Plenary, 30 Jan 2003

Meeting date: Thursday, January 30, 2003

Official Report 759KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he next plans to meet the Prime Minister and what issues he intends to raise. (S1F-2442)

When I next meet the Prime Minister, I will discuss with him a range of issues. In particular, I will want to praise the work of our armed forces in assisting during the current fire dispute. I will want to welcome today's announcement of the new contract for BAE Systems. I will also want to congratulate the Home Office on holding a very successful Holocaust memorial day event in Edinburgh on Monday night. Among other highlights, I enjoyed the singing of children from a number of Edinburgh schools, including Cramond Primary School, some of whose pupils are present in the gallery today. They and their colleagues did very well and did Scotland proud. [Interruption.]

Order. There must be no interruptions from the public gallery. [Interruption.] Order. I shall add on a minute's injury time at the end. That was not Cramond Primary School, by the way. I call Mr Swinney.

I associate myself with the First Minister's remarks, especially his comments about the Holocaust memorial day event on Monday, the organisation of which was a tribute to the Home Office and to the City of Edinburgh Council, which put in a tremendous effort for the occasion.

Will the First Minister say what the Government is doing to deal with violence in our schools?

The Government is taking a number of actions to deal with violence in our schools and with school discipline more generally. We are collecting more accurate statistics, which is the prerequisite for determining the scale of the problem. Further attention needs to be given to ensuring that we have an accurate sense of the scale of the problem: where incidents are happening, the nature of those incidents and the way in which they are reported to the police or otherwise tackled.

The report of the discipline task group contained more than 30 recommendations. Over the past few months, teachers in schools throughout Scotland have told me consistently that those recommendations are making more of a difference in our schools today than almost anything that has been done in the past decade. The right course of action is to implement those recommendations. However, I agree with today's decision by the Minister for Education and Young People to reconvene the group and to assess progress.

The First Minister has interesting definitions of statistics and of progress. In 1999, when there were 743 reported incidents of violence in schools, the then minister with responsibility for education at the Scottish Office, Helen Liddell, stated:

"Violence and threatening behaviour has no place in school."

She then announced a review. In 2000, when the number of incidents had more than doubled, Sam Galbraith said:

"Violence and threatening behaviour against teachers has no place in our classrooms."

He then announced an action plan. A year later, when the figure had climbed to 3,083, the then Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs—now the First Minister—said:

"Violence and threatening behaviour against teachers has no place in Scotland's schools."

He then announced a discipline battle plan. By 2002, the scale of the problem had risen to 4,501 incidents. Nicol Stephen said:

"There can be no excuse for violence and threatening behaviour against staff in our schools."

He then announced an action plan. Today, when 5,412 incidents have been recorded—an increase of 700 per cent in four years—Cathy Jamieson said:

"Violence and threatening behaviour is unacceptable in our schools."

She then announced that the discipline task group is getting back together.

It is beyond all reasonable doubt that the Government believes that there is no place for violence and threatening behaviour in our schools. The question is—[Interruption.]

Order. Let us hear the question.

When is the Government going to stop bemoaning the problem and start ending violence in our schools?

Much as I appreciate Mr Swinney's citing our commitment to tackling the issue, I do not believe that the problem is solved by slogans. That is exactly why, when I was Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs, one of my very first actions was to establish the task group, whose recommendations were widely welcomed throughout the system. It is also exactly why we have the action plan and the resources to back that action plan—not just to collect statistics, because we can collect statistics in any area of government, but to enable us to act.

The responsibility of the Government in this area is to ensure that, where children are involved in violent or challenging behaviour in the classroom, they can leave the classroom or even the school. It is to ensure that, where schools are having discipline problems, they improve their policies and take the right action to ensure that they become better places for learning. It is to ensure that teachers and trainee teachers are trained properly to handle discipline in the classroom. A series of other measures are critical and are all making a difference.

All that would be fine if the numbers were coming down, but they are going up—from 743 to 3,083, to 4,501, to 5,412. The First Minister says that the problem is not solved by slogans, but all he can do is repeat the same line every time the problem gets worse. We have had four education ministers delivering four action plans in four wasted years and a 700 per cent increase in violence in the classroom. Is it not the case that all this Government has delivered is a lot of talk and a rising tide of violence in our classrooms?

Absolutely not. The actions that I just outlined, along with all the other recommendations in the action plan, are being implemented by local authorities and schools throughout Scotland. More and more schools are using school uniform to get a sense of order in the school. More and more schools are setting aside areas in the school to which children can be removed to ensure that they can learn the error of their ways and that their colleagues can learn properly. In more and more of our schools, teachers are trained in order to be able to deal with incidents of indiscipline in the classroom.

Other projects are taking place. For example, in Northfield Academy in Aberdeen, police officers are helping to deal with the state of order inside the school. All those measures are practical steps that are making a difference to discipline in our schools. It is simply not good enough to sloganise about the issue. We need practical action in our schools and such action will ensure that our schools are much better places in which to learn.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S1F-2447)

Next week's Cabinet will, as always, discuss matters of importance to Scotland.

I am sure that one of those matters will be discipline in our schools, to which Mr Swinney just referred. I share his concerns, as, I am sure, does the First Minister. Unlike Mr Swinney, however, I would like to explore with the First Minister some policy prescriptions for dealing with the problem.

Mr Swinney is quite right to say that there has been an appalling increase in violence in our schools. Since we started question time today, it is quite likely that there will have been three assaults on teachers in our classrooms. Is it any coincidence that the increase in violence in our classrooms has taken place since Labour introduced its ludicrous target to reduce pupil exclusions by a third? Does the First Minister admit that, in putting pressure on head teachers to keep unruly pupils in our schools, the policy has been a disaster? Will he abandon it and allow teachers—particularly head teachers—to run our schools free from politically correct interference?

As someone who taught during the Tory years, when the culture of under-resourcing in our schools was being created, which led to the development of a lack of discipline in the 1980s and 1990s, I hope that I know more about the issue than Mr McLetchie does.

In every school, we need a proper action plan to tackle school discipline. We need to develop an ethos that tackles a culture of bullying and underachievement for our young people. The discipline action plan that the Executive put in place, which both the Opposition parties rubbished, is working. If members of the Opposition parties spent a little time in Scottish schools, rather than sloganising on this issue or on others, they would learn that our action plan, the money that we have put in and our policies are making a difference in Scotland's schools. We need to ensure that every school implements those policies properly.

That position would be fine if it were not belied by the facts. The problem is getting worse. The ludicrous targets policy on exclusion is still in existence. Although the Executive claims to have spent more than £100 million on discipline and related problems since 1999, it seems to have obtained very little return on that investment.

Would not it have been far better to spend some of that money on providing further separate, specialist units to which unruly pupils could be sent until they were fit for mainstream schooling? Is not it about time that we put the interests of teachers and well-behaved pupils who want to learn before those of the hooligan minority? Will the First Minister change the policies that are failing and will he stand up for our teachers by letting them refuse to teach pupils who have a record of violent behaviour?

I clarified the policy when I was Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs. Schools throughout Scotland heard that clarification, even if the Conservatives in the Parliament did not.

Schools in Scotland should not target a reduction in exclusions in a way that leaves in school unruly pupils who should not be there. However, they should—and must—target a reduction in the need for exclusions by addressing the behaviour that leads to exclusion. I do not want children in any Scottish school to misbehave in any way, let alone to be involved in incidents of violence or abusive behaviour towards teachers, other adults in the school or other children. Children suffer bullying to a greater degree than teachers do.

All children must have a learning environment that allows them to develop to their full potential. That is what the discipline action plan is all about. As well as making a difference in Scotland's schools today, the practical measures that the action plan contains will have a long-term benefit, not just for the children, but for Scotland in general.

The First Minister confirmed that, earlier today, the Secretary of State for Defence announced the award of the contract to build the Royal Navy's two new aircraft carriers to a consortium of BAE Systems and Thales. The First Minister will be aware that Thales had confirmed that it was willing to consider using the Nigg yard in my constituency to build the ships. Will he give me an undertaking that, at the next meeting of the Scottish Cabinet, he will use every means at his disposal to encourage some of that work to be sent to the Nigg yard?

Given that it is less than two hours since the announcement, it is a little early to be too specific about the way in which the contract will be carried out. The announcement represents good news for Scotland and I hope that it will be good news for many parts of Scotland. I am happy to bear in mind the points that the local member has made.

---

Fishing Communities (Support)

To ask the First Minister what measures are being introduced to support communities affected by the cuts in the fishing industry. (S1F-2462)

On Tuesday, Ross Finnie announced the biggest-ever package of transitional and structural aid for the Scottish fishing industry. Up to £50 million will be allocated to secure a sustainable long-term future for the Scottish fishing industry.

Does the First Minister agree that we must protect conservation-led fisheries, such as those in Alasdair Morrison's constituency in the Western Isles, and in many more areas throughout the west coast of Scotland? Will he ensure that the west coast fisheries will be protected from ruinous displacement from other areas in the UK?

Yes. That is an important objective, which Rhoda Grant has raised with me on a number of occasions. We are working to ensure, preferably in agreement with the industry, that conditions are placed on the aid so that those who currently fish elsewhere do not move their catching to the western fisheries. It is important that we put that condition on the aid, because there is little point in our providing aid if the fishing effort simply moves west and causes problems elsewhere. The western fisheries are critical in the overall equation, although the package that was announced this week is largely for the north-east.

Does the First Minister recall European Council regulation 1263/1999? The regulation states:

"Community financial assistance may be granted for the implementation of measures in support of … revitalising areas dependent on fisheries".

It also states that such assistance can be used for "innovative actions". Will the First Minister accept that fishing communities across Scotland are bitter about his redundancy plans for them and his manifest failure to tap into Community funds, while Spain gets money to build new boats that will be used to fish out our fish in years to come? Will he now ask for European money to save our communities?

I thank the member for his question and for welcoming me to Peterhead on Sunday afternoon—even if it was from behind the barrier. It was good to see him there.

There are a number of important points to make about the fishing industry. First, we must dispel the myth that there is some European Union money floating around that could have been applied for. That is simply not true. Had SNP members listened at all over the past fortnight, they would be aware that any reallocation of money within Scotland's overall fishing structural funds for the purposes that Mr Stevenson outlined would simply have led to a reduction in money for the fish processing industry. That would have been wrong.

This week, we announced the allocation of money over and above the amount that the European Commission was prepared to allocate for the Scottish fishing industry. That positive move compares favourably with the so-called recovery package that the SNP proposed this morning. The SNP says that it would scrap plans to spend money on decommissioning. However, that would simply result in a reduction in the number of days at sea for those in the north-east from 15 to nine, as outlined by the European Commission.

The SNP also says that it would maintain the industry's critical mass, but that would simply ensure that the North sea fishery stocks were depleted more quickly, thereby threatening the long-term sustainability of the industry. Moreover, the SNP says that it would provide fishery-related firms with rates relief, which it would take from the £50 million. We have made it clear that that money will be in addition to the £50 million. The SNP's recovery plan would not help the recovery of the Scottish fishing industry but lead to its decline. That is why the SNP plan will be rejected by fishing communities across Scotland.

First, I notice that £40 million of the £50 million on offer is for decommissioning. In other words, it is a redundancy package for the Scottish white-fish fleet. Does the First Minister honestly think that the £10 million left over will be anything like enough to cover the losses of the affiliated fishery workers and processors? Secondly, what is to happen to the boats that carry on? They will labour under 50 per cent cuts in their quotas and 50 per cent cuts in the number of fishing days. What will the First Minister's Government do to help those fishermen who are bravely trying to soldier on against the most appalling odds?

I will preface my remarks by saying that the cuts in quota are too deep and the impositions on days at sea are too severe. At the same time, it is vital to be honest about the matter, to face up to difficult decisions and to take the actions that will lead to a long-term future for the fishing industry.

The reality is that, if decommissioning does not take place, the majority of European Union member states will vote—it will happen automatically—to reduce the number of days at sea, possibly to even less than nine. If we do not reduce the take from the stock in the North sea, the long-term future of the industry will be less viable.

We need a balanced plan that ensures the industry's short-term future through aid, decommissioning and more days at sea than were originally proposed, attached to long-term action that will secure a more sustainable fishery. That is the right plan. Ross Finnie's announcement on Tuesday was right for the industry.

Have discussions with the fishing industry begun? How will the £10 million of traditional aid be delivered to the fishing industry? When will the money begin to flow to hard-pressed fishermen who are faced with tying up on Saturday?

We will make the money available as quickly as possible. The Parliament will have to make the right approvals over the coming weeks. Discussions have been under way since December and those discussions will now become more detailed, because we know the overall scale of the package. I hope that we will be able to provide the aid in the near future, so that we can secure the temporary provisions that are required to see us through such a difficult period. I hope that, at the end of the day, we will have not only a stronger fishing industry, but a better set of decisions in Brussels.

Because of the earlier interruption, I will take question 4.

---

Accident and Emergency Services

To ask the First Minister what action is being taken to address the incidence of critically ill patients being turned away from hospitals because of a shortage of beds and staff at accident and emergency departments. (S1F-2454)

In the vast majority of cases, critically ill patients are looked after at the hospital where they arrive. In a very small number of cases, when local services are under severe pressure, critically ill patients may be stabilised then transferred to another hospital for admission. That is established good practice in managing seasonal pressures.

Does the First Minister, on behalf of the Liberal-Labour coalition, still support the Tories' 1991 patients charter? In particular, I am thinking of one of the 10 basic rights, which guaranteed patients emergency medical care at any time from hospital accident and emergency departments.

It is critical that people can get proper emergency care. It is also critical that we should be able to manage the huge increase in accident and emergency admissions in recent years—15 per cent since 1999. What happens—it has happened in my area of Wishaw—is that those patients who are brought in ambulances or who turn up at the door are dealt with in the hospital on the spot, but, if there are too many of them, those who were referred by general practitioners are referred on to another hospital. That is good management and good practice and it ensures that emergency cases are properly treated. I hope that it will not be necessary for that to happen too often, but that, when it does, the system is properly managed by those working at a local level.

Does the First Minister agree with Tim Park, the clinical director of accident and emergency in south Glasgow, who, commenting on the fact that many patients in Glasgow wait up to 10 hours on trolleys, said that the number 1 problem is a lack of beds? In light of that, does the First Minister agree that the Scottish Executive's bed reduction policy, which has resulted in the loss of 700 acute care beds since 1999, is seriously misguided?

That is precisely why we are tackling bedblocking and why we have seen a reduction in the number of blocked beds in Scotland's hospitals over the past 12 months. That is making a difference during this difficult winter period. It is also why we need to review the facilities for hospital provision in Glasgow. Ms Sturgeon has been a vociferous opponent of the substantial investment into Glasgow's hospitals, which will ensure that we have better provision in Glasgow—provision that is more modern, that ensures that the right services are accessible locally and that gives good-quality emergency care, as happens in Edinburgh.

Notwithstanding his comments about the massive investment that is being made in Glasgow, which I welcome, does the First Minister accept that the plans to reduce the number of accident and emergency facilities in Glasgow from five to two as part of the acute services review have raised concern among the residents of south Glasgow? Will he assure me that recent press reports highlighting congestion in accident and emergency departments will be taken into account when the health board is considering the review of acute services provision?

It is precisely because of the continuing upward pressure in accident and emergency departments, with the sorts of increases that I mentioned—a 15 per cent increase across Scotland since 1999—that the Minister for Health and Community and Care thought it right that the accident and emergency provision in Glasgow should be reviewed over the next two years before final decisions are made about overall provision. He was absolutely correct. It is critical that we have in Glasgow the right level of accident and emergency provision. It is vital that we have a local service that can deal with cases on the spot and high-quality emergency provision, including facilities for surgery, in locations throughout the city where cases can be treated at the level of specialism that is nowadays required. That happens in Edinburgh and it should happen in Glasgow. It might require two or three units, but any decision will be made in two years' time.