Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Thursday, October 28, 2010

Official Report 1082KB pdf

---

First Minister’s Question Time

---

Engagements

1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-2637)

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

The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning said yesterday that he was “deeply sorry” that the SNP has thrown hundreds of newly qualified teachers on to the scrap heap. Will the First Minister now do likewise and apologise?

Given the extraordinarily poor record whereby, as we know, two thirds of the fall in teacher numbers in the last year has been in Labour-controlled authorities in Scotland, despite the fact that there are not that many Labour-controlled authorities in Scotland, I think that there should be shame across the Labour benches at that dramatic statistic.

Clearly, the First Minister does not share his Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning’s shame about the situation, which he said causes him “difficulty”, “heartache” and “sleepless nights”.

At yesterday’s meeting of the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, Ken Macintosh referred to Allison Baird, a newly qualified primary teacher. Of her entire class, only four teachers have found jobs: one in Scotland, one in Spain, one in Kuwait and one in Abu Dhabi. Spain, Kuwait and Abu Dhabi—the arc of desperation for new teachers.

Allison’s e-mail says at the top:

“I’d love to be there myself”—

she means at the committee—

“however I am lucky enough to have 2 hours work today.”

What is the First Minister’s advice to Allison? Should she also get on a plane to the middle east?

A range of people in society, including young qualified teachers, face a hugely difficult situation. There are 575 teachers in Scotland claiming jobseekers allowance. In my opinion—and, I hope, in the opinion of the chamber—that is 575 too many. The figure is lower than the 665 teachers who were in that position last year. If we compare the figure for teachers claiming jobseekers allowance with the figures for other countries in these islands, we find that there are fewer in the workforce in Scotland, as there are 10.9 per thousand in Scotland compared with 14.5 per thousand in England, 20.8 per thousand in Wales and 41.6 per thousand in Northern Ireland, on comparable figures.

I know that the Labour Party would like the whole country to engage in collective amnesia about the financial position into which it brought this country, but those comparable figures from across the United Kingdom, combined with the dramatic statistic that two thirds of the decline in teacher numbers in Scotland comes from Labour-controlled local authorities or authorities in which Labour is participating in the administration, show that both at UK level and at local government level this is not the best subject for Iain Gray to ask a question on.

My question was about the situation in Scotland. There is a pretty simple equation here in Scotland. The First Minister promised Scotland that he would maintain teacher numbers, but he has cut 3,000 teaching jobs, and that was in the good times when his budget was rising by about £1 billion every year.

As those 3,000 teaching jobs have gone, there are 2,900 newly qualified teachers who cannot find permanent jobs. It is not rocket science to see what has happened.

Allison Baird says that when she applies for jobs she is unsuccessful because there are often 300, 400, 500, 600 or 700 applicants. Mike Russell said yesterday:

“it will be impossible to protect teacher numbers going forward”.

Can the First Minister tell us how many more teachers he plans to cut in the future?

As I have said, the situation is hugely difficult for people who face it. However, let us put the figures in context. I said that 575 teachers are claiming jobseekers allowance in Scotland, and I pointed out that that is lower than the figure in any of the other countries in the United Kingdom. Yesterday, 150 teaching posts were advertised on the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities job portal. That is the reality of the statistics.

Iain Gray seems to think that what is happening elsewhere in the UK is irrelevant, but of course it is not irrelevant, because the funding that comes to the Scottish Government is determined by the funding in UK Whitehall departments. The reality is that we are facing not only the cuts from the coalition but a £500 million cut in Scotland’s finances this year, which is the first real-terms decrease in Scottish spending in a generation. I know that Labour wants to absolve itself of responsibility for that, but the situation facing not just our teaching profession but public services in Scotland is a consequence of restrictions in spending and economic difficulties for which the Labour Party was largely responsible. It also has to be said that the fact that Labour local authorities account for two thirds of the decline in teacher numbers indicates that they give less of a priority to teaching than any of the other political parties in Scotland.

The First Minister seems to think that he is irrelevant. However, he is in charge of our education system.

Yes, let us put the numbers in context. The SNP promised to maintain teacher numbers. Yesterday, Mr Russell said that the number that he promised was “arbitrary” and “unsustainable”. If that was the case, why did he make that promise? What about having class sizes of 18, cancelling student debt or matching Labour’s school building programme? Were they, too, arbitrary and unsustainable promises, or is the truth that the First Minister is prepared to promise anything to anyone to get elected, but never has the slightest intention of delivering?

Well now—let us take a look at some of the things that Iain Gray mentioned. He mentioned class sizes—primary class sizes in Scotland are at a record low for a third year running. He mentioned the school building programme—as we now know, 303 schools are being built or refurbished in Scotland. [Applause.]

Order.

We know that that is more than Labour would have built or refurbished, because it promised only 250 in its last manifesto.

We also know that finance is of no concern whatever to Iain Gray, because in a document entitled “Ideas for a Fairer Scotland: Report of the Scottish Labour Policy Forum”, which has fallen into my hands, it says:

“This document is not a costed list of Labour policies in Government”.

It is an unrealistic wish list from a party that will never be close to government in Scotland again.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S3F-2638)

I have no plans to meet the Prime Minister in the near future.

When last month I raised with the First Minister the funding crisis that is facing our universities, he had no answer. Indeed, that was the day that he came, he saw and he did not have a clue. Today, our Scottish universities are acknowledging the crisis by accepting that there will have to be a graduate contribution and calling for urgent action. Those are all points that the Scottish Conservatives have made repeatedly. If the First Minister still does not have a clue, does he at least accept the principle that graduates are going to have to contribute to the cost of their degrees?

We are committed to finding a uniquely Scottish solution to university funding and we have made it clear that we want to ensure that all sensible ideas, no matter how radical they are, are given a chance to be aired. The only measure that has been ruled out is a return to tuition fees, as previously supported by the Conservative party.

No.

David McLetchie says no, but my very clear memory is that when the Parliament voted to abolish tuition fees, the proposal was opposed by the Conservative party. At that time, of course, it was supported by the Liberal Democrats—I think that there might have been a change of heart in the intervening period.

No decisions will be made until all those with an interest, including students, the universities and university staff, have offered their views. An all-party summit with university and student representatives will be held on 15 November to give the other parties, including Annabel Goldie’s, the chance to make a constructive contribution. The Scottish Government will publish a green paper by the end of the year that lays out the options that are available to us with a view to reaching a solution by the second half of 2011.

Listening to the First Minister, he is like some latter-day Nero, strumming out “Gaudeamus Igatur” on his fiddle while tongues of flame reach out to our universities. This is a First Minister who talks but never leads, a First Minister who ducks and dives round the problem but never solves it, and a First Minister who will always do the populist thing rather than the right thing.

When our own universities now concede that graduates will have to contribute to the cost of their education, and when the National Union of Students accepts that, why cannot the First Minister accept that simple principle so that we can all get on with working out the detail?

I am glad that Annabel Goldie’s remedial classes in Latin are still on train.

In relation to the relative position of Scottish and English universities, she should remember the statement from Alastair Sim, the director of Universities Scotland:

“I would say we’re in a better position than in England, where we’ve already been told to expect £600m of further cuts in addition to what’s already been announced, so I would rather be here than in England at the moment.”

That comment was made before the comprehensive spending review, which shows a dramatic decline in higher education funding south of the border.

As Annabel Goldie well knows, the important point is that, through consequentials, what happens south of the border is reflected in the funding settlement for Scotland. That is why we are committed to finding a distinctively Scottish approach. I believe—and we all have to combine to ensure—that that approach is much better than either the funding or the position facing students in England or elsewhere south of the border.

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

3. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S3F-2639)

I have no plans to meet the Secretary of State for Scotland in the near future.

The SNP has promised to cut senior managers in the health service over the next four years. Can the First Minister explain how much senior non-clinician pay has increased in Scotland since that sunny day in 2007 when he became First Minister?

As Tavish Scott well knows, it has been the Government’s position for some considerable time to restrict the distinction awards in the national health service, which are the most substantial part of bonuses across the health service. We received a dusty response from the previous UK Government when Nicola Sturgeon took that initiative. Let us hope that the present Government is prepared to follow Tavish Scott’s lead on this matter, if nothing else, and that the distinction awards are restricted.

On the general position, Tavish Scott should understand that, in terms of the overall public sector wage bill, there are certainly going to be great sacrifices, but we cannot cut across previously established contracts of employment. If we did that, we would end up in the Court of Session or the Supreme Court for the foreseeable future. I am sure that not even the Liberal Democrats would support that.

None of that was an answer to the question that I asked.

The accounts of Scotland’s health boards show that in 2007, the number of non-clinical staff who earned more than £50,000 a year was 617. Today, it is 1,790. Alex Salmond’s army of NHS managers who earn more than £50,000 a year now numbers 1,790. The total pay bill then was £34 million. Now, it is £104 million. Pay is three times higher under the SNP and the number of health board managers has trebled. How has all that happened?

Taking the pay bill of the health service, Tavish Scott seems conveniently to omit that there are far more people working in the health service now than there were in 2007.

Members: Managers!

Well, there are, but the bulk of the increase is in clinical staff—in nurses, doctors and dentists—compared with the deplorable position that was left by the previous Liberal-Labour Administration. Instead of taking the approach that he has taken, Tavish Scott should welcome the initiative to cut the senior managers pay bill in the health service by 25 per cent. That emphasises the front line, which is the Government’s policy.

Many statistics are used to measure performance in the health service, but the one that perhaps really matters is that on public satisfaction with the national health service, and that public satisfaction is at a high in Scotland—much higher than it was when Tavish Scott was a minister. That is because of the direction that the current Administration has set and its investment in Scotland’s national health service.

Is the First Minister aware of allegations about practices at a care home in my constituency of Ballieston, which the Daily Record has highlighted this week? Will he follow the investigations and make every effort to ensure that residents in care homes in Scotland and their families can be assured of a safe and caring environment?

I read the Daily Record report and asked officials to give me a briefing. The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing will be delighted to meet the constituency member to pursue the issue. As Margaret Curran knows, the issue is subject to a police investigation, which severely restricts what I can say. I know that that will be understood by members across the chamber. The Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care visited the home following the allegations, and it is satisfied that appropriate action is being taken to protect residents’ wellbeing. The care commission will await the outcome of the police investigation before considering what further action it can take. I hope that it gives some assurance to the constituency member to know that the serious and distressing allegations are being investigated appropriately.

All members know that we have a robust regulatory system in place to protect vulnerable people. Of course, no system can guarantee that there will be no cases of abuse, but the important thing is that action is taken swiftly when incidents occur, and that is happening in the distressing case that Margaret Curran raises.

In the past week, I have spoken to a number of farmers in Aberdeenshire and Moray who are experiencing serious difficulties with this year’s harvest. What action is the First Minister’s Government taking to assess the damage that has been caused to this year’s harvest by severe weather conditions in the north and north-east and what actions does he propose to take to alleviate the immediate damage to the rural economy?

Assessments are being made of harvest conditions, as is done each and every year. The assessments are not yet complete, but the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment will be delighted to meet the member and constituency members from the north-east of Scotland to discuss the issue.

---

Defence Spending Reduction

4. To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government is taking to counteract the effects of the reduction in defence spending on the economy. (S3F-2641)

The threat to the Moray economy is in my view an issue of national importance. The Scottish Government is actively working with the Moray task force to create and secure a sustainable future for the Moray economy. I will continue to press the Secretary of State for Defence to face up to the consequences of the decisions that have been made and to deliver solutions for the people of Moray. I hope and believe that we will continue to have the all-party unity that accompanied the strategic defence review in arguing for the future of Lossiemouth as an air base. It is an immediate and urgent priority that we present that case and that the task force gains all-party support, since we understand that the decision on Lossie might be taken in the next few weeks.

The First Minister is obviously aware of the devastating effect of the loss of defence jobs in Moray, where there have been Royal Air Force bases in Kinloss and my home town of Lossiemouth for more than 65 years. The local MSP, Richard Lochhead, has been working hard on the issue. Highlands and Islands Enterprise has produced a report on the economic impact, which shows that it could cost £158 million in wages. Of course, Moray whisky contributes hundreds of millions to the Exchequer every year. I am glad to hear of the steps that are being taken. Does the First Minister intend to attend the rally that is to be held in Lossiemouth on 7 November?

Yes, I do. I know that an invitation has been offered to the other party leaders in Scotland or their representatives and I hope and believe that the party unity on the issue will be demonstrated on the platform at that important rally.

I held a meeting earlier this week with the Moray task force. It is difficult to point to an advantage in what is a hugely challenging situation, but one advantage that the people of Moray have is that, thanks to Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the local council, a huge examination has been carried out of the economic impact of the air force bases on the Moray economy. That both concentrates our minds as we fight for Lossiemouth and gives incredibly detailed information on the extent of the economic challenge that is faced. I said that it might seem like small consolation, but in terms of taking the action that is required, it indicates the scale of the economic challenge and therefore the urgency of response that is needed from all relevant and responsible parties.

Will the First Minister look at three particular issues to help the Moray economy: first, the granting of assisted area status; secondly, whether there could be any further civil service or agency job relocations; and finally, whether he could approach Europe? As the First Minister will know, one can apply for extra structural funds when there has been economic decline in an area.

If I am correct, all three of those issues were raised by the Moray task force in the meeting that I had with it earlier this week, and action and initiatives have been taken on all three. Let there be absolutely no doubt about this: the Scottish Government will live up to its responsibilities as far as the people of Moray are concerned. We are talking about an impact on approaching a quarter of the local economy. Few decisions in history have threatened such an economic impact.

Although we might not always look to the United States of America when it comes to social initiatives, the Moray task force made it perfectly clear to me with an illustration from that country that when major bases are closed there, the Department of Defense takes responsibility for remedial action in the local economy with the intention of securing as many jobs and as much investment as the military presence previously provided. We will fulfil our responsibilities and progress the points that the member makes, but everybody in this chamber should ensure that the Ministry of Defence lives up to its responsibilities as far as the people of Moray are concerned.

We on this side of the chamber have argued for the retention of the RAF bases in Moray, we will continue to do so and we will be happy to be associated with any cross-party campaign on that basis.

Does the First Minister accept that the current UK Government inherited from its predecessors a £38 billion black hole in the defence budget, which made cuts inevitable? Will he join me and my constituents in Mid Scotland and Fife in welcoming the retention of the aircraft carrier contracts that will protect 6,000 jobs at Rosyth and on the Clyde, many hundreds of apprenticeships and the future of the Scottish shipbuilding industry?

I will, and I welcomed the decision on the carrier contracts in a letter to Liam Fox that was sent to him yesterday following the meeting with the Moray task force. I am intent on maintaining the cross-party approach to the issue. However, when we had the cross-party meeting with the Secretary of State for Defence and discussed the future of Kinloss, I was able to quote to him the exact phrases that he had used to the Prime Minister about the importance of the Nimrod replacement. The words were not mine or those of Iain Gray, Annabel Goldie or Tavish Scott, but Liam Fox’s own words, so I find it difficult to understand why something that was essential according to the Secretary of State for Defence less than a month ago is not essential now.

As far as Lossie is concerned, the reason for taking an all-party approach is that there is to be a discretionary decision on which air base will host the Tornado fleet, therefore it is vital that we argue the case for Moray as a Scottish national case with the support of all the political parties in the chamber.

It is my privilege to represent Scotland’s second-biggest infantry barracks at Glencorse in Penicuik, so I am well aware of the impact that hosting armed servicemen and women has on our local economies. The document comprising the Scottish all-party contribution to the defence and security review process was stronger at the end of that process than it was at the start. Can that process be continued to include a national response from the chief executives of HIE, Scottish Enterprise, Skills Development Scotland and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities leadership group in a national action group that considers all our defence installations in Scotland? As the First Minister rightly says, this is a national issue.

Specifically, the Moray task force is preparing a submission on the case for Lossiemouth. At the meeting earlier this week, it asked me whether I believed that the case would be backed by all party leaders in Scotland; I said that I believed that it certainly would. I believe that all party leaders will endorse that document on an all-party basis when it is produced next week. The reason for producing the document quickly is that we believe that the decision on the case will be made in the next few weeks. I hope that that reassures the member of my bona fides in wanting to pursue an all-party approach to such decisions. In my view, that offers the best chance of securing an outcome for Moray and for Scotland.

---

Local Authority Budgets

5. To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government plans to give local authorities a one-year budget only. (S3F-2654)

By 18 November, we will submit for parliamentary scrutiny and subsequent approval a balanced budget, as we must, for the Scottish Government as a whole for 2011-12. That will include the total funding allocation for local government and will be accompanied by an explanation of our priorities for future years.

It is clear that in future years the Treasury’s block grant to Scotland will come nowhere close to providing the spending power that is needed to provide vital public services in the way in which they have been provided. As far as possible, we must protect users of services from those cuts in spending. Consequently, we are committed to reform across the Scottish public sector. As members know, recently I announced the establishment of a commission on the future delivery of public services, to be chaired by Campbell Christie, which will provide advice on the options and approaches. We expect the commission to report by next summer. If the present Administration is returned in May 2011, it will be our intention, in the light of the commission’s report, to provide for parliamentary scrutiny in September 2011 detailed spending plans for the years 2012-13 to 2014-15.

I thank the First Minister for confirming that that will be the case. Is he aware that today’s edition of The Herald includes a letter from the COSLA president, Councillor Watters, who has written in to express his frustration that the First Minister continues

“to tout the fallacy that”

he

“can deliver a council tax freeze”,

because the fact is that he

“simply can’t and it is outrageous that”

he continues

“to mislead the public.”

Councillor Watters also says that the First Minister was being “disrespectful” to councillors and “ultimately ineffectual”.

Does the First Minister agree that, given the level of cuts that local government faces, offering it a one-year budget is not good enough, especially when he sees fit to make two-year promises on its behalf? Why does his Government continue to refuse to come forward with budgets? Will he come forward with longer funding proposals, or will he persist in riding roughshod over local government and continue to tout his fallacies, his fibs and his falsehoods?

I remind Michael McMahon that this Administration has delivered a council tax freeze in Scotland over the past three years, which has resulted in an average saving of £200 for every household in East Lothian, to take an area of Scotland at random.

I know that the Labour Party has not fully decided what its attitude to the council tax freeze is. I draw Michael McMahon’s attention to two developments. On 17 August, the Daily Record, which usually has a reasonable idea of the Labour Party’s approach, stated:

“Labour leader Iain Gray demands end to council tax freeze”.

On the “Politics Show” on 24 October, Iain Gray stated:

“Well, we’ve never been against freezing the council tax.”

Before Michael McMahon tries to evaluate SNP policy, perhaps he should consult and find out which of the schizophrenic Iain Grays will decide on Labour’s approach to the council tax.

Finally, I hope that Michael McMahon has seen the document that is before me, which states on page 22:

“Scottish Labour believes that the fairest approach is to have a basket of taxes.”

There will not just be big increases in council taxes—there will be a basket of taxes. We look forward to hearing the member explain to the people of Scotland the range of that basket case of Labour taxes.

I will wish to study the Official Report of the final part of Mr McMahon’s question. Members should be very careful about how they address one another in the chamber. Words such as “falsehoods” and “fibs” need to be very carefully put in context—as do descriptions of other members as being possibly “schizophrenic”.

---

Obesity and Diabetes

6. To ask the First Minister what preventative action the Scottish Government is taking to tackle obesity and address increasing rates of diabetes. (S3F-2647)

Scotland has experienced a rise in obesity and diabetes. Reversing that trend is probably the single most effective way of reducing the incidence of diabetes. We have set out how we intend to tackle that over the longer term, and the route map was published in February. More recently, we have also published our diabetes action plan, which aims, among other things, to minimise the impact of the disease on those who already suffer from it.

I am grateful to the First Minister for that reply. I sit on the Health and Sport Committee, and I am well aware of the plan to reduce the impact of diabetes. My question was more directly about the specific steps that the Government wants to take to try and stop the onset of type 2 diabetes. I wish to press the First Minister on that aspect.

As I have said, plans were published over the past few months on coping with the effects of diabetes, and there is also the action plan to tackle the onset of diabetes. We have invested £12 million in a range of programmes over the past three years to tackle obesity, including the counterweight weight management programme, child healthy weight intervention and support for the national health service targets. The action plan has been spread out in eight healthy weight pathfinder communities.

As Ross Finnie will well appreciate, we are dealing with something that will take a considerable time to tackle, and with trends that will take a considerable time to reverse. He will welcome, as I do, the most recent evidence, which shows a substantial change for the better in dietary attitudes among children in Scotland, as well as the activity figures for seven-year-olds in Scotland, which show a substantial rise—and they are better than those in any other country of the United Kingdom.

As regards the long term and the future, I am sure that Ross Finnie would be the first to acknowledge that we can at last see some significant signs that give us hope.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. In the course of your deliberations with regard to the Official Report, will you consider the abusive use of medical terms and disparaging terms in relation to people with mental health issues, which are bandied about in the chamber as a means of disparaging colleagues?

I have already intimated that that will be the case.

12:32 Meeting suspended until 14:15.

14:15 On resuming—