Plenary, 06 Mar 2003

Meeting date: Thursday, March 6, 2003

Official Report 722KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S1F-2554)

First of all, I welcome Winnie Ewing back to the Parliament for question time. She has been missed and we have all been thinking about her. [Applause.] I say to her that my invitation to her to visit Bute House before she finishes is still on.

Next week's Cabinet will discuss matters of importance.

I will be happy to extend the invitation to Dr Ewing to Bute House as well.

In 1999, the First Minister promised the people of Scotland that 80 per cent of children would

"reach the appropriate standard in reading … by the time they leave primary school"

and that that target would be delivered within four years. This week, it was revealed that only 41 per cent of children in their final year of primary school had reached that standard. On 14 January, the First Minister said:

"I don't make promises I can't keep".

How can he reconcile that statement with his broken promise to the pupils and parents of Scotland?

This is becoming a bit like "Groundhog Day". Yet again, we have statistics from Mr Swinney that are totally distorted. The statistic that he quotes is one of a large number of a mixture of good and bad statistics in a report about 2001 relating to children who started their education in Scottish primary schools—indeed, some even in Scottish secondary schools—before the Parliament was created. By using statistics in that way, he distorts the facts about the hard work that is going on in Scottish primary schools and the various initiatives to improve reading, writing, listening, mathematics and arithmetic that make a real difference week in, week out in Scottish schools. Real improvements are taking place. Mr Swinney refuses to recognise that. He uses selective statistics in the Parliament week after week. In doing so today, he has done a disservice to Scottish teachers, just as last week he did to doctors and nurses.

The First Minister sounds rattled. Members should bear in mind the fact that he was the Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs at the time that the statistics relate to. I am talking about a promise that the Labour Government made in 1999 to ensure that 80 per cent of children reached a certain standard within four years. If its promises were not worth making four years ago, how on earth can we believe what the First Minister will say in the weeks to come?

Let us move on from reading to writing. The First Minister made a promise:

"80% of children to reach the appropriate standard in … writing … by the time they leave primary school."

However, the real figure is only 57 per cent in the final year of primary school. How can the First Minister reconcile saying

"I don't make promises I can't keep"

with his appalling record in improving the education system?

When Mr Swinney does not listen to the first answer, it is hard to respond to his pre-prepared second question. It is, of course, possible to come along week after week and quote selective statistics. It is also possible to do something about our education system, to take the right actions and to ensure that standards in our schools improve.

We said that we would improve standards in our schools in those basic necessities and that is exactly what we are doing. The fact that the statistics for 2001 do not show the results of that is patently obvious. Of course, if the statistics and performance in Scotland's schools are going to improve, that will take longer than two years for children who were already in school long before the Parliament was created.

Mr Swinney and Mr Russell did exactly the same thing a couple of months ago when the last set of education statistics came out. Those members were absolutely wrong. In reading, writing and mathematics, school results in Scotland had dramatically improved in secondary 2. We went from a percentage in the mid-40s in each of those categories to one in the 50s, which was a substantial improvement. That matters to each and every child whose education is improved. Mr Swinney should recognise that improvement, congratulate the teachers who have achieved it and support the parents of pupils who want it to happen.

I get accused week after week of using selective statistics, yet the statistics that I use week after week are those of the present, discredited Executive. The report to which the First Minister referred says that, between 1998 and 2001, average performance in primary 7 reading dropped 10 per cent at level D. Performance went down during the first two years of the Administration. If the First Minister wants to do something about that, how about cutting class sizes in primaries 1, 2 and 3 and giving the kids a break? Is it not time that the First Minister started getting some good ideas from our side of the chamber before we get to his side and start implementing them?

Cutting class sizes is exactly what we did between 1999 and 2001, which is exactly why performance has been improving ever since. Every survey, every anecdote, every piece of evidence and every school visit that I undertake in Scotland shows that, where class sizes have been cut in primaries 1, 2 and 3, that has made a difference. That and the early-intervention programme have been boosting the opportunities to learn and the chances of children in our most deprived communities. When we go on and reduce class sizes in S1 and S2—in the early years of secondary school—that will do exactly the same thing again. The priority now for schools in Scotland is to improve attainment in the early years of secondary school when results drop off, when ambition declines and when children start to fail, and to give those children the chance that they deserve.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues he will raise. (S1F-2553)

I expect to meet the Prime Minister regularly over the coming weeks and I will discuss with him a wide range of issues.

I am sure that the First Minister will. I noticed earlier today that the Scottish National Party was getting very exercised about the date of the budget. I am much more concerned about the content of the budget. I hope that the First Minister will try to persuade the Prime Minister to reverse the increase in national insurance contributions that will take effect in next month's budget. Not only will that increase hit working people, but, in essence, it is a tax on jobs. At a time when our growth rate in Scotland is a miserable 0.1 per cent per annum and the service sector in this country has just reported the worst monthly downturn since September 2001, does the First Minister agree that it would be in the best interests of the Scottish economy to scrap those damaging tax increases?

I am grateful to Mr McLetchie for raising the issue of the budget. I notice that Mr Swinney was not quite brave enough to do so, despite the fact that his party put out a press release this morning saying that, in 1995, Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the SNP had challenged the BBC on the scheduling of a "Panorama" programme. Mr Jim Wallace and I remember trying to persuade the SNP to take part in the court action about that, but the SNP was frightened to stand up for Scotland and would not do it. A bit of honesty in the SNP would not go amiss—[Interruption.]

Order. We are getting well wide of the question.

I am looking forward to the budget, whenever it takes place. Scotland is enjoying the lowest mortgage rates, the lowest interest rates, the lowest rate of unemployment and the lowest inflation in my adult life—since I was 15, none of those measures has been as low as it is today. The budget will be good for Scotland, good for the United Kingdom and good for growth.

Scots are also paying what are probably the highest taxes in Mr McConnell's lifetime and there is no prospect of an abatement. [Interruption.] Oh, yes we are. The proportion of tax to gross national product is higher today than it was under the Conservative Government. We are not getting value for money in terms of the economy for all the taxes that we are paying.

What about the Holyrood project?

Do not get me started again on the Holyrood building—we shall leave that pleasure for another day. We all know that Mr Rumbles and his pals voted to waste £340 million on the Holyrood building. I am talking about other instances in which taxpayers in Scotland get poor value for money. Some £627 million of taxpayers' money is being spent on our enterprise budget and we are simply not seeing a return through higher growth or prosperity. I ask in all seriousness whether the First Minister has never thought to himself what Scottish businesses might have done with some of that money. Why will he not consider using the Parliament's powers to cut business rates so that we can find out what Scottish businesses can do?

That is another interesting subject. The Scottish Enterprise budget has been restricted this year and in years to come because we are reducing administration costs. We are delivering efficiencies inside that organisation. For clarity, I would like to put firmly on the record the fact that there is no divide between the Scottish Executive and Scottish Enterprise. The real divide in the chamber and in Scotland today is between the partnership parties, which support investment in training and skills and in business support in Scotland, and the Opposition parties, one of which would cut £150 million from that budget while the other would cut £250 million from it.

There is perhaps a secret agenda. Mr Murdo Fraser, who is a front-bench spokesperson for the self-same Conservative party, said last June:

"The only correct Tory conclusion is that Scottish Enterprise should be abolished."

For the Conservatives, it is not good enough just to abolish the comprehensive education and health services of Scotland; they want to abolish Scottish Enterprise as well. Thank goodness they will never get the chance.

---

Illegal Firearms (Amnesty)

To ask the First Minister what impact the amnesty on illegal firearms will have on making communities safer. (S1F-2567)

Next month's amnesty will play a vital part in our fight against gun crime. In the last amnesty, just under 4,000 weapons were surrendered in Scotland, along with 100,000 rounds of ammunition. Every firearm removed from illegal circulation is one less available to terrorise our communities.

As the First Minister knows, 23,000 firearms were handed over to police across the United Kingdom in the gun amnesty that followed the Dunblane tragedy. I hope that a similarly large number of deadly weapons will be handed over in the present amnesty. Will the First Minister assure me that the amnesty will be for illegal possession only and not for illegal use? Will he also assure me that any crimes that are found to have been carried out using the weapons that were handed in during the amnesty will be fully investigated?

Absolutely. The amnesty will apply solely to possession and will run for one month. Those who have an illegal gun will be able to bring it in, leave it and not be prosecuted. However, if there is evidence that they have ever used that gun, they will be prosecuted. The amnesty applies only to possession, not to use.

---

Scottish Enterprise

To ask the First Minister whether the performance of Scottish Enterprise is satisfactory. (S1F-2550)

I fully support the use of an arm's-length organisation to deliver our enterprise strategy "A Smart, Successful Scotland". The strategy must be delivered in an effective and efficient manner. I believe that Scottish Enterprise is best placed to do that and is taking the right steps to ensure that it is even more effective in the future.

I am interested to hear the First Minister's reply, because this week one minister was quoted as saying that Scottish Enterprise is like

"an oil tanker running out of control".

Where does the First Minister stand on the issue? Concern about the performance of Scottish Enterprise is not confined to the Conservative benches, but exists outside the Parliament—it is widespread in the business community. Will the First Minister back the call by my colleague Annabel Goldie for a wide-ranging, independent inquiry into Scottish Enterprise? If he and the Executive have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear from such an inquiry.

I will make two straight, factual points. First, no minister made to any newspaper the comment that Murdo Fraser has cited. That will be confirmed in due course. Secondly, last Friday, Iain Gray and the chief executive of Scottish Enterprise said clearly that, if there are questions to answer about the way in which Scottish Enterprise does its business, Audit Scotland—which is able to audit the organisation's books because of legislation that I put through the Parliament—will consider them and report in due course. That is the right course of action, not to distract Scottish Enterprise from its vital job of creating growth and jobs in Scotland, but to ensure that, where allegations are made, they are investigated quickly and properly so that Scottish Enterprise can get on with its business and deliver for Scotland.

I am pleased to hear the First Minister express his confidence in the Scottish Enterprise network. Does he agree that too many areas of Scotland, such as my area of Greenock and Inverclyde, have long-standing above-average levels of unemployment and low levels of economic activity? Does he agree that that requires a cross-cutting, co-ordinated approach from the Executive? Will he meet me to discuss how we can address those issues in my constituency?

Yes, of course I will be happy to meet Duncan McNeil to discuss those matters. They are critical in the Greenock and Inverclyde area, as they are in other parts of Scotland. I am aware of the economic pressures in that area and I am determined to see a range of public agencies providing full support to ensure that the sort of economic success that the area has enjoyed, despite difficult times, in the past 30 years can be repeated over the next 30 years.

In relation to the article on Scottish Enterprise in The Scotsman last Friday, does the First Minister know who wrote the memo? Does he know who leaked the memo? If he finds out that it was written or leaked from within the Executive, will he sack the person responsible? Does he agree with me, the Confederation of British Industry Scotland and other sections of the business community that the campaign that The Scotsman has led for the past week to undermine the work of Scottish Enterprise is damaging not only to Scottish Enterprise, but to Scotland?

I have made my position on the matter quite clear. I do not know who wrote any memo; I have not seen any memo. To deflect the attention of our enterprise company at this stage to go searching for memos or for who might or might not have them would be a shame. If issues around that come out in due course, I am sure that they will be tackled by the right people at the right time. Mr Neil, who I understand is a passionate advocate of training and skills in this country, has to answer the question that I asked him in the chamber some weeks ago: why does his party support a cut of £150 million from a £480 million enterprise budget, given that such a cut would result in a reduction in training and skills, business support and the promotion of Scotland overseas? Is that really what he supports or is he simply keeping quiet for his party at election time?

Order. This is not Mr Neil's question time.

---

Immigration

To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Executive is taking to attract more immigrants who can contribute to growth and development to Scotland. (S1F-2568)

We believe that for a growing Scottish economy we need a growing Scottish population. That means that we must retain talent that is already here in Scotland. We also need to attract back Scots who have moved away and we must be ready to welcome fresh talent from elsewhere. As a start, we are improving our image abroad to promote Scotland as an attractive place in which to live and work. We are working with the Home Office to promote Scotland as a destination for people applying for United Kingdom work permits. We will also work with non-Scottish students domiciled here to encourage them to stay in Scotland after they have graduated from our universities and colleges.

I thank the First Minister for that helpful reply. Will he talk to ministers in London whose rules prevent asylum seekers from working for a long time even if they have useful skills? That is another pool of labour that we could tap and I hope that he will pursue the matter.

We have rightly been careful in the chamber not to encroach on the reserved responsibilities of the UK Government in relation to asylum seekers and refugees. Where asylum seekers or genuine refugees based in Scotland have been allowed to stay in the United Kingdom, we have done all that we can to ensure proper integration into local communities, which has been the right thing to do in those cases.

I stress that what I said today and what I said last week were not directed at asylum seekers. What I said was directed at a wide range of people, such as Scots who might want to move away, Scots who have already moved away but could come back and the many others from Europe, North America and elsewhere in the world who want to come to Scotland to live and work because this country is a good place to be. We have had an incredible response. There have been dozens of e-mails, letters and calls to the Executive and British embassies around the world. We will take those inquiries up and ensure that, in the future, Scotland's economy grows as a result of those skills.

Does the First Minister accept that part of the process of attracting immigrants will involve recognising and valuing diversity in Scotland? That task will include the need to value and to invest in a highly skilled work force. Does he agree that excising Scottish Enterprise's skills budget is something that Scotland needs like a hole in the head?

It would be safe for me to agree with that.

The First Minister said that we would attract people from outwith Scotland. He mentioned that the British embassies had been responsive to that message. Will he say whether we will have people on the ground or whether the process will be done entirely through information technology? I would like him to take on board my suggestion that, if we cannot have commercial embassies inside the British embassies, we should have welcome-to-Scotland desks.

I am eager to promote the policy in every imaginative way possible. We need to do that elsewhere in the world and here in the United Kingdom. Those who are already in the country and those who would come here should be told about the attractions of living and working in Scotland. If that means competing with other parts of the United Kingdom, I would be happy to stand up for Scotland on that basis.