that has been released under a freedom of information request says:
“The sooner we can produce our own version of events and discredit the Scotland’s Colleges survey the better.”
That is the Government’s approach—to get out its “version of events” rather than address the real problem. Once again, the Government says one thing in private and another in public. Does the First Minister understand why college lecturers have passed a motion of no confidence in Mike Russell?
What a long hotch-potch of nonsense. What the Government did was to examine the claims from the Labour Party, which were variously reported as 21,000 or 13,000 students waiting, depending on the time and who was speaking. We did that by conducting a survey that covered 12,866 applications. What did that survey find? It found that the claims from the Labour Party were a lot of piffle—its numbers did not exist. The lack of willingness to accept that point and that detail shows the emptiness of Johann Lamont’s questions. Of course, that is all in preparation for the Labour Party’s attempt to shift to a position of bringing tuition fees back in Scotland. Let us get to the reality.
In addition to our having a policy of no tuition fees and having the funding deal for universities—which everybody across the sector regards as excellent—we have provided £16 million for extra funded places at university in the coming year, which will provide more than 2,900 additional funded places, including more than 1,000 to increase articulation, 727 to widen access, 850 additional taught postgraduate places and 342 undergraduate places for key sectors. That is practical and detailed action to address the situation.
In a week in which the Labour Party’s hypocrisy has been blatant for all to see, a party that voted against legislation to widen access is in no position to complain about a lack of access in Scotland. [Applause.]
Order.
I can live with the First Minister insulting my intelligence, but he insults the intelligence of every young person across Scotland with that nonsense. The issue of college places absolutely describes the First Minister’s approach, which is, “If you don’t like what people say, shoot the messenger.” It was not the Labour Party that said that there were college waiting lists; it was Colleges Scotland. How dare he show such disrespect to people who are living with the cuts that he is imposing on their sector?
The First Minister boasts that
“the rocks will melt with the sun”—[Official Report, 8 September 2011; c 1537.],
as if everything in our education sector is perfect. He needs to recognise that, for too many Scots, the rocks will melt in the sun before they get a place at a Scottish university or college.
He denies the existence of the young people who are waiting for college places when he should be helping them. He promises to turn our schools from good to great when half of teachers admit that they are unprepared for the new curriculum, maths examiners are quitting and teachers are voting to strike. Mr Russell sits there, and his only answer in his speech was that we need independence rather than to address the problems that young people face now.
Is the truth not that, after six years of this SNP Government, the First Minister has failed to give all of Scotland’s young people the best chance in life and is now happy to hide behind soundbites rather than to create chances for students, with the promise of jam at some point in the future if the SNP ever wins the referendum question?
I will deal with those points in turn. Johann Lamont claims that
“It was not the Labour Party that said”
it. However, a Labour Party news release from 26 October stated that, according to Hugh Henry,
“over 21,000 students are on college waiting lists”.
However, on 25 January, in The Herald, Mr Henry is quoted as saying that
“likely more than 13,000 Scots were denied a place at college at a time of record high youth unemployment.”
I notice that the figure went down by 8,000 between October and January. The survey showed that those figures were a grotesque exaggeration and that Labour’s claims were total piffle and nonsense.
The reason why Johann Lamont does not like the survey is that she does not like the facts when they are spelled out to her Labour colleagues, whose comments were totally and utterly indefensible. Let us remember that, last year, there were a record number of Scottish students with full-time places in higher education in Scotland: “a record number” means that there were more than ever before. There was also a record number of English students in higher education in Scotland and a record number of international students.
Those were last year’s figures, while the number of university places was collapsing south of the border. Why was it collapsing south of the border? It was because of the punitive increased tuition fees. What does the Labour Party want to do? It wants to introduce tuition fees in Scotland. Every student and family knows full well that Johann Lamont’s plan is to introduce the £9,000 tuition fees in Scotland, and every family in Scotland can count.
As to how people are regarded, we heard evidence of that at the weekend in a poll showing the party ratings. The SNP was at 47 per cent, and the Labour Party was at 30 per cent. I hope and believe that that is a commentary on the excellence of the SNP Government, but I must face reality and know that it is also a commentary on the poverty of the Labour Opposition.
Prime Minister (Meetings)
2. I welcome the First Minister’s announcement of significant donation to the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal.
To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S4F-01283)
No plans in the near future.
Last week, in his statement to the chamber giving the date for the independence referendum, the First Minister said:
“It is incumbent upon all of us, as parliamentarians, to lead by example, and to ensure that the level of this hugely important debate matches the expectations of the people who elected us.”—[Official Report, 21 March 2013; c 18118.]
Does he believe that the comments made this week by his former transport minister, Stewart Stevenson, which celebrated job losses at The Scotsman because of the newspaper’s referendum coverage, meet those expectations?
I regret the job losses at The Scotsman and at BBC Scotland. We should all be united in saying that there are serious problems in the Scottish media at present. That is the Government’s policy and that is what we believe. I do not think that individuals’ tweets should be regarded as a statement of policy.
Every one of us should be concerned about job losses across the Scottish media—that should unite us. The debate that we are having in Scotland should be reported, articulated, covered, criticised and analysed by a healthy and vibrant media industry. The fact that there are many indications of serious difficulties across our media should be a matter of regret to us all.
The First Minister is playing down Mr Stevenson’s comments, but that is a slightly different approach from that of his Member of the European Parliament, Alyn Smith, who leapt to Mr Stevenson’s defence by saying that having serious journalists complain about the tweet was a symptom of the problem.
This week, the Minister for Local Government and Planning, Derek Mackay—who is sadly absent from the chamber just now—retweeted his desire to hit David Cameron in the face with a shovel in the most insulting of terms. We have also had James Dornan MSP saying that a party for saving the union is like “supping with the Devil”.
Even worse, the First Minister’s aide, Joan McAlpine MSP, has taken to the pages of a national newspaper to compare the United Kingdom to an abusive marriage, and, shamefully, Councillor David Berry has been forced to resign for saying that the UK is akin to the slave trade.
Of course, all of that stems from the top. Did not the First Minister open the flood gates by calling a BBC executive a Nazi official after failing to bully his way on to the television as a rugby pundit? [Interruption.]
Order.
The First Minister is right when he says that the people of Scotland expect a high standard of debate and that his parliamentarians should be setting the tone, but on that evidence they are not. If that is allowed to continue unchecked, the next 18 months will descend into little more than an anti-British hate campaign. When will he and his party clean up their act?
If that line of questioning is allowed to go unchecked, the Tories will go even lower than the 12 per cent that they were at in this week’s opinion poll.
I will tell members what I will do for Ruth Davidson: I will draw a line in the sand under all such comments. We should all be elevated and follow the advice of Murdo Fraser from this week. On the day that the line in the sand was no more, the
“Rev Fraser”
—not the Rev I M Jolly—tweeted his
“text for today: Luke 15 v 7.”
I looked up Luke chapter 15, verse 7, which says:
“joy shall be in heaven over one sinner ... repenteth, more than ... ninety and nine ... persons”.
I can see that Ruth Davidson enjoys the loyal support of her entire band of Conservative MSPs.
We have a constituency question from Bruce Crawford.
I thank the Presiding Officer for allowing me to raise this constituency question. Members might not be aware, but there was a serious gas explosion this morning in the Callander area in which a house was totally destroyed, and two elderly people have been hospitalised. I am sure that members will join me in wishing them well and sending their thoughts to them and their families.
If it turns out to have been a gas explosion, that may raise issues about gas safety, which will be of concern to the community of Callander. Will the First Minister therefore ensure that the appropriate minister liaises with me on this important matter at the earliest possible date?
Yes, I am happy to do that, and the expressions of concern from the constituency member will of course be shared by members on all sides of the chamber.
We should not draw conclusions as there has been no investigation as yet, but I assure the constituency member that the matter will be taken very seriously by the authorities and by Government ministers, and we will reply in detail to him in due course. We join Bruce Crawford in sending our sympathy to those who have been affected by the incident.
We have a constituency question from Tavish Scott.
The First Minister will be aware that Iceland and the Faroes announced an illegal grab of 52 per cent of north Atlantic mackerel this week, and that the Faroes announced a new quota of three times the international agreement on Atlanto-Scandian herring.
On 7 February, the First Minister told Parliament that he was appointing an international figure to mediate. Can he tell Parliament what has happened to that initiative? No fishing representative could tell me of any progress. Will he now push harder for international sanctions, which are the only measure that those countries will understand?
Tavish Scott should know that we have been pressing for international sanctions over the past few years, and we continue to do so. He does a disservice to what we have said, precisely because of the logjam and the blockage that affect his constituents, my former constituents in East Aberdeenshire and in Buchan, the fishing community of Scotland and the people who depend on fishing for their livelihoods. This is a hugely serious issue, and he does a disservice to the fisheries secretary, who has been trying desperately—as he has been doing for the past four years—to focus key attention on the matter, get the sanctions, and look for an initiative that might break the logjam. I would hope that all fishing MSPs would welcome every single effort to make progress on the issue.
Cabinet (Meetings)
3. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-01293)
Issues of importance to the people of Scotland.
Investing in a child before the age of three can change the child’s life for ever, yet at the weekend I heard the First Minister say that he will delay a transformation in childcare until 2016 at the earliest—he will turn his back on progress until he gets a yes vote.
In England, the Government is helping 40 per cent of two-year-olds, which would equate to 24,000 children here in Scotland. That is being done under the same budget constraints as face the First Minister. In England, there is a determination to make a change. Why is the First Minister wielding a veto? Why has he put his referendum before Scotland’s children?
Let us start with what we have already done on childcare. When we took office, the childcare provision was at 412.5 hours a year. In 2007, we extended that to where we stand now, at 475 hours of free school education per annum across Scotland. That has benefited 120,000 children per year.
As the member knows, we now have a legislative framework to move to 600 hours per year for three and four-year-olds, which is greater than that which pertains south of the border. That will be another substantial expansion of nursery provision—to a minimum of 600 hours—and will be an increase of almost 45 per cent since 2007. By any standards, that is a major step forward.
I think that we need to do more, but I caution Willie Rennie on the terms of what he is proclaiming happens south of the border. The last time that we discussed the issue, I raised a question about the child to staff ratios, which are being diluted south of the border as a means of introducing the system. Willie Rennie said that that was not significant, but that is not the view of Professor Cathy Nutbrown, who carried out the review for the United Kingdom Government and is now criticising its strategy. On 19 March, she said:
“Trading staff-to-child ratios for higher-qualified staff is nonsense. Watering down ratios will threaten quality. Childcare may be cheaper, but children will be footing the bill.”
Rather than present to this Parliament an illusion of the great progress that his colleagues are making south of the border, why does Willie Rennie not believe the words of the very person who carried out the review for the UK Government?
It is no good the First Minister boasting about plans that he has delayed or setting up some kind of sub-committee to look at plans for the future, when others elsewhere on these islands are just getting on with it. Giving children the best start and giving their parents real help is within his power right now. I have shown him—as the finance secretary, who is sitting beside him, knows—costed plans for 24,000 places, but he thinks that a few hundred places is enough.
In England, they are doing it all and they are providing better staff—[Interruption.]
Order. Let us hear Mr Rennie.
Despite what the First Minister says, changes are being made in England. Staff are being paid more and there is an insistence on better qualifications and on higher quality. He could match all that right now. Some 72,000 children could miss out while he delays. He is insisting on refusing to act until he gets his way in the referendum. Why has he become the road block? Why is he the delay?
Let us take three points. First, I think that the move from 412 hours, which we inherited from the Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition, to 600 hours is a major advance for Scotland.
Secondly, in terms of transforming how Scotland does, if we look across Europe we can see much better examples of how childcare can have a significant and beneficial effect not only on children but on women’s participation in the workforce. That transformational aspect is child centred but it is also economic centred, because one of the great arguments for increasing childcare is the increase in the country’s wealth and therefore the tax income that flow from having that higher participation. How can we argue for that if we do not argue for control of the very tax income levers that are fundamental to achieving that transformation?
Finally, since Willie Rennie did not believe the words of the UK Government’s expert who carried out the review, let me quote the even stronger words of the chief executive of the Pre-school Learning Alliance, Neil Leitch, on the situation in England at the moment:
“Relaxing childcare ratios will be a recipe for disaster for children. The quality of provision will be lowered, there will be less one-to-one care and it will introduce additional child safety and child protection implications.”
That was from Children & Young People Now on 19 March. I know that Willie Rennie does not want to hear the reality, but most people will regard those experts as knowing infinitely more about the situation than Willie Rennie does.
Welfare Reform
4. To ask the First Minister what recent analysis the Scottish Government has carried out of the impact of the United Kingdom Government’s welfare reforms on the people of Scotland. (S4F-01288)
The most recent analysis shows that people in Scotland would be hit with a cut of £4.5 billion in the five years to 2014-15 as a result of the welfare reforms. That is £2 billion more than was originally claimed by the UK Government. It also shows that £1 billion of the welfare cuts will have a direct impact on children living in Scotland.
By the UK Government’s own admission, these changes will dramatically increase the number of people in poverty. It is one thing for Governments to fail in tackling poverty, but it is quite another for them to create it intentionally. Many of the changes hit those who are working hardest, shattering the claims that they are being made in the name of making work pay.
Can we get a question, Mr Stewart?
Yes. Given that 80 per cent of Scottish MPs voted against welfare reform and that 90 per cent voted against the bedroom tax, how would the First Minister suggest the people of Scotland democratically resist those changes?
There is a huge problem—which was amply displayed yesterday in Nicola Sturgeon’s demolition of Jackie Baillie on these issues—of people who argue that they are against Tory cuts but then join with the Tories in trying to prevent matters of social security from being run by this Parliament. That is a huge problem. It is perhaps a part of the Labour Party’s embarrassment on this issue that, in almost 50 outings at First Minister’s questions, Johann Lamont has not once centred on the bedroom tax.
Junior Doctors’ Hours
5. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is on reports that junior doctors are regularly working up to 100 hours per week. (S4F-01286)
All junior doctor rotas are monitored twice a year by Scottish Government officials. That is the information that is used to ensure that they comply with working time regulations. The evidence shows that there are no junior doctor rotas in Scotland that have an average of more than 48 hours per week.
Does the First Minister agree with the words of Tom Berry, the chair of the British Medical Association’s junior doctors committee in Scotland? He said that, despite the working time directive,
“There are junior doctors who are still working rotas which include 7 consecutive 13 hour nightshifts. It is clear that making junior doctors work 90 hour weeks is not in the spirit of the legislation and can have serious implications for the health and wellbeing of doctors and as a result, affect patient care”.
Does the First Minister agree that the practices uncovered by the Channel 4 programme “Dispatches” are truly concerning and that transparency is needed from boards on the extent of the issue and the impact on patient care? Would he therefore agree that the matter should be independently investigated by Audit Scotland?
We keep this matter under very close review. I also looked at the reporting of the Channel 4 programme because I was concerned about some of the claims that were made. I looked in particular at the words of the junior doctors committee chairman, Tom Berry, who said that he regularly worked more than 100 hours over 10 to 12 days—that is, over a two-week shift. He did not claim, as was reported in the press, that that meant that he would be working more than 100 hours in a single week.
It is important to understand that the working time regulations allow that for junior doctors the reference period over which the average of 48 hours a week is to be determined is a 26-week period. That is why we are so keen—and why we monitor—that the working time regulations are kept to. It is a serious issue that we treat seriously.
Jackie Baillie’s credibility on all of these matters would be enormously enhanced if, when she came with her latest suggestions, she at some point referred to her apology that is due to members for claiming that Scotland is the “superbug capital of Europe” under the Scottish National Party, given that her figures referred to 2005-06 when the Labour Party was in control and that, under this Administration, hospital-acquired infections have dropped by 70 per cent. If we ever get an apology from Jackie Baillie, perhaps her other points will be treated with more credibility.
Police Scotland
6. To ask the First Minister what impact Police Scotland will have on policing in communities. (S4F-01295)
The police in Scotland’s communities are performing excellently. Crime is at a 37-year low, supported by the 1,000 additional officers that the Scottish Government has delivered since 2007. The new single service, Police Scotland, will protect those hard-won gains and safeguard the local policing that communities depend on.
There will be a local policing plan for every council ward in Scotland and a local commander for each area. They will work with the communities, councils and other partners to shape policing policy.
Is the First Minister confident that Police Scotland will not only defend front-line policing in our local communities but bring about additional benefits such as addressing human trafficking, improving rape investigation and providing vital policing for our trunk roads, airports and ports? That is in stark contrast to the cuts that are being imposed south of the border.
Police Scotland will safeguard front-line policing in communities and it will deliver the additional benefits that a single service brings. The specialist crime division is up and running already, with more than 2,000 detectives and staff working on functions that are co-ordinated nationally but delivered locally.
Jim Eadie is right to draw the contrast between what is happening in Scotland and what is happening south of the border. These matters are important because the current funding arrangements for Scotland mean that we get a percentage of the expenditure south of the border. Therefore, it is substantially to the satisfaction to note that, under this Administration, police numbers in Scotland have been rising and crime has been falling, whereas south of the border police numbers are falling like a stone—even faster than are students in higher education. That is why we will continue to defend a world-class police service serving the communities of Scotland.
That ends First Minister’s question time. I will allow a short pause to allow members who are not participating in the next debate to leave and for the public gallery to clear.