Plenary, 02 Oct 2008

Meeting date: Thursday, October 2, 2008

Official Report 774KB pdf

---

Question Time

---

SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

---

General Questions

Question 1 has been withdrawn.

---

Teaching Staff (Nurseries)

To ask the Scottish Executive how it intends to respond to its recent figures showing a decline in the number of registered teaching staff in nurseries since May 2007. (S3O-4411)

This year's figures are not directly comparable with last year's as we have ensured that peripatetic teachers were not double-counted. Even so, the difference in the figures is barely discernible from 2,110 in 2006-07 to 2,105 in 2007-08. That compares with a decline of 239, or 10.3 per cent, in the three years between 2003-04 and 2005-06.

On the recently published figures, I point out that there has been, at last, a reversal of the persistent decline in pre-school teacher numbers that was experienced under the previous Administration as a direct consequence of its decision to repeal the schools code in 2002.

I listened as closely as I could to Mr Ingram's reply, and I am pleased that he did not entirely repeat the First Minister's mistake of last Thursday. Will he apologise to members in the chamber, whom the First Minister last week misled by claiming that there is a substantial increase in teachers in nurseries?

I ask the member to be brief.

This is important. In a typically patronising answer to Margaret Smith—[Interruption.]

Order.

The First Minister claimed, in a typically patronising answer to Margaret Smith—

I press the member for a question.

Very well.

There is no substantial increase—the Government's statisticians say that there is a decrease in the figures. Last week, the First Minister claimed that access to a nursery teacher meant only one day a week. Will Mr Ingram apologise on behalf of the First Minister, not only to members but to the Scottish public for misleading them in the election manifesto promise?

Mr Macintosh is talking rubbish and he knows it. As he should know, the key issue is driving up the quality of provision in the delivery of nursery education. The member and I served on the Education Committee in the previous session of Parliament during the early years inquiry. The point of that inquiry, and of the evidence that it gathered, was that children benefit from the input of a qualified teacher to their programme of activity and child development. At the moment, up to one in five children does not benefit from that input. Our job is to deliver universal access to teachers, and we are well on the way to doing so.

Does the minister share my concern that between 2004 and 2007, Labour-controlled Glasgow City Council—with Labour in control of the Scottish Parliament—cut 61 nursery teacher jobs in Glasgow? That was a reduction of more than 25 per cent, in a city that has the highest deprivation and the lowest educational attainment, and which spends a lower share of its budget on education than does any other local authority. Does that not show Labour's blatant disregard for the overwhelming educational research that shows that better outcomes are achieved by directing resources to early years education?

According to the information that I have, Glasgow City Council removed 37 teachers from pre-school centres in February last year and redeployed them in primary schools. The council reduced overall provision, and did nothing to extend access to a greater number of children. That is the direct opposite of what we are trying to achieve.

---

VisitScotland

To ask the Scottish Executive how it will deal with the consequences for VisitScotland and its investment partners of the change of emphasis from a commercial to an information-based approach to accommodation booking on the VisitScotland.com website. (S3O-4400)

Changes were made to the VisitScotland.com website in April 2008, in response to extensive feedback and consultation with industry and focus groups. The website now provides much more information for visitors, and allows them to choose whether to make bookings through the site or to get in touch with the providers directly. A revised business plan was approved by the partners on the eTourism Ltd or VisitScotland.com board, and progress is being monitored against that plan.

I make it clear that I support the change of emphasis that I mentioned in my question, but has the cabinet secretary prepared for any consequential negative impact on VisitScotland's finances? Also, has he prepared for the fact that, in future, inquiries might be directed to websites that do not have exclusively Scottish accommodation options, such as the websites of United Kingdom or international hotel chains?

Those are fundamentally commercial matters for VisitScotland and VisitScotland.com to consider. The Government makes appropriate funding available to VisitScotland and we recognise and value the contribution that it makes to promoting Scotland as a destination for visitors. I am glad to hear that Mr Gordon supports the change of focus whereby the website conveys more information to members of the public who are considering visiting Scotland. Questions about the commercial implications are for VisitScotland to consider.

---

Mental Health Services (Waiting Times)

To ask the Scottish Executive when referrals for mental health services will be guaranteed within 18 weeks, as they are for other specialisms. (S3O-4409)

We are committed to a national health service that offers appropriate care and treatment quickly and safely. In most cases, those who require access to mental health services already receive treatment well within 18 weeks. However, as we announced during the summer, we are considering new waiting time targets for areas in which delays occur.

The minister is aware that a high percentage of referrals to mental health services are made by general practitioners. I am sure that she is also aware of the stunningly high percentage of inmates in our prisons who suffer from mental health issues, and she will know that mental health issues go to the heart of many of the fault lines in our society.

Will the minister reassure the Parliament that the Government will take every action that it can to end the discrimination that mental health professionals believe exists and to ensure that people with mental health issues receive treatment as quickly as possible?

I certainly recognise that general practitioners deal with a high percentage of cases in the area of mental health, and I acknowledge Tom McCabe's point about inmates in prisons. That is why we are taking forward a number of actions that span the psychological services and therapies to which GPs can refer people. We have set challenging national performance targets for mental health, including a target to reduce antidepressant prescribing; a target for suicide training for front-line staff; and a health improvement, efficiency, access and treatment—or HEAT—target on dementia. As I said in my initial answer, we will shortly complete our considerations on the extent to which mental health services could, for the first time, be brought into the 18-week waiting time target.

Given that antidepressant prescribing is increasing, and given the long wait for mental health services, would it not be beneficial to ensure that self-help groups such as Depression Alliance Scotland are fully funded to help individuals to understand and cope with their condition?

We have confirmed an additional £5 million a year to 2011 for joint spend by agencies on mental health. That is in addition to the resources that are being given to health and local government, where there is, of course, a lot of joint work on mental health services.

As I have said to Mary Scanlon before, we are developing some easily accessible psychological therapies to which GPs will be able to refer people as an alternative to antidepressant prescribing. I do not underestimate the challenge of reducing the rate of antidepressant prescribing. Such treatment is appropriate for some people, and in some cases it is a life saver, but there is no doubt in my mind that, for other people, we need to provide a range of alternatives. I am keen to do that, and we are making progress on that front.

---

Local Income Tax (Consultation Responses)

To ask the Scottish Executive when the consultation responses on the proposed local income tax will be published. (S3O-4380)

We expect to complete analysis of the responses to the consultation paper shortly. We will then publish the responses, where the respondents agreed to that, along with an analysis of them. At that time, we will outline how we intend to take forward our plans to introduce a fairer local tax for Scotland.

I am disappointed that the Government has not met its own deadline of October for publication of the responses, because I was really looking forward to reading them.

I am sure that the cabinet secretary read with interest the response of the low incomes tax reform group, which raises concerns about the impact of the plans on disabled people and retired women in the 60 to 64 age bracket. Can he guarantee that neither group will lose out as a result of the local income tax?

I gently remind Mr Brownlee that the month of October is not yet complete. It has only just begun. He should be patient.

Following the fabulous debate that the member promoted this morning, I think that we have advanced the growing consensus in the Parliament that a local income tax is the right solution, as the Conservatives and the Labour Party are now engaged in discussing the detail and not the principle of a local income tax.

Mr Brownlee will be familiar with the material that the Government put in the public domain as part of the consultation process, which highlights the fact that four out of five households in Scotland will be either better off or no worse off as a consequence of the local income tax proposal. I hope that that provides the assurance that he seeks.

Will the Scottish Government take into account the recent grim statistics on child poverty when it publishes its response to the consultation on a local income tax? Will it take into account the rising fuel and food prices that many low-paid working families are experiencing when it considers any benefit that might arise from scrapping the council tax and introducing a local income tax that is based on the ability to pay?

That has a slightly tenuous link with the original question, but carry on, cabinet secretary.

The response to the consultation will cover a range of questions regarding the impact of local income tax. The fact that the proposal relates to the ability to pay will be a significant advantage for many people who wrestle with the challenge of poverty. It is estimated that 85,000 people will be lifted out of relative poverty, including 15,000 children. I am sure that the Parliament will welcome that development.

---

Scottish Trades Union Congress (Meetings)

To ask the Scottish Executive when the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing last met representatives of the STUC. (S3O-4396)

I met an official delegation from the STUC in September last year and addressed the STUC women's conference on 13 November last year. Most recently, on 23 September this year, I met representatives of Unison, the Royal College of Nursing and Unite, all of which are constituent members of the STUC.

As I understand it, the cabinet secretary has refused a request to meet the STUC women's committee and offered them Stewart Maxwell instead. I am sure that Mr Maxwell has a lot to learn from the women of the STUC, but nonetheless I ask the cabinet secretary to reconsider. In times of pay dispute, such a meeting would afford an opportunity for her to explain to women who are among the lowest paid and who face financial pressures why the Scottish National Party, in opposition, was the first on the airwaves to demand Government intervention but, now, Nicola Sturgeon and the others cannot be seen for dust.

Briefly, please.

Will the cabinet secretary tell the STUC to its face why the SNP, when dealing with low-paid workers, engages in such double standards?

My commitment to engaging with the STUC women's committee is well evidenced by the fact that, as I said in my original answer, I addressed its conference in November last year. It is entirely appropriate for Stewart Maxwell, who is the minister with lead responsibility for equalities, to meet and engage with that committee. If Margaret Curran has a problem with that, her logic escapes me.

The issues around low-paid workers are incredibly important. John Swinney, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth, has been encouraging constructive dialogue between local authorities and the unions, and I hope that that dialogue will continue and will conclude positively soon. In addition, given that Margaret Curran listened to the exchange in the previous question, it ill behoves her to criticise the Government for a lack of commitment to low-paid workers, given that through, for example, our policy to abolish the unfair council tax, the Government will lift 35,000 people out of poverty. I would have hoped that the party that professes to stand up for social justice would welcome that.

---

Local Income Tax (Collection Costs)

To ask the Scottish Executive what the estimated cost to business is of the collection of a local income tax that is set and levied by 32 individual local authorities. (S3O-4427)

It is clear that the estimated cost to business of collecting a local income tax will be greater if it is set and levied locally by individual local authorities than if it is collected, set and levied nationally. The Burt committee estimated that the difference would be around £10 million per annum. That is why we had proposed that the tax should be collected by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs using the existing income tax system.

I was encouraged that, in this morning's debate on local income tax, the cabinet secretary promised to answer detailed questions on how that tax will work in his forthcoming response to the consultation responses. At this time of unprecedented economic turmoil, will his commitment extend to providing Scottish businesses with any estimates of what his proposed new local income tax might cost them?

Hundreds of thousands of small businesses the length and breadth of Scotland are grateful for the fact that, after securing parliamentary support for its budget in February this year, the Government has significantly reduced their business rates. Perhaps Wendy Alexander and her colleagues should explain why they were pathologically opposed to giving business that competitive advantage. In the current economic climate, we see the value of the changes that the Government made. That is felt throughout the business community in Scotland.

As I pledged this morning, we are engaged in responding to detailed questions on the local income tax. I am delighted that the Labour Party and the Conservatives have stopped opposing the tax in principle and are now engaged in the detail of its introduction. I am sure that the people of Scotland welcome such a tremendous conversion to such a good idea.

---

Forth Replacement Crossing

To ask the Scottish Executive when local residents directly affected by the construction of the Forth replacement crossing and related motorways will be informed about the preferred route, any impact on their homes and their rights to compensation for property blight that may result. (S3O-4469)

An announcement on the Forth replacement crossing will be made before the end of this year. Guidance on compensation in respect of road schemes was published by Transport Scotland in 2007 and can be viewed on, or downloaded from, the agency's website. Following the announcement, officials will consult communities and affected parties further.

The minister is aware that this is a worrying time for my constituents, many of whom believe that they are already experiencing property blight as a result of the proposed bridge. What opportunities for face-to-face discussions with Transport Scotland officials will be available to my constituents to enable them to get a clearer understanding of the compensation and assistance that will be available to those who not only have blight on their properties but will lose their homes as a result of the project?

As proposals for the replacement crossing have been worked up, Transport Scotland officials have made considerable efforts to meet communities and individuals who have an interest in it. Following the announcement, they will, of course, make themselves available to answer Margaret Smith's constituents' specific and key questions. I am sure that they will be available to the extent that is necessary.

I understand that compensation payments for people who lose their homes as a result of major infrastructure improvements are much greater in England than they are in Scotland. Does the Government have any plans to increase the levels?

The home loss payment was reviewed relatively recently and the decision was taken to retain the £1,500 to £15,000 range, which is, indeed, substantially lower than in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. However, the majority of home loss payments are made in the context of housing regeneration projects. We estimated that raising compensation payments to the level that is given in England and Wales would take more than £30 million out of the housing budget and, on a policy basis, we have concluded that that money would be better invested in housing than in providing additional loss payments to people whose houses are worth more than £150,000.

The Public Petitions Committee considered a petition on that subject, and I am pleased to say that it agreed with our conclusion and thought that the Government's position is right.