Plenary, 01 Nov 2007

Meeting date: Thursday, November 1, 2007

Official Report 678KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

I am sure that members will already be aware that the Scotland branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association is this week hosting the 19th CPA parliamentary seminar in the Scottish Parliament. All the delegates are in the Presiding Officer's gallery and the public gallery, and I am absolutely delighted to welcome them to First Minister's question time. [Applause.]

---

Engagements

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-230)

Presiding Officer, in view of what you just said about the presence of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegates in our galleries today, it might be appropriate for me to mention that I will not be available for First Minister's questions next week—I will be in Sri Lanka with the Government delegation and the delegation from the city of Glasgow for the attempt to win the 2014 Commonwealth games for Scotland. Obviously, we cannot guarantee success—there will be an election among the Commonwealth countries—but I can assure the Parliament that, with the support that I know is given by every single member, the Scottish Government and the city of Glasgow will leave no stone unturned in order to secure these vital games for Scotland in 2014.

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

On the First Minister's opening remarks, he will carry with him to Sri Lanka next week the good wishes of the entire chamber. We wish him well with the trip.

Last week, the First Minister told the Parliament that he would meet his promise to reduce class sizes in primary 1 to primary 3 to 18 by the end of the session. Yesterday, in a debate in the chamber, and a few moments ago during general question time, his Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning refused to repeat that promise. Who are the parents, teachers and pupils of Scotland now to believe?

It is quite clear: they believe the Scottish National Party Government, and not just because we are working with local authorities to meet the Government's objectives for lower class sizes. People know that there are already an extra 300 teachers in our schools and 250 training places, and that there is £40 million of additional investment in the fabric of Scotland's schools. That is why they believe the Scottish National Party Government.

Let me ask again. Will the First Minister keep his promise to reduce class sizes in primaries 1, 2 and 3 to 18 by 2011? Yes or no?

We are working with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and our friends in local authorities to meet the Government's commitments. People in Scotland are already seeing more teachers, more investment and more training places as a result of SNP Government.

That obfuscation is highly significant. Last week, the First Minister gave a very different response to the same question. He claimed that his class size pledge still held and that John Swinney would be offering councils the moneys to fund it. Another day, another broken promise. More important, this is a betrayal of the parents and teachers throughout Scotland who believed those promises.

The First Minister has repeatedly made a commitment in Parliament—no ifs, no buts, no maybes. There was nothing about having to rely on others to deliver that commitment; there was nothing about phasing or delay. Is he keeping his promise to Parliament, or is he breaking it? Does he admit that this is just another broken promise?

The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth is working with local authorities to meet the Government's commitments. That is what we are doing at present. The difference between the Government and the Labour Opposition is that we believe in lower class sizes. Labour members all fought the election on a platform of lower class sizes, but their new leader told The Scotsman on 11 September this year, in a ringing declaration:

"Class sizes are not a good measure of what matters."

I ask Wendy Alexander: do class sizes matter or not?

I said last week that the First Minister's trademark style was to attack rather than answer, so let me deal with the attack. My position on class sizes is very clear. Like the vast majority of parents and experts, I am happy to see smaller class sizes—we reduced them—but not at the expense of other measures that have a greater impact, such as one-to-one tuition or proper support for teachers.

The real difference between the First Minister and me is that I will not make promises that I cannot keep—that is the First Minister's speciality. Will he keep his promise to reduce class sizes? It now seems clear that he cannot tell us when the policy will be delivered, where it will be delivered or how much it will cost. Last week he broke his promise on police. This week he is breaking his promise on class sizes. What will be the next broken promise?

I am still no clearer whether class sizes matter to the Labour Party. They matter to this Government. I really think that Wendy Alexander should lighten up a bit.

Answer the question!

Order.

People throughout the country are highly satisfied with the Scottish National Party Government. They are satisfied because of the commitments that we have made, and redeemed, to cut the tolls on the Forth and Tay bridges, restore free education in Scotland and, most recently, make progress towards the founding aims of the national health service—free and available at the point of need—by reducing and then eliminating prescription charges.

What people in Scotland are wondering is how the Labour Party managed to do so little over so long when the SNP has done so much in so little time.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S3F-231)

I have no plans to meet the Prime Minister at present, but it is likely that I will meet him at the summit of the British-Irish Council in Dublin later this year.

We will all find out in two weeks' time just how few extra police the First Minister's Government will give Scotland. We now know that it will not be the 1,000 extra officers that the First Minister promised in his manifesto.

However short on numbers the budget announcement is, I believe that we can do more. I ask the First Minister whether he agrees that

"Community wardens are nothing more than an attempt to provide policing on the cheap. They have no law enforcement powers and therefore can't provide communities with the protection against crime and anti-social behaviour that they need. 30 million pounds"—

which is roughly the annual bill for community wardens—

"would pay for a lot of extra police officers. It is time that the Scottish Executive started listening to the very people they say they want to help."

Does he agree that community wardens are nothing more than "policing on the cheap"?

Community wardens play a valuable role in policing and public safety. I do not think that they are a proper replacement for fully qualified police officers, but the community wardens of Scotland play a valuable role, which members should recognise.

We read at the weekend that SNP ministers and their party are bemused and bewildered over the SNP's broken police pledge. For the benefit of the bemused and bewildered, hands up all those on the SNP benches who back the First Minister in breaking his police pledge. [Interruption.]

Order.

Just look at them showing the unconvincing mute loyalty of the divided, the riven and the split.

Order. Come to a question, please.

There is more. The First Minister is now at odds with his deputy. Those were Nicola Sturgeon's words that I used; it was she who said in 2004 that community wardens were "policing on the cheap" and that she wanted the money switched to provide more police. She agreed—sound woman—with the Scottish Conservatives then. Why does the First Minister not agree with her now?

Because the Deputy First Minister said that community wardens were not a replacement for fully qualified police officers, which is exactly what I said.

Annabel Goldie will have a full opportunity to question the excellent Deputy First Minister at First Minister's questions next week, when she will be able to see whether she can get on any better with Nicola Sturgeon than she can with me.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-232)

At its next meeting, the Cabinet will discuss issues of concern to the people of Scotland.

I will try to help the First Minister on teacher numbers. I have here a press release from one John Swinney of the SNP when he was in opposition. He said precisely that the SNP would need 3,115 extra teachers to meet a commitment to class sizes of 18 in primary 1 to primary 3. Why was the SNP so clear in opposition when, in government, the First Minister's ministers have not got a clue?

Ministers are negotiating productively with our local authorities, in a way that the previous Administration never achieved—[Interruption.]

Order.

They do so to deliver not just the Government's commitments, but the commitments and priorities of the Scottish people. That might be why the Government is so popular and the Liberal party has been almost forgotten.

In opposition, John Swinney said that the commitment would take 3,115 extra teachers and cost £145 million extra. That was crystal clear: dates, costs and numbers were provided down to the last detail. Now, after six months in government, the SNP cannot even give us a figure to the nearest thousand either way. It is like police numbers and student debt—broken promises.

The First Minister's party was so clear in opposition but, in government, his schools policy is falling apart. The SNP cannot even tell us the basics. How many extra teachers? How many extra classrooms? How much will the policy cost? I give the First Minister one last chance. Will he guarantee today that his budget will answer the question of how many extra teachers he needs, or will he just confirm what we all know—that he has not got a clue?

I will give the former Deputy First Minister a clue and some numbers. There are 300 more teachers in Scotland now than there would have been if he were still Deputy First Minister. There are 250 more teacher training places now than there would have been if he were still Deputy First Minister, and £40 million more is being invested in the fabric of school buildings throughout Scotland. I would have thought that even the former Deputy First Minister would welcome that progress for the Scottish people.

---

Transport Links (Glasgow and Edinburgh)

To ask the First Minister whether improving links between Glasgow and Edinburgh will lead to substantial economic benefits for the whole of Scotland. (S3F-236)

Yes—improving links between Glasgow and Edinburgh is a key driver of economic development. Quicker and more frequent transport links between our two major cities are central to that, and a range of measures to improve rail connections was announced to Parliament in September. They will bring substantial economic benefits to the central belt and therefore to the country as a whole.

As a frequent traveller between Glasgow and Edinburgh, I welcome those substantial announcements, as I am sure everyone in the two cities does. What is the proposed timescale for the projects? Will the First Minister consider measures to ensure that people who are completing modern apprenticeships benefit from those excellent projects?

On the second question, Scotland's colleges and universities work closely with employers to meet the needs of Scottish business and to help those in modern apprenticeships.

On the first question, the programme of improvements to rail connections between Edinburgh and Glasgow was announced to Parliament on 27 September. That is part of the wider strategic transport projects review.

As part of road improvements, work on M8 improvements is estimated to start in 2010. Draft orders for that were published on 23 October and the consultation on them ends on 5 December. Those improvements will at last give us a motorway all the way from Glasgow to Edinburgh.

I welcome the First Minister's support for the M8 Baillieston to Newhouse project, which the previous Labour-led Executive started, and I support his commitment to the electrification of the Glasgow to Edinburgh via Falkirk rail line. However, will he give an assurance that there will be no reduction in the frequency of trains that call at the intermediate stations on that line?

I will get the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change to write to the member specifically about the improved services, faster journey times and increased frequency of services that are outlined in the transport review. As the member knows, there is a commitment in that review not only on the electrification of the line between Edinburgh and Glasgow, but on the electrification of the line between Cumbernauld and Glasgow, which I am sure that all members will welcome.

The First Minister's recent re-announcement on completing the M8 was welcome confirmation that there is at least one transport project that the Scottish National Party is not going to ditch. That said, does he agree that, however welcome improvements to the links between Edinburgh and Glasgow are, they should not be progressed at the expense of improvements to the links between Aberdeen and Inverness? Will he therefore clarify when his Government intends to take action to improve the rail and road infrastructure links between those two important cities?

I am disappointed that—

I am slightly disappointed that the question is not about links between Glasgow and Edinburgh, but I will leave it up to the First Minister to decide whether he wishes to respond.

I will try to bring my answer into order, even if the question slightly varied the subject.

If the member had dwelt on every word of a speech that I made in Aviemore on Sunday, she would have said that a commitment to faster journey times between Inverness, Aberdeen and the central belt is also very much part of our proposals. I am sure that members from throughout Scotland welcome the SNP's attitude to a strategic transport approach that will connect up all our country.

I welcome the Administration's commitment to continue with the electrification of the Cumbernauld line, but I seek an assurance from the First Minister about the main Glasgow to Edinburgh line, which serves the communities of Cumbernauld and Kilsyth through Croy station. Will he give an assurance that, as the leader of the Government, he will ensure that no services are taken away from Croy station as a result of the shortened journey times?

Those are essential connections. I welcome the member's welcome for the Government's proposals. Given her constructive attitude, it would be highly appropriate for her to have a meeting with the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change to consider the detail of her questions. We are talking about good news for Scotland. Changes and improvements to our rail network that have been overdue for a generation have been proposed. I am sure that the member and the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change will have a constructive meeting.

---

Redundancies (Quangos and Government Agencies)

To ask the First Minister how many redundancies the Scottish Government expects to make following the announcement that it will reduce the number of quangos and Government agencies by a quarter. (S3F-239)

We want to have a simpler and more effective public sector for Scotland that is good for Scotland's competitive position and overall economic performance. To deliver that, we believe that we need fewer organisations. The issue is the public sector's structures and processes; it is not about criticising our public service workers, who do a valuable and valued job for Scotland's people.

There will be no compulsory redundancies as a result of the proposed structural changes. That attitude contrasts with the attitude to the public sector elsewhere. Work is now under way to consider specific proposals to streamline the existing landscape. The precise implications of the changes will be clear when that work is complete. We will announce further details to Parliament later this year.

I am sure that the hundreds of workers who are concerned about the announcement at the weekend will welcome the First Minister's personal commitment to having no compulsory redundancies.

The First Minister has been quick to praise reports from Unison on, for example, private finance initiatives and public-private partnerships. He will be aware that, last year, Unison published a report on the public sector's role in driving Scotland's economy. Where does he stand on that issue? Does he agree with the likes of Unison, or does he think that the public sector is crowding out the private sector?

I think that our public servants play a valuable role.

The no redundancy commitment is critical because, at a time of necessary change in the public sector, making changes in the context of a no redundancy commitment—

No compulsory redundancies.

A no compulsory redundancy commitment secures—[Interruption.] Labour members should perhaps consider the attitudes of departments south of the border that give no guarantee whatsoever of no compulsory redundancies. That guarantee is important because it secures the co-operation of our unions and our staff in looking at the most effective way to deliver in the public sector landscape in Scotland. Of course, many of our public servants do an extremely valuable job that is valued by the Scottish people.

Mr McNeil, it would be helpful if contributions were confined to those whom I call to make them. [Interruption.] I call Derek Brownlee.

Will the First Minister reassure those who might be slightly more cynical about whether the commitment on quangos will be met? If the number of quangos is reduced by a quarter, will their budgets also be reduced by a quarter?

No, not necessarily; one does not follow from the other. A number of savings will be made from decluttering the public sector. There will obviously be efficiencies in terms of costs and staff numbers, but one of the crucial factors is that, by not having a number of organisations do the job of one organisation, we will, we hope, relieve the burden on business and elsewhere. Much of the unnecessary delay that takes place occurs when various agencies are consulting one another rather than facing the public.

I hope, Presiding Officer, that Duncan McNeil keeps speaking. The Government's popularity is partly based on what we do, and partly based on what Duncan McNeil does.

I may be wrong, Presiding Officer, but I think that that was a challenge to the chair from the First Minister.

On decluttering bureaucracy in Scotland, the First Minister has the support of most people in the chamber, and we hope that it can be done sensibly. I was happy to hear him say, honestly, that he was not certain whether much money would be saved. I ask him to look at efficiency before everything else. If he does that, he will come to the same conclusion that I have reached, after having watched sportscotland get on top of its job. If he agrees that sportscotland should be wound up, does he realise that 32 local authorities and 54 sports governing bodies will have to do the job that sportscotland currently does in distributing lottery funds? That would not be decluttering the landscape.

We are consulting on that proposal at present, as Margo MacDonald well knows.

There was a great temptation on the part of the previous Administration to farm out key public sector responsibilities to agencies. Sometimes, of course, that can make sense and can lead to public good. Sometimes, however, one could argue that it is about the evasion of public responsibility. Such responsibility belongs with central Government, with ministers accountable to a national Parliament, which means better and more effective public sector decision making in Scotland.

Can the First Minister tell me when the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth will answer the written question that I lodged nearly two months ago, in which I asked how many new bodies and quangos have been set up since May 2007?

I am sure that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth will reply to Lord Foulkes shortly.

One of the reasons why we set out the 199 quangos and public sector agencies that we inherited is so that people, including Lord Foulkes, can chart our progress as we reduce that number to a much more manageable size. If we achieve that, I am sure that Lord Foulkes will be the first to congratulate both the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth and me.

We have heard what the First Minister had to say about there being no compulsory redundancies. Can he hazard a guess as to whether, as a result of the proposals that have been and are to be announced by his Government, he expects the total number of people employed in the public sector in Scotland to be greater or smaller in 2011 than it is today?

The answer to that question is that it will be smaller in 2011 than it is today. The commitment to no compulsory redundancies is very valuable for the people who are working constructively to have more efficiency in the public sector for the good of not only the public sector but the people of Scotland.

If the issue is about accountability, will the First Minister comment on the failure this week of his Minister for Communities and Sport to respect the position of the Parliament's Health and Sport Committee with regard to the timescale for responses to the review of sportscotland? Will the First Minister also address the concerns of not only the sporting sector but my constituents in the east end of Glasgow, who expected sportscotland's headquarters to be located in the major national arena that will form an integral part of what I hope will prove next week to be our successful bid for the Commonwealth games?

If that was an expression of support for the Commonwealth games bid, I am very glad to accept it.

I point out that the Minister for Communities and Sport asked the Health and Sport Committee in September for its views on the sportscotland proposals. Moreover, I have a reasonably long memory, and I am not sure that the member should be the one to criticise others for disrespecting this Parliament.

I refer the First Minister to his earlier comment that there would be full consultation on sportscotland's future. There has been an internal review by the Executive on its future. Will he instruct his Minister for Communities and Sport to ensure that there is a full consultation on this matter and that sportscotland is not sacrificed to an entirely different agenda around quangos? This is about meeting the needs of sport and sports bodies in Scotland. Will the First Minister make that commitment to tell the Minister for Communities and Sport to ensure that the consultation is a real one?

The Minister for Communities and Sport has already made that commitment. He is consulting not only the Parliament and its committees—which is very important—but stakeholders and interest groups around Scotland. Of course, a full consultation is being carried out, and the minister needs no encouragement from me to make such a commitment.

---

Schools (Additional Support Needs)

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government will ensure that parents of children with additional support needs can choose schools that best suit their children, even if the schools lie outside their local authority areas. (S3F-244)

Yes, it is the Scottish Government's intention to ensure that the parents of children with additional support needs are able to make placing requests to schools outwith their local authority area.

I thank the First Minister for his clear response. The thorough report of the 11 October ruling of the Court of Session addresses the institutional structure and the legal details of the appeal that was made. However, does the First Minister agree that the issue is the 25,000 young people who are potentially affected by that ruling and that many parents struggle to get the often complex care and support packages for children who require additional support? Does he agree that although the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004, which received cross-party support, introduced good reforms, one of its unintended consequences, which might require reform in this parliamentary session, is that some parents whose children require extra support might have their choices restricted? Furthermore, if the Court of Session's ruling is upheld in an appeal to the House of Lords that might be looming, will he speak to the other parties in the Parliament to keep the cross-party support going and change the law?

I detected more than one question there, First Minister.

Yes, but this hugely important issue affects many parents and children in Scotland.

It is my clear understanding that Lord Macphail's decision will now be appealed in the House of Lords. If the House of Lords upholds that decision, we will review the 2004 act to ensure that the legislation covers the original policy intentions. In any event, as I said in my response to the first question, we will take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that the parents of children with additional support needs are able to make placing requests outwith their local authority area. I hope that that response helps the member and gives encouragement and reassurance to parents throughout Scotland.

I regret to say that in the North Lanarkshire area the needs of a significant number of children, particularly those with autism or Asperger's syndrome, are not being dealt with properly. Indeed, the prevailing consideration appears to be cost rather than those children's needs. I ask the First Minister to look into the situation in North Lanarkshire to ensure that children with special needs get the service that they merit.

Those are local authority matters, but I am aware of them because one of the parents recently approached me on the issue. I will certainly look into the matter, and I will arrange for a reply to be sent to the member both from the local authority and from the educational needs point of view.

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—