Plenary, 17 Sep 2009

Meeting date: Thursday, September 17, 2009

Official Report 751KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Engagements

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-1870)

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

The First Minister's budget for next year will rise by £600 million. He chose, for good reasons, to spend some of that budget this year. We all know that he is now trying to claim that there has been a cut. If there is a cut, it is a cut that he has made in his own budget. Is it not time that he took some responsibility for his own decisions and dropped the dodgy accounting for his own purposes?

If the acceleration of capital investment is dodgy accounting, that dodgy accounting emanated from the Treasury at Westminster, which gave permission for it. Today is the day for a reality check for Iain Gray. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth has said that next year, for the first time since devolution, the budget for the Scottish Parliament and Government will decline in real terms. Sooner rather than later, Iain Gray will have to face up to that fact and work out the Westminster Treasury's responsibility for it.

The First Minister can spin the numbers in any way that he wants to, but the people of Scotland know that he raided next year's budget and is now blaming someone else. [Interruption.]

Order.

The people of Scotland know that our economy benefited from £37 billion to save our banks, that our budget has been protected from a 10 per cent drop in tax receipts and that the budget is going up, but they also know that we have to tighten our belts. Does the First Minister agree that the first things to go should be programmes that are just not working?

Iain Gray's tighten-the-belt moment is similar to the cut moment for Gordon Brown at the Trades Union Congress. It is disgraceful that Gordon Brown did not inform Iain Gray before he made his declaration at the TUC that cuts are now on the Labour agenda, and it is appalling that the Westminster Treasury did not inform Andy Kerr, in order to make him look less ridiculous, that it planned cuts of 9 per cent over the next five years. Last week, I saw him shaking his head when I mentioned exactly that figure.

What I heard Gordon Brown say was that programmes that are not working will have to be cut. [Interruption.]

Order.

Everything has to be looked at. What about the Scottish Futures Trust? Two and a half years and £23 million on, the Scottish Futures Trust has not built a single school or hospital. Today, its chief executive told us that it will be a few years before it is properly up and running. That is about as not working as you can get. Will the First Minister cut the Scottish Futures Trust now to protect front-line services?

No; I agree with Iain Gray's first admission: that the Trident programme and weapons of mass destruction should be cut. I think that everyone in Scotland would favour an institution that will build schools throughout the country in a cost-effective manner before weapons of mass destruction from the Labour Party.

There is always somebody else to blame. It is always somebody else's responsibility, and always somebody else's programme that needs to be cut. What is the First Minister's real priority? Is it public services, or his own pet projects? Is it running Scotland, or running a campaign for separation? The national conversation is not working, and support for independence is plummeting, so we should cut that conversation now. I would rather have one more teacher, nurse or apprentice than one more minute of the national conversation. Teachers, nurses and apprentices are our, and Scotland's, priorities. What about the First Minister's priorities?

It is not a question of one more nurse—there are now more than 2,000 more people working at the front line of the health service in Scotland. If Iain Gray had not, when he saw the public sector employment figures yesterday, tried to tell people that there were fewer social workers when it is the Labour council in Glasgow that is privatising home helps, he would have realised that there has been a surge in national health service employment in Scotland under this Government.

Yes, politics is the language of priorities. We do not believe that accelerating investment is raiding a budget; we believe that it is supporting 5,000 jobs in Scotland. Yes, we have put the national health service and the school building programme before Trident missiles and weapons of mass destruction—whether Iain Gray supports them or not.

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S3F-1871)

I met the Secretary of State for Scotland yesterday.

Yesterday's shocking unemployment figures show the human cost of Labour's recession, and we know that Labour cuts are on the way. In April, Labour's national insurance hike will increase tax for ordinary workers right across Britain, so the last thing that Scotland needs is a Scottish National Party tax rise on top of Labour's tax rise. Will the First Minister confirm that continuing to freeze council tax is at the top of his budget priorities?

The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth said on Sunday that he was confident that, for the third year in succession, we could have a council tax freeze in Scotland, which will give vital help to hard-pressed families at a time of recession. I suspect that that is one of the reasons why the retail sales figures in Scotland look so positive at present. Freezing the council tax is right, because it is fair to restrict the imposition of an unfair tax. I say to Annabel Goldie that although I still believe that it would be better to find a fair system of taxation, even freezing the council tax is better than the gigantic increases that took place under the Conservative and Labour Governments.

Time and again, Alex Salmond has spurned Conservative proposals to free up public money for the most pressing public need. He can no longer dodge and weave. Does he regret keeping Scottish Water under state control, which costs the taxpayer nearly £200 million every year, and abolishing the graduate endowment, which is nearly £20 million every year? How can he justify stripping £40 million every year from our vital health budget so that he and I can get free prescriptions? That is a saving of a quarter of a billion pounds every year that he has rejected. Will he think again?

To have a health service that is free at the point of need is an aspiration and a policy that this Government is proud of. Restoring free education in Scotland does not just accord with a Scottish tradition; it is a policy that this Government is proud of.

On the question of Labour cuts, I am trying to reconcile Murdo Fraser's declaration in a debate in Parliament in June that

"Labour cuts are coming"

—we now know that he was correct—and that those cuts

"are far worse than any cuts the Tory party would impose"—[Official Report, 11 June 2009; c 18308.]

with what is emanating from the Tory Opposition in Westminster, which seems to be, "Cut first, and cut most."

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-1872)

The next meeting of the Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland

Mr Salmond froze the council tax in his Government's first budget to take the sting out of a difficult issue and give time to introduce a local income tax. Local income tax has been dumped by the Scottish National Party, so the justification for a central Government imposed tax regime on local government surely no longer exists.

In evidence to the Local Government and Communities Committee, Dundee City Council stated that a freeze in the council tax "may not be sustainable" and that the pressures that it creates put at risk support for children, homelessness services and business advice. Highland Council and Aberdeenshire Council are saying similar things, as are Falkirk Council and South Ayrshire Council. Does the First Minister agree with those councils that today's budget should give them the money to allow them to make the choice and decide whether to freeze the council tax or protect the services that they were elected to deliver?

I remember two things. I remember Tavish Scott, or his party at least, telling us that the council tax could not be frozen in Scotland. The council tax has been frozen in Scotland. On the subject of councils responding to the tight financial environment, I suspect that all the councils that Tavish Scott mentions, and every other public service and authority in Scotland, will be grateful that we did not take his advice and chop £800 million off the Scottish budget by reducing income tax.

Of course, that was nothing to do with the question that I asked. [Interruption.]

Order.

Dundee City Council is an SNP council and it is worried about what the First Minister's policy will do to its services. I do not know why he will not listen to that. For local people, the issue is whether their local council can keep care homes open, provide specialist help to vulnerable children and keep teachers at work. Those are front-line services on which people rely. Why, then, does the First Minister want to make decisions about them in Bute house? Why will local councillors and local people not get to make them? Is the First Minister not simply nationalising the policy and localising the blame?

I would have thought that the incentive that the finance secretary has provided over the past two years to freeze the council tax, which has been taken up by every single local authority in Scotland, has been a substantial success. If Tavish Scott is truly concerned about the £70 million that will go to local authorities to allow them to freeze the council tax in the continuing recession, why on earth is he not concerned about the £800 million that he wanted to cut from public services in Scotland? Tavish Scott said that that has nothing to do with his first question. I would have thought that proposing, as he did, a cut of 10 times the £70 million incentive is exactly the question. I know that it has been six months or so since Tavish Scott proposed that policy, and I know that six months is a difficult gap for the Liberals to bridge, but it is very relevant to the question.

I have a number of requests for constituency questions.

The First Minister will be well aware of Bausch & Lomb's announcement of the closure of its Livingston site and the transfer of all production to Ireland. Will he guarantee that the Scottish Government will continue vigorously to explore all options with a view to saving jobs in Livingston? Does he agree that there has been an injustice to the 500-strong workforce, who have been crucial to the success, efficiency and productivity of Bausch & Lomb in Livingston?

Yes, I agree with that. We are all hugely disappointed that Bausch & Lomb reached the decision that it did, particularly as it is clearly no reflection on the skilled and valued workforce in Livingston. We have made every effort to offer alternatives. We have explored every option in relation to future use of the site and support for the workforce that has been affected by Bausch & Lomb's decision. I have met the company's chief executive officer twice and Scottish Development International sent a team to Rochester with two alternative proposals that would have allowed the Livingston site to continue in production.

The company has indicated its willingness to discuss research and development possibilities, and that has been actively followed up by SDI, as indeed will every other option that comes forward as an alternative to closure. All of that will be part of the obligation that we have to assist both the workforce individually and the community in general, who are bearing the brunt of the closure decision.

Does the First Minister share my concern at plans by the international company that produces Chambers reference books to close its Scottish office in my constituency with the loss of all jobs? Will he do everything he can to support the staff of this most historic and iconic of Scottish publishers and to question the stated reasons for this unnecessary closure?

Yes. I am concerned about the point raised by the constituency member and I will ensure that the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism and the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth discuss it with him and the company concerned.

Will the First Minister join me in congratulating the community on Uist on its successful campaign to maintain jobs at the Hebrides range? [Interruption.]

Order.

The people have done so in the face of proposals by the Ministry of Defence's contractor that would have been logistically impractical and would have had devastating consequences for the islands. Does the First Minister share my regret that the community was put through the trauma of the whole episode in the first place?

It is of enormous credit to the community of the Uists and the dedication and hard work of the Hebrides range task force that they have been able to give the United Kingdom Government pause for thought over what was a short-sighted proposal for the range. [Interruption.] I say to the whole chamber that when a constituency member talks about jobs in his constituency he is entitled to be listened to and answered with respect. I congratulate all who worked tirelessly over recent weeks to make a robust and persuasive case to the MOD and to reject the damaging proposals. The Government looks forward to continuing to work with the Hebrides range task force as it takes forward proposals to develop the range's potential.

Is the First Minister aware that my constituency has suffered one of the highest rates of increase in unemployment in Scotland and that the scale of the problem was exemplified last week when almost 6,000 job application forms were issued to people hoping to obtain one of the 400 jobs that will be created when Tesco opens its new store in Bellshill? Is the First Minister also aware that the number of clients seeking careers advice at the Bellshill careers service has doubled in the past year? If so, does he agree that Skills Development Scotland's decision last week to close the service is madness? Is he as concerned as I am that SDS has chosen to abandon one of the hardest hit areas in Scotland to save the £100 a week that it costs to rent the office of the local Mosshill Credit Union? Will he join me in calling on SDS to reverse this ludicrous decision, or does he agree with the organisation that the unemployed workers and young people of Bellshill and Viewpark are not worth £100 of his Government's money?

That is not the view of Skills Development Scotland. No community in Scotland will be left without support for skills development; indeed, the skills action plan is achieving significant support and success the length and breadth of the country. Recently, we have undertaken a joint initiative with Jobcentre Plus to advertise skills training throughout the country.

I am hugely aware of the seriousness of unemployment in many areas of Scotland. The significance of yesterday's figures was not, as some said, that the increase was half that of levels elsewhere in the UK, but that thousands more people were out of work in Scotland. As a result, I think that, right now, it is rather important for the Parliament to press unitedly for the acceleration of capital investment into next year and allow the 5,000 jobs that the funding can support to continue in our economy. Although there are indications of recovery throughout the country, that recovery is, at best, fragile, which is why the Parliament needs to press unitedly not just on the skills action plan but in maintaining vital employment through that vital capital investment.

---

University Tuition Fees

To ask the First Minister what consideration the Scottish Government has made of the call by Stewart Sutherland for the reintroduction of university tuition fees. (S3F-1879)

Lord Sutherland is entitled to his views, but we disagree that Scotland should reintroduce the tuition fees that were so recently abolished by this Government and Parliament. We have always made it clear that we believe access to higher education should be based on the ability to learn, not the ability to pay, and up to 50,000 students and graduates have benefited from the abolition of the fees. We are investing a higher proportion of our budget and spending in Scotland's universities than the previous Administration did, with the figure up from 3.73 to 3.79 per cent.

Does the First Minister share the concern that has been expressed by the rector of the University of Edinburgh, Iain Macwhirter, that some are attempting to paint Scotland's system of free education as a dangerous anachronism? Does he agree with Mr Macwhirter that the introduction of uncapped fees for tuition would turn our great egalitarian seats of learning into anachronistic bastions of privilege?

I agree with the rector of the University of Edinburgh. We should remember that Scotland's universities rank in the top echelons of the world, not just on teaching and access to education but on research. For example, on research papers relative to gross domestic product, with 1 per cent of citations, we are ranked second, just behind Switzerland and ahead of the United States. I do not see any dangerous anachronism in that performance by universities.

I noticed that, a week ago, the new president of Universities UK, Professor Steve Smith, who was speaking at the body's annual conference in Edinburgh last Thursday, said on the issue of tuition fees:

"The issue is … irrelevant in Scotland. It's not something we are thinking about. Because the funding level is roughly comparable (with England's) it seems to me there is no issue."

The vast majority of people in Scotland, based on an informed opinion, support the principle of free education and will not wish it to be reversed.

The First Minister will surely know that, just as there is no such thing as a free lunch, there is no such thing as free education. Somebody has to pay and, in the case of universities, it is the taxpayer. Scottish universities are concerned that they will fall behind better-funded counterparts down south. Surely the way in which to address those concerns is to set up an independently chaired review of higher education funding, as we have called for. What is the First Minister afraid of?

There is a bit of replay about Murdo Fraser. Analysis has taken place and meetings have been held between the universities and the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning. In balancing the views on the issue and comparing the opinions of Murdo Fraser, deputy leader of the Conservative party in Scotland, and Professor Steve Smith, president of Universities UK, I am sure that Murdo Fraser will forgive me if I take Steve Smith's opinion, as expressed in Edinburgh last week, as having slightly more authority on the funding position of our universities than even that of Murdo Fraser.

Does the First Minister recognise that, in all the debates on student and university funding, there are huge concerns about the levels of support that students receive while they study? Will he consider seriously the proposal from the Opposition parties to make maximum use of the £30 million that is allocated for student support?

We are working carefully on how we can enhance student support in Scotland. To return to the original question, I am sure that the member will acknowledge that reimposing tuition fees throughout Scotland would not and could not be the right way to proceed. We are working to enhance student support where we can within the budgets that we have. However, the principle of free education should be welcomed and supported throughout the country. I see Lord George Foulkes shaking his head—I must say that Lord George's support for tuition fees is one reason why he is not rector of the University of Edinburgh and Iain Macwhirter is.

---

Class Sizes

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government remains committed to achieving the Scottish National Party manifesto pledge of a maximum class size of 18 for primaries 1 to 3 within the current parliamentary session. (S3F-1876)

As stated in our concordat with local government, we will continue to work with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to deliver our class size commitment. We are making significant progress. Across all schools, we have a record low pupil teacher ratio of 13.1; in primary schools, we have the lowest ever average class size at 23.2; the percentage of pupils in P1 to P3 classes of 18 or under is increasing; and the percentage of pupils in P1 to P3 in large classes over 25 reduced by 15 per cent in the past year.

Does the First Minister agree that it is wrong to leave parents and local authorities to battle it out in the courts over parental choice, placing requests and class sizes? Does he believe that legislation is needed to set a new limit of 25 and that that would help him to achieve his class size targets?

The matter is under active consideration. As the member well knows, we have had representations from, among others, Councillor Alan Lafferty of East Renfrewshire Council. Councillor Lafferty wrote:

"As discussed at our previous meeting, it would be helpful for this Council if legislation were amended with respect to class sizes …. Whilst this will not allow us to reach the target of 18 in our most popular schools, it would at least allow us to work towards the target."

The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning considers such representations carefully.

The public sector employment statistics that came out yesterday highlighted the scandalous drop of 1,000 in teacher numbers. How does the First Minister explain that drop and how will it affect his Government's class size pledge? With his education secretary burying her head in the sand and blaming councils, will the First Minister admit finally that his class size policy is failing because it is not backed up legislatively or financially by the Scottish Government?

Local authorities have record funding for their purposes under the concordat—[Interruption.]

Order.

Even in the tightest of financial climates, the percentage of funding going to local authorities will increase when compared with that under the previous Labour and Liberal Administration. I will not go back through all the statistics that I have just recited to Ken Macintosh for Margaret Smith's benefit to indicate that we are making progress towards the target. It is the case, of course, that it is local councils that make decisions to employ teachers in Scotland. I regret the drop in teacher numbers, as recorded by the teacher surveys. I also note that a quarter of that drop occurred in one single council area: Glasgow.

---

Budget 2010-11 (Public Sector Jobs)

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government intends to halt the growth in public sector jobs as part of its 2010-11 budget. (S3F-1890)

Since May 2007, we have reduced the number of public bodies in Scotland from 199 to 162 and increased the number of staff working in front-line services. There are now more general practitioners, dentists, nurses, consultants and midwives and far more police than there were in 2007, and our pupil teacher ratio is at an historic low for the second year running. I would like to know which of those vital front-line jobs Jeremy Purvis would like us to cut.

The questions are to the First Minister.

The figures to which the First Minister referred are in the so-called slimming-down section of the official figures that were published yesterday. It shows that the number of people working in quangos under his direct control has gone up by 2,040 since he took office. Does the First Minister regret that too?

Although councils are reducing the number of teachers, central Government in Scotland has increased by 800 the number of civil servants over the same period. Does the First Minister regret that too? Will the budget halt the growth in numbers of core civil servants and quango staff, or will the trend of growth continue under his Administration?

What I regret is Jeremy Purvis's total inability to read the statistics publication notice, particularly where it explains that the number of core staff in the Scottish Government has declined. The increase in staff to which he referred in his press release yesterday has been caused by central Government taking in staff from Communities Scotland, the Scottish Agricultural Science Agency, the Scottish Building Standards Agency, Fisheries Research Services, the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency and, of particular interest, the Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland. The number of core staff in the Scottish Government has declined.

Although I accept that Jeremy Purvis's error is not as dramatic as Iain Gray's error about the privatisation of social work staff by Glasgow City Council, if he is going to look at a statistical bulletin, it is best that he looks at its detail and does not release his press statement before he understands the figures.

Will the First Minister give me an assurance, as regards possible cuts to the personnel employed in local government, that he will have nothing more to do with artificially set class sizes that do not carry over from one authority to another or from one subject to another? On top of that, will he be guided by the principle of first working out the worth of the work that is done by people who may well have to have their jobs curtailed by having shorter hours, for example?

I do not think that having lower class sizes is an unreasonable objective to be set by the Government, nor do councils throughout Scotland. That is why in the concordat, the councils agreed to work towards lower class sizes and to make progress on a year-to-year basis.

I know that Margo MacDonald is a long-standing opponent of the utility and worth of lower class sizes, but we believe that there is substantial international evidence that, particularly in the early years of primary, lower class sizes can be extremely effective in enhancing a child's ability to learn. I am proud of the fact that we are trying to reduce class sizes in Scotland. I will defend that policy and I believe that, as the concordat indicates, councils throughout the country are very positive about the policy, too.

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—