Plenary, 11 Dec 2003

Meeting date: Thursday, December 11, 2003

Official Report 675KB 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. (S2F-435)

I speak with the Prime Minister regularly and when we next meet I am sure that I will want to record with him the continuing contribution that the United Kingdom Government makes to our public services here in Scotland—a deficit between receipts and expenditure of some £8,000 million was recorded yesterday—all of which would be put at risk if we were to move to the economic policies of the Scottish nationalist party.

That tells us all that we need to know about the economic miracles that that crowd delivers for the Scottish economy.

In the partnership document, the Government's flagship education pledge is to increase the number of teachers in our schools from 50,000 to 53,000. The pledge goes on to state that the additional 3,000 teachers will be targeted to reduce class sizes in secondary 1 and S2 in English and mathematics and in primary 1. Will the First Minister guarantee to Parliament that every one of those 3,000 additional teachers will have a teaching qualification?

There are clear rules about the teaching qualifications that teachers in Scottish schools must have. As I have said in the past—when I was Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs and since I have become First Minister—I believe strongly that we must ensure not only that we maintain high standards but that more people have the opportunity to join the teaching profession in Scotland. Where there are rules that are, in my view, wrong and out of date that prevent people with relevant experience and relevant qualifications from moving into teaching qualifications to allow them to teach in our schools, the rules should be changed by the General Teaching Council for Scotland, which is the responsible professional body.

I am interested in the First Minister's answer, because the rules that he says exist to guarantee that teachers in our schools have the appropriate qualifications are in the process of being abolished by his Administration.

Regulations 5(1) and 6(1) of the Schools (Scotland) Code 1956, which the Government is abolishing, specifically require teachers to have a recognised teaching qualification. It is far from clear from the First Minister's answer that there will be a requirement for teachers to have a teaching qualification.

I ask the First Minister for the second time whether he will give me a guarantee that all the additional 3,000 new teachers, who will be used to reduce class sizes to honour his commitment to make the transition from primary school to secondary school a great deal easier, will have a recognised teaching qualification.

We have a regular problem in the chamber in respect of the Scottish National Party leader listening to what is said. It is clear not only that teachers in Scotland must have, and have, the highest possible quality of teaching qualifications, but that their qualifications are a lot better than those of their counterparts south of the border and in many other countries. If people such as John Swinney were to stop running down Scotland's schools and Scotland's teachers, our teachers might get some credit for the standards that they employ in our classrooms.

Mr Swinney's comments are a diversion from the real division in the chamber. His party has told us for 12 months that the Labour-Liberal Democrat Administration is wrong to target S1 and S2 in secondary schools as being the top priority in trying to improve attainment in our schools. That his party is wrong and that S1 and S2 should remain the top priority can be proved by the figures that were published this week, which show that there is better attainment than for many years. That is still not good enough, and we are going to deliver.

The only diversion there was the First Minister refusing to answer a serious and legitimate question.

If everything is as simple and straightforward as the First Minister is making out, why has the General Teaching Council for Scotland sought legal advice about its ability to stop the abolition of the code that regulates the qualification of teachers? Why did the Scottish Parent Teacher Council say:

"Parents would be outraged to discover that people were teaching subjects in which they had no proper expertise"?

Those are serious issues and a rant about other Government priorities is no replacement for answers to serious and legitimate questions. For the third time, I ask the First Minister whether the 3,000 additional teachers, for whom there is no training provision in the budget, have recognised teaching qualifications—yes or no?

I have already answered the question. It is simply untrue that there is no provision to train those teachers. Our plans are properly designed and costed and properly targeted on the teachers that are most needed in our schools, and on the school years that most need them. Those teachers are important for Scotland's schools and for our pupils.

It is clear that Scotland's teachers have the best qualifications in the UK, and they will remain in that position. Those Scottish teachers do a very good job and Mr Swinney should stop talking down their work and Scotland's schools.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-434)

Not surprisingly, Cabinet will continue to discuss the progress of the partnership agreement and our legislative programme, at the centre of which is our commitment to an improved and diverse comprehensive system of education for all, and an improved and diverse national health service for all. From this morning's debate, I notice that that vision differs greatly from that which was put across by Mr McLetchie's party.

It does indeed, and it is a pity that the First Minister did not have a passport to the chamber for that debate, because he and I could then have discussed it for the best part of a couple of hours.

I have a specific and important concern relating to the protection of our children to raise with the First Minister. As he will be aware, the new Sexual Offences Bill at Westminster will make it an offence for an adult to take on a new identity in cyberspace chatrooms in order to meet children—so-called internet grooming. However, that legislation will apply only in England and Wales. Did the Cabinet consider a similar strengthening of the law in Scotland by inviting Westminster to legislate for Scotland in that bill, so that the law is the same throughout the United Kingdom at one and the same time, and so that there are no gaps in the law that can be exploited by those who would prey on vulnerable children?

Yes, we considered that, and we decided that it would be correct for us to pursue our own legislative route to ensure that there are new and tougher penalties in Scotland. We are currently considering those penalties. I want there to be no doubt in the chamber or anywhere else that we intend to be part of the international crackdown on internet pornography and internet grooming. When we have decided on the right legislative route and sentencing provisions, we will bring them before the Parliament, and I hope that all members will support us.

I welcome part of the First Minister's answer, but people will be disappointed that the opportunity has not been taken to liaise with the Home Office and introduce legislative measures at this stage. There is a real concern that a gap might develop between the law north of the border and the law south of the border, and that that gap might be exploited. The First Minister will be aware that the issue of child protection was carefully and seriously debated in the chamber only a few weeks ago.

I urge the First Minister to indicate how long he envisages the review of the law in Scotland will take. I suggest that the review is done as a matter of urgency, as that would send out the strongest possible message to those who would prey on children that we in Scotland take the matter as seriously as people in England do, and that those who offend will be sent to prison for up to 10 years for their offences, as will happen down south.

Before dealing with Mr McLetchie's question, I want to say that I recognise that he has genuine reasons for raising this matter and that I am pleased that he has chosen a proper subject to ask questions about.

That said, I do not want anyone who will read this exchange, or who is listening to it in the chamber or watching it at home on TV, to get the impression that there is a gap in Scots law on this matter. There is no such gap. Cases have been prosecuted recently; indeed, one was prosecuted under the common law of Scotland. Moreover, provisions in the Telecommunications Act 1984 relating to fraud and breaches of the peace can be used to prosecute such cases in Scotland.

We believe that it is right to consider going further and possibly introducing a specific offence. However, we will approach that matter carefully and with due consideration. As far as this aspect of sentencing is concerned, it is right to have a specific Scottish provision rather than use a provision that was agreed at Westminster and is particularly relevant to England and Wales. Introducing such legislation will toughen up the law and deal with internet grooming. In this chamber, we should stand united in saying that internet grooming is unacceptable and that Scots law must treat it just as seriously as it is treated anywhere else, if not more so.

Will the next meeting of the Cabinet discuss the continued downturn in the electronics industry? Does the First Minister share my regret at yesterday's announcement of 250 redundancies at Sanmina-SCI UK in my constituency, and will he ensure that those who have been made redundant will receive the appropriate support? Moreover, will he confirm that an area such as Greenock and Inverclyde, which has higher than average levels of unemployment for Scotland and has also suffered disproportionately from the decline in the electronics industry, will benefit from specific measures to strengthen the local economy?

Clearly the usual services, which have been so successful in other areas in assisting those who have needed to find new work or new training for new opportunities, will be provided in Inverclyde as they have been elsewhere. I want to send a strong message to those who have been affected that those measures have been successful elsewhere and can be successful again in these circumstances.

Duncan McNeil will also want me to re-emphasise our commitment to measures such as the completion of the M74 motorway and other improvements in transport, and investment in the Inverclyde area and in other areas of serious deprivation in Scotland. Those areas require such investment to ensure both that communities are regenerated and that companies can get goods to and through market more quickly. We will continue that investment, which I am sure will have the member's support.

At the next meeting of the Cabinet, will the First Minister raise the case of one of my constituents who, since an operation 10 months ago, has been grossly incontinent of urine but has been told that there is no money for a sphincter operation? How can it be that, even after NHS Greater Glasgow and the Minister for Health and Community Care have been notified of the case, this man still does not have a date for a repair operation? Does the First Minister agree that no one in 21st century Scotland should be made to suffer such indignity for so long?

It is always difficult to comment on the circumstances of individual cases. If the case has been described accurately and someone now requires an operation as a result of another operation that they underwent, I think that the matter should be treated as a priority. I am sure that the Minister for Health and Community Care will want to look into the case and give a response as quickly as possible.

---

Air Travel

To ask the First Minister how the active promotion of air travel in Scotland leading to projected increases in such travel and increased greenhouse gas emissions is consistent with the Scottish Executive's policy of reducing such emissions and addressing climate change. (S2F-447)

We are committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and a number of actions have been put in place to assist the international programme to achieve that aim. However, we are also committed to making improvements in transport options. Our investment in air travel is designed to sustain rural communities in particular, and complements our investment in rail and other forms of transport.

I thank the First Minister for his answer. However, our research has calculated that the UK air industry receives £9 billion per annum in hidden annual subsidies, which is about three times greater than the subsidies that are enjoyed by the rail industry, which are among the lowest in Europe. What steps will he take to ensure that our sustainable rail industry can at least compete on a level playing field with a less sustainable air travel industry?

I am certain that issues will be debated over the years, not just in relation to the taxation regimes that are in place but on the rate of progress that is being made on aviation fuel, as that would make a contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. However, we can reduce the reliance on air travel of large numbers of passengers by improving our rail network. That is why it is so important to pursue the modernisation of the west coast main line. That improvement to our rail infrastructure will make a difference to the apparent need for people to use air travel when rail could be a viable option. I hope that we will get the chance to see those improvements make a difference in the years to come.

Does that mean that the First Minister will sit down with his colleagues at Westminster to see what further action can be taken to make the rail routes between Scotland and London fully competitive with the air routes?

In our submission to the chancellor on his budget for this year, we did not make representations on the level of subsidy or on taxation in relation to aviation fuel and other forms of vehicle fuel. I think that that is probably the point that Mr Harper makes. We do not believe, as I believe the Green party does, that there should be a minimum air fare of about £150 for all air travel. There are parts of Scotland where air travel is required for people's basic needs, particularly in our island and rural communities. I want us to get the right balance between our concerted attempt to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and making sure that we have sustainable travel options to and from our islands, just as we have to and from our cities.

The First Minister will be aware of a study from Highlands and Islands Enterprise that showed that the annual climatic cost of a year's worth of travel to and from every airport in the Highlands and Islands is less than that of one day's worth of transatlantic travel from Heathrow.

On the distinct needs and wants of the Highlands and Islands, given that the airports in the Highlands and Islands receive an annual subsidy of £24 million, of which £2 million is spent on security, is it not about time that appropriate security for the likes of Barra and Benbecula is decided locally, rather than have foist upon those airports the security that is necessary for Birmingham and Bristol?

Of course, Mr MacAskill could have chosen Glasgow or Edinburgh but, regrettably, he chose again to pose a sensible question about a serious issue in anti-English terms. That is unfortunate. There is a serious issue about security in Scotland's small airports, but that issue should be dealt with on the basis of airport security and the costs that are involved, not on the basis of some crazy Scottish-English comparison.

We have made representations in the past, and continue to do so, about security provisions that are required at small airports. Although it would be wrong for the United Kingdom Government and those who are responsible for those security provisions to amend them without due consideration, we believe that the security provisions at the airports in the Highlands and Islands in particular could be more suited to the size of the airports and the costs that are involved. As I said, we continue to make those representations and we hope that security arrangements can be amended at an appropriate moment.

Does the First Minister agree that no one should fly from Edinburgh or Glasgow to London, and that no one would do so if there was a fast, reliable rail service from city centre to city centre? I was pleased to hear him back the west coast main line upgrade, but we want the east coast main line upgrade to follow shortly. Will the Executive press for the spinal high-speed rail link, if it is ever developed, to extend far enough north to be of use to Scotland?

Clearly, we wish to see improvements across the railway network, east and west, but I think that everyone has agreed that we must progress those improvements in order of priority. The link between Glasgow and London is fundamental for a variety of important reasons in relation to the Scottish economy, passenger travel, greenhouse gas emission and all sorts of other matters, which is why that route is the immediate priority of the UK Government and of our Government in Scotland. We hope to progress other improvements in due course.

---

Emergency Workers (Protection)

To ask the First Minister what criteria will be used to determine the scope of the proposed bill to protect emergency workers. (S2F-453)

All attacks on workers who are delivering a public service are taken very seriously, both by prosecutors and by the courts. The place where the crime is committed and the fact that a worker is providing a service to the public are regarded as aggravating factors, and those who commit such offences should be under no doubt that the law will be used. The consultation document that was published on Monday proposes tougher penalties in emergency situations in which workers need to be able to carry out their duties without fear or hindrance and in which other life or property would be placed at risk as a result of an assault.

Does the First Minister agree that the law should severely punish any person who attacks an emergency worker who is acting to save lives and that there is an urgent need to legislate on that? Does he also agree that we should act quickly to protect other public sector workers who face violence in the line of duty and that any review should be wide ranging to include nurses, doctors and other workers who deliver a service to the public? Will he assure me that he will continue to work closely with the Scottish Trades Union Congress and the unions—as I know that he has done—to ensure that we have in place the right laws and other policies so that public sector workers have the confidence of knowing that the Government regards their safety in serving the public as a priority?

We will continue to discuss those proposals with the trade unions involved, which have been central to our discussions in coming forward with the proposals. I re-emphasise the fact that nurses, doctors and others who work in the public services are covered by the provision that was introduced by the Lord Advocate in February, which states that an offence against them in the line of their work should be considered an aggravating factor in any case of assault.

It is vital that we clamp down on cases of assault in whatever circumstances they occur. However, there are particular circumstances in which an assault on an emergency worker who is responding to an emergency situation has an impact on many other people, not just on the person who is assaulted. In those situations, the offence should be considered more severe.

If it is enacted, the proposed bill will change the criminal law of Scotland. I understand that the Minister for Justice will not lead the bill through the parliamentary process, following the example of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill. Why is the First Minister bypassing the Minister for Justice on these important issues and, consequently, disregarding the justice committees as the proper mechanism for first scrutiny?

Our Minister for Justice is, quite rightly, concentrating on and busy with the reforms to our courts, our police service, our fire service and many other services that ensure not only that the public is safe, but that criminals are prosecuted properly in Scotland. Those reforms will—unlike the tokenistic reform that was suggested by the Conservatives this morning of electing one member of the different police boards in Scotland—make a real difference in our courts, by getting police back on the beat, by freeing up police officers to carry out their duties, and by ensuring that our Procurator Fiscal Service delivers more prosecutions on time in a system that is run properly. Those are the reforms that we need in Scotland, and the Minister for Justice is going to deliver them.

Will the First Minister tell us whether there will be anything in the proposed bill or in guidance to address police response times in answering urgent calls for assistance from another emergency service, given the length of time that was taken by the police to respond to the fire crew who faced a despicable criminal attack in Coatbridge last Sunday evening?

I do not think that the bill is designed to cover response times; however, the reforms that we are carrying out will improve response times. If fewer police officers are sitting around in court rooms wasting their time, or carrying out administrative and other duties that others should be carrying out, they can get back on the beat or to other operational duties. If there is better co-ordination between the police and the other emergency and security services, those response times will improve, more criminals will be caught on the spot and more incidents will be stopped before they get worse. Those are the reforms on which we have embarked, and they will make a difference in every community in Scotland.

---

Drink Driving

To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Executive is taking to reduce drink driving over the festive period. (S2F-449)

The Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland is conducting an enforcement campaign to prevent people from driving under the influence of drink or drugs from 8 December to 5 January. We are supporting the police campaign through complementary publicity about drink driving that has been arranged by the Scottish road safety campaign.

I thank the First Minister for that positive response. He will be aware that many incidents of careless, dangerous or reckless driving are not caused by the excessive consumption of alcohol; in many instances, the offence is more likely to be drug related, as the First Minister indicated. Has the Scottish Executive considered proposals to introduce random roadside testing to detect and apprehend drug-impaired motorists?

In recent years, the issue of drug-impaired motorists has become more important. The new provisions that have been introduced to address that issue—not just in legislation, but in the work of our police forces—should make a difference. I understand that there are no current plans to introduce random drug testing on roads in Scotland, but it is important that as well as checking for drink driving our police forces should check for those who may be under the influence of drugs, although alcohol cannot be detected in their system.

---

Scottish Enterprise

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Executive's response is to the Auditor General's report "Scottish Enterprise: Special audit examination". (S2F-440)

Both the Deputy First Minister and I welcome the publication of the report, which we commissioned in March. Where the report raises issues that require action, working with Scottish Enterprise we will ensure that those are properly dealt with.

The First Minister's rather complacent reply comes the day after we learned that in 2000 Scottish Enterprise spent £298,000 on rebranding the business shops as the small business gateway and that, earlier this year, it spent another £269,000 on changing the name of the small business gateway to the business gateway. On top of everything else that appears in the Auditor General's report, does that not make it clear that Scottish Enterprise cannot be trusted with a budget of £500 million? Do such examples not prove the case for transferring at least part of Scottish Enterprise's budget out of its hands—clearly, it cannot cope—and using that money to reduce the burdens on our hard-pressed business community?

Listening is important. I said that where action is recommended in the report, that action will be taken. That is not at all complacent—it is perfectly logical and active. However, it is important again to state that, although there are lessons that Scottish Enterprise should learn from the report about its budgeting and some of its decisions, the budget of Scottish Enterprise is dominated by the investment that it makes in Scottish companies, enterprise in Scotland, promoting business in Scotland and training in skills for work. At different times, the Conservatives have proposed reductions in Scottish Enterprise's budget of £100 million, £150 million, £200 million and £250 million. When they do that, they are proposing to cut the budgets for training and skills, support for business and promoting Scotland overseas. If they think that that will help to grow the Scottish economy, they are very wrong.

The problems at Scottish Enterprise are serious, but they are only part of the picture. The real problems are our low rate of economic growth and the resulting population decline, which look like being this Administration's lasting legacy. What plans does the First Minister have to counter the fact that all the new European Union accession states will have far more power to compete than the Scottish Executive and Scottish Enterprise currently have?

That is a typically gloomy response from a person who—like the Tories—supports cuts in Scottish Enterprise's budget. The Scottish nationalist party, like the Tories, wants to cut the budget for training and skills, for promoting enterprise in Scotland and for promoting Scottish business overseas. That is wrong. I do not believe that either the Tories or the nationalists should support that Tory solution.

I intend absolutely that the lasting legacy of this Administration, in which I am First Minister, will not be to reflect back on and gloat over the population decline that has taken place in Scotland over the past two decades—as Mr Mather does regularly—but to do something about it. That is exactly what we will do. When we publish our plans to tackle population decline by ensuring not only that we have a country in which we are proud to live and to which others should be proud to come, but that we go out and promote Scotland not just as a place to visit and with which to do business, but as a place in which to work and live, I hope that the member will support them.

Does the First Minister accept that there is absolutely no role that Scottish Enterprise plays that could not be performed as well and probably much better by Scotland's local authorities in conjunction with Scotland's further education colleges? Does he further accept that, therefore, it would be better to take the £450 million budget from that massive and unaccountable quango and use that public money to improve radically the wage levels of public sector workers in this country, particularly those of striking nursery nurses who are being ignored by this Executive and by Labour-led local authorities across Scotland?

Many of the people who voted for Mr Sheridan in May in Glasgow would be disturbed to learn that he believes that we should cut the budget for skills and training in their area and direct that to others elsewhere who are already in work. It is important that Scottish Enterprise works with and helps those who are unemployed and who need skills and training in order to get themselves into work.

It is also important that we have a national agency that is promoting Scottish business overseas and ensuring that business from overseas invests in Scotland. I do not believe that dividing up that responsibility between 32 local authorities would bring one new job to Scotland from overseas investors or would help one Scottish company improve its exports overseas.

Mr Sheridan's analysis is wrong. We need to have the right balance between local action for economic development and a national agency that is promoting Scottish enterprise and delivering jobs.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. During his contribution to First Minister's questions, Mr McLetchie suggested—inadvertently, I hope—that he had been present for the two and a half hours of this morning's debate on public services. Those of us who were present for that debate know that he left the chamber shortly after he made his speech and returned in time only for the winding-up speech of his colleague Mr Monteith. Does the Presiding Officer have powers under the standing orders to overlook Mr McLetchie the next time he wishes to make a contribution? I believe that the Presiding Officer takes such action in relation to back benchers who do not show courtesy to fellow MSPs.

That is not a point of order, but I inform the chamber that I drop discreet notes to members in such circumstances.

Meeting suspended until 14:30.

On resuming—