Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Thursday, March 29, 2012

Official Report 1082KB pdf

---

First Minister’s Question Time

---

Engagements

1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-00591)

I will be meeting Fergus Ewing, the Minister for Energy, Enterprise and Tourism. I am delighted to tell the chamber that figures this morning show that we have smashed the Government’s target to meet 31 per cent of Scotland’s electricity demand from renewables in 2011 by reaching a figure of no less than 35 per cent, which is an extraordinary achievement for Scotland.

I should also inform the chamber that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth, John Swinney, is participating in this morning’s United Kingdom Government COBRA meeting to discuss the tanker drivers’ dispute. We will hold our own Scottish Government resilience meeting this afternoon to ensure that sensible contingencies are in place to deal with any eventuality. I reinforce support for those who are calling for cool heads in the situation. I welcome the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service talks that are taking place tomorrow. I urge both sides to resolve a dispute for which no strike dates have yet been called. The priority is surely to prevent a strike, not to issue unwise advice about jerry cans. More Government preparation is what is required to promote calm and orderly behaviour in the population at large.

It was reported this week that seven out of 10 primary school pupils are succeeding in numeracy but, two years later at secondary school, nearly six out of ten of them are failing. Why is it that so many of our secondary school children do not have basic counting skills?

There are two aspects to the statistics that have been released that I think we should stress as a chamber. First, the statistics show the dramatic, extraordinary effect of curriculum for excellence in our primary schools. The teachers, pupils and parents of Scotland should be celebrating these incredible, very substantial statistics—where curriculum for excellence has been introduced, it is showing marvellous results.

Secondly, as far as the secondary school statistics are concerned, the figure of 40 per cent that has been widely reported is a measurement that relates to where pupils are expected to be at the end of secondary 3, not just where they are in S2. The statistics surely indicate that we are on the right track in introducing curriculum for excellence—I hope that we can all welcome that.

I do not think that the statistics indicate any such thing. Indeed, both the Scottish Secondary Teachers Association and Lindsay Paterson have said that Mike Russell’s claim that the improvement in primary school numeracy skills is due to the curriculum for excellence is wrong, as it is far too early for the curriculum for excellence to have had any impact. He may wish to reflect on that.

Perhaps I can explain this serious issue in a way that the First Minister might understand. The odds of a second-year pupil in Scotland hitting the required numeracy standards are 3-2 against. Those might be good odds if someone wants to win a few bob at Musselburgh, but they are not so good for those of us who are parents sending our children to school under the Scottish National Party.

In 2003, Labour introduced a cap of 20 pupils for every S1 and S2 English and maths class to raise literacy and numeracy standards. The First Minister dropped that pledge. Does he agree that Scottish pupils are now paying the price for that mistake?

That is really not the way to treat this extraordinarily serious subject. First, we should not downgrade the achievements at primary school level. The survey itself is an indication of national performance in numeracy. We never had these statistics before—in all the years of Labour and Liberal administration, we did not even choose to measure numeracy. Having measured it, let us at least have the grace to congratulate our teachers, in particular, and our pupils. The survey shows that 99 per cent of primary 4 pupils and 98 per cent of primary 7 pupils were performing within or above the expected levels. In anyone’s terms, however it is calculated, that is an exceptional result.

I will just correct Johann Lamont about the secondary school figures. Forty-two per cent of S2 pupils were performing very well or well at the level that must be met by the end of S3, and a further 26 per cent were performing within that level. I know that that is not necessarily the shortened version that was reported, but that is what the statistics show.

I will say three things. First, it is right to take a measurement, because if we do not have a measurement, how on earth can we have a baseline against which to measure standards? Secondly, we have substantial indications that curriculum for excellence is producing extraordinary results through the work and dedication of teachers in our primary schools. Thirdly, although we have had challenges in secondary schools, let us not exaggerate what the statistics mean. Let us continue on the path of introducing curriculum for excellence throughout Scottish education, so that the exceptional performance in our primary schools can soon be replicated in our secondary schools.

The First Minister says that I should take this question seriously; it is about time that he took his job seriously and answered the question. The thing about statistics is that we cannot select the ones that make us feel good about ourselves—which the First Minister has done. Government has to respond to what the statistics say. The statistics tell us that there is a two in five chance of being numerate in secondary school in Scotland. That should be a spur to action, not to a scurrying about for some justification. As I have indicated, that is a nonsense.

The First Minister and I might not agree on education policy generally, but I am sure that we can agree that there is nothing as negative in politics as a promise not kept. Let us look at the promises that he made to Scotland’s parents and pupils: a nursery teacher for every child, promised but not delivered; a maintaining of teacher numbers, promised but not delivered; class sizes of 18 or fewer for primary 1 to 3, promised but not delivered; the curriculum for excellence that he talks about, promised but not delivered; and today, two guaranteed hours of physical education every day, promised, now repromised, and still not delivered. I make that zero out of five—[Interruption.]

Order. We will hear the member.

The First Minister should understand what he promised and his failure to deliver—if he wants to make a difference for the people of this country. I make the First Minister’s record zero out of five. I could go on. Let me explain to him that education is a priority for every parent in Scotland. Does he not understand that there is nothing crueller than making promises to children that he has no intention of keeping?

And there is nothing dafter than making things up, if I may say so.

In her question, Johann Lamont managed to say that we had made a pledge for two hours of PE every day. I am afraid that Johann Lamont should read her papers out better. She also said that we had made a pledge for a nursery teacher for every child, but not even the Scottish National Party has made such pledges. This all indicates that both numeracy and literacy are probably very important in the chamber as well as in Scottish classrooms.

The pledges of the SNP Government were judged by the Scottish people at last year’s election, and Labour deputy leader Johann Lamont and her party were found sadly wanting.

A lot of young people will be sitting exams in the near future and, as teachers, we always knew to advise them, “Answer the question.” Again, the First Minister fails to do that.

Last week, the First Minister’s health secretary was bottom of the class, and—despite his protestations—his education secretary, Mike Russell, has the dunce’s cap this week. We found out last Thursday that the First Minister will deny the truth until he is confronted by it. What a shame that the public gallery is not big enough to seat the 30,000 second-year pupils his Government is failing in numeracy alone. While he waits for Scotland’s future to be decided in his referendum in 1,000 days, the future of young Scots is being determined today. In the spirit of being helpful, if the First Minister cannot keep his own promises, may I offer him one of ours? Will he, as a matter of urgency, bring specialist teams into our schools to help our children to learn how to count?

It would be helpful to Scottish education and to the chamber if Johann Lamont would try to take a balanced view and consider the statistics, the details of which I have given to the chamber. Also, somebody who made two such elementary and appalling blunders when asking her questions should not start talking about dunce’s caps. I am answering Johann Lamont’s questions having interpreted them as best as anybody possibly could. I am not responsible if she cannot think of the right questions.

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S4F-00589)

I have no plans to meet the Secretary of State for Scotland in the near future.

Johann Lamont has just rightly raised a string of Scottish National Party Government failures on education, which will result by the end of the current session of Parliament in a generation of schoolchildren who have been failed by the SNP. The Government’s answer—apart from attacking the critic—is that curriculum for excellence will solve all the problems. That claim was directly attacked by teaching unions yesterday as “not credible”. The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning was even more blasé, dismissing the worrying maths failures as

“the same as they have been for the last few generations”.

What a depressing lack of ambition. Is the First Minister satisfied that Mike Russell’s answer is good enough?

As I mentioned to Johann Lamont, this is the first time that such a survey has been conducted in Scottish education. Conducting the survey is a sign of our commitment to drive up standards of literacy and numeracy in Scottish schools. I repeat to Ruth Davidson what I said to Johann Lamont: she should consider the exceptional figures in primary education, where curriculum for excellence has been introduced. I will repeat them: 99 per cent of primary 4 pupils and 98 per cent of primary 7 pupils are performing within or above expected levels. That strikes me as substantially good and an excellent performance.

The survey indicates that we have challenges to meet in secondary education, but it allows us the hope and belief that curriculum for excellence will help in that process. That view is supported by Scotland’s teaching union, the Educational Institute of Scotland, which is a strong supporter of curriculum for excellence and sees its value, perhaps because it has so many members in primary schools.

I was struck, at the Conservative Party conference—

You were not there—Chic Brodie was.

The member says that I was not there; neither was anyone else by the look of it.

I was struck by Ruth Davidson’s pledge to the Labour Party that

“Scotland expects us to work together, and we are.”

That is the truth of it: the two anti-independence parties are united in their negativity and nihilism.

Chic Brodie tried to get into the conference, for a start.

There was no attempt in that answer to address the massive drop-off in standards that is failing our secondary school pupils. That is why the Scottish Secondary Teachers Association said that using curriculum for excellence as a sticking plaster is not a credible position. Last week, the education secretary was forced into a U-turn because teachers know that their schools are simply not ready to deliver the new exams. He had been turning a deaf ear to them for months.

It is not just teachers: chairs of university courts are deeply unhappy about the Government’s plans for university governance, and college students are worried about cut courses. One of our most respected educationists, Professor Lindsay Paterson, is warning that teachers are being failed in their training and that many are not competent enough to teach maths. That comes 15 months after the Government’s own report, by Graham Donaldson, said the same thing.

Amid that growing chorus of criticism, we have an education secretary who is arrogant enough to think that he knows better than the educational experts, the universities and the college students, and who is magisterially dismissive of schoolteachers. Is it not time for the First Minister to get on top of the education secretary, call him into his office and demand that he stops failing Scotland’s young people?

I will have to decline that invitation. I did not think that it was Chic Brodie who was trying to get into the Tory conference—I thought that it was Brian Donohoe, who was then turned away.

On the serious issue of the survey, as Ruth Davidson seems to regard my and Mike Russell’s answers with some scepticism—although the Tories do not have a single idea on Scottish education—I will quote Professor Gordon Stobart from the Institute of Education at the University of London. He said:

“Scotland has, in the SSLN, a national resource that other countries can only envy. National surveys are a trusted way of assessing national standards ... When the SSLN findings are then used to develop resources and support for teachers they also offer a powerful formative contribution to teaching and learning.”

The survey, which indicates the excellence of the results in primary schools, which not even Ruth Davidson can deny, is part of a process of driving up standards in Scottish education. The ability to do that, against extraordinary funding cuts from Westminster—the greatest in living memory—is a singular achievement of this Government.

Finally—this will be the first and last time that I quote the Daily Mail in the chamber—on the day on which the front page of the Daily Mail’s front page says of the Westminster Government, “Pasties, Petrol and the Politics of Panic”, I hardly think that it behoves any Tory to lecture this Government about competence.

The First Minister will be aware of the on-going situation on the Elgin platform that is operated by Total in the North Sea. What input has the Scottish Government had into the on-going monitoring, and what discussions has it had with United Kingdom ministers and industry representatives regarding contingencies for gas supply? Will he join me in welcoming the speedy evacuation of the platform, which ensured that the safety of hundreds of offshore workers was not placed at risk?

I am glad that Mark McDonald included the last part of his question, as all of us should welcome the safe evacuation of personnel from the Elgin offshore platform.

Members will also wish to be aware that Richard Lochhead and Scottish Government officials have been in regular contact with Total and the UK Government about the on-going incident. Yesterday, a governmental interest group met to monitor the Elgin incident. The meeting was attended by Marine Scotland on behalf of the Scottish Government, alongside the Department of Energy and Climate Change, a representative of the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, the Health and Safety Executive and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. That group will now meet on an on-going basis.

Through Marine Scotland, the Scottish Government is responsible for the marine environment. Marine Scotland’s scientists are, therefore, continuing to review any environmental implications. Thus far, they are minimal but, nonetheless, we should not underestimate the serious of the incident.

We will remain in close contact with the primary responders about the incident. We have made it clear to Total and others that the Scottish Government will continue to assist in any way that we can and that we insist on total transparency in terms of the release of information.

Speaking of working together and protecting our people, will the First Minister join me in condemning the change in the approach of the Ministry of Defence under the Tory-led coalition? It is now saying that it will not accept liability for the radiation in Dalgety Bay, whereas the previous Labour Government said that it would. Will the First Minister request an urgent meeting with the Prime Minister and demand that the polluter-pays principle be urgently applied and honoured in Dalgety Bay in order to address the concerns that have been put to me by my constituents? It is important that the First Minister personally meets the Prime Minister to add his voice to the many from across my constituency and right along the coast. Indeed, Roderick Campbell has even written on the matter.

I do not underestimate the seriousness of this issue. I am not sure that the MOD has ever acted with any great alacrity on the issue in the recent past. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency is insisting on the application of the regulations on environmental clean-up and on a proper reflection of the polluter-pays principle. We should allow those processes to take their course, and discussions are not at an end yet. With regard to Helen Eadie’s suggestion of personal intervention with the Prime Minister, I think that we might well reach the stage at which that will be required. I do not by any means rule that out.

It is necessary—Helen Eadie could reflect on this—that we approach the issue in a way that reflects its seriousness for the residents of the area and for the Scottish environment, and that we, as a Parliament, insist that the polluter-pays principle is reflected in the action to come.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

3. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-00576)

Issues of importance to the people of Scotland.

The First Minister’s Government previously described proposals in the Scotland Bill as a “dog’s breakfast”, “a poison pill” and “dangerous”. The First Minister had six red lines. Last week, he decided to support the Scotland Bill. What has been the major change to it that we have missed? What has changed?

I have always been struck by some of the comments that I have heard from the Liberal Democrats. I understood that the six things that we suggested as improvements to the Scotland Bill either were or have been at some time Liberal Democrat policy. I can understand the political debate but, as far as I understand the Liberal Democrats’ position, they are celebrating the fact that they have not managed to implement their own policy. Perhaps that is the nasty effect of their senior partners in the coalition, who must be an increasing and daily embarrassment for Willie Rennie and his colleagues. That is, of course, the principal reason why Willie Rennie has so few colleagues in the Parliament.

The Scotland Bill has been overtaken by events. Very shortly, the people of Scotland will have the opportunity to transform our circumstances, and I very much believe that we will seize that opportunity.

I can understand why the First Minister might be a wee bit reluctant to tell us that he was satisfied with two reviews over three years and a major concession on—listen to this—dental hygienists. He is some negotiator. If he tears up his red lines like that on devolution, how will he manage on independence, when he has to negotiate with the rest of the world?

The Scotland Bill is a major step forward, and the powers in it are coming soon. How does the First Minister plan to use the stamp duty power and what will be the first capital projects that will benefit from the new borrowing powers?

I do not think that capital budgets are a particularly strong point for the Liberal Democrats at the moment, given that the Westminster Government cut Scotland’s capital budget by 30 per cent. Methods of increasing the capital budget have been found only through John Swinney’s ingenuity and strength.

Let me return to where Willie Rennie stands. [Interruption.] I know that he stands over there—he just does not ask the questions very well. Only a few seconds ago, Tavish Scott was electrifying the chamber with a demand for the double devolution of the Crown estate. That was one thing that we suggested should be in the Scotland Bill—incidentally, the Scottish Parliament voted overwhelming for that policy. As far as I understand it, Willie Rennie’s position is that not putting that in the Scotland Bill is not an embarrassment for the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is meant to believe in it, or a comment on the Westminster Government for not accepting the verdict of its own parliamentary committee that the Crown estate should be devolved, but a comment on the Scottish National Party Government, which wants it there. That is exactly why, when it comes to the referendum, people will vote to take the future of our country into our own hands so that we are not dependent on Tories and Liberals at Westminster.

---

Alcohol Pricing

4. To ask the First Minister what discussions the Scottish Government has had with the United Kingdom Government on alcohol pricing. (S4F-00594)

There are continuing discussions. We have had extensive discussions at both ministerial and official level with the UK Government. Scotland is somewhat ahead of the game in taking bold action to tackle alcohol misuse, and last week’s news that the UK Government is moving on to that ground is extremely welcome.

I welcome the Scottish Government’s leadership on the issue.

As the First Minister will be aware, Scots drink nearly a quarter more than their counterparts in England and Wales, and that fuels the much higher levels of alcohol-related harm here. Indeed, it has been estimated that the total cost of alcohol misuse to Scotland averages £3.6 billion every year. Does he agree that it is important to find consensus on such an important cause? Does he, as I do, find it difficult to understand and, frankly, pathetic that the only party that continues to oppose minimum pricing is the Scottish Labour Party?

That is a perfectly legitimate question, but Gil Paterson should be fully accurate. As I understand the position, not all of the Scottish Labour Party opposes minimum pricing. I am not talking about just Malcolm Chisholm, who has been an honourable supporter of that policy. Johann Lamont leads the Scottish Labour Party as a whole, but the Scottish Labour Party’s representatives at Westminster are in favour of minimum pricing, as I understand it from last Friday’s statement. We have a situation in which the Scottish Labour Party at Westminster is in favour of minimum pricing for England, but the Scottish Labour Party in Scotland, by majority, is against it for Scotland, where our difficulties with alcohol are even greater than England’s. It will require all Johann Lamont’s numerical and literary skills to resolve that dilemma.

I welcome the fact that, in the space of only a few months, we have managed to convince UK Government ministers that the hitherto unbreakable legal obstacles that they thought prevented the introduction of minimum pricing have somehow magically disappeared. I suspect that a few other legal obstacles will magically disappear when the people of Scotland indicate their determination on a variety of matters.

May I add to Gil Paterson’s comments by saying that although Scots drink 23 per cent more than people in England, they do so at exactly the same price as people in England pay for their drinks? The position of the Scottish Labour Party is that we remain very sceptical of minimum unit pricing.

Does the First Minister accept that there is validity to our greatest concern, which is the windfall profits of more than £100 million—in UK terms, the figure is likely to be more than £1 billion—which will go mainly to the supermarkets? Does he accept that the unintended consequences of such a windfall, the dangers of which have been pointed out by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, are important? Will he look again at the fact that the Scottish Labour Party, despite its scepticism, is offering to make the policy one that has unanimous support, provided that the Government agrees to claw back the entire windfall profits?

As I understood the Labour Party’s position, it was against the health-related levy on major supermarkets, too. If this is another change of policy, I welcome it, of course. It would be far better if Richard Simpson gracefully accepted that Labour is going to have to get on board the minimum pricing argument. In the context of Labour’s embarrassment, I suspect that the sooner the party gets to that position, the better.

---

College Courses

5. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to recent reports of reductions in the number of college courses across the country. (S4F-00595)

Hugh Henry is aware that the Scottish Government is committed to maintaining student college places in 2012-13. Many colleges are moving their provision away from short-term courses that do not lead to qualifications, to give greater focus to longer-term courses that lead to recognised qualifications, which improve students’ employment prospects.

The shift to high-quality full-time places is reaping benefits. The most recent figures show a 9 per cent increase in the number of full-time students on advanced courses and a 1 per cent increase for full-time non-advanced courses. Even better, students are achieving more. Completion rates have increased from 64 per cent to 67 per cent for advanced courses and from 60 per cent to 62 per cent for non-advanced courses. I hope that Hugh Henry can find it in himself to welcome those encouraging indications.

What is actually happening in Scotland’s colleges is completely different from what the First Minister is saying in the Parliament. Recent figures show that 592 academic staff have been made redundant and at least 23 colleges have cut courses, with more cuts to come. Reid Kerr College, in Paisley, which is an excellent college, is having to cut an additional 800 student places. Does he think that that is acceptable?

The statistics are as I gave them, so if Hugh Henry does not believe me, perhaps I should give him the absolute detail. The number of full-time enrolments on further education courses has gone from 42,745 in 2007-08 to 48,683 last year, and the figure for higher education courses has gone from 24,900 to 30,947. Hugh Henry should accept that the figures show an encouraging trend. The completion rates on the courses are a tribute to lecturers and students and the hard work that they are putting in.

---

Cities and Towns (Economic Performance)

6. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is on the recent UHY Hacker Young report on the economic performance of cities and towns. (S4F-00597)

The report is encouraging, because it indicates the outstanding economic strength of Scotland’s cities. In terms of gross value added per head, three of the top five United Kingdom cities are in Scotland. Aberdeen was the fastest-growing city in the year to 2010, and gross value added per head in Edinburgh was the highest of any UK city. It is recognised that cities can be an engine of growth in the economy. The Scottish Government’s agenda for cities strategy will build on that success and deliver benefits, not just for cities but for the whole of Scotland.

I welcome the First Minister’s recognition that, despite the tough economic climate, Aberdeen, Glasgow and Edinburgh are all ranked in the top five in that report, with the people of Edinburgh being the biggest contributors to the UK economy. What further steps is the Scottish Government taking to build on that success and to encourage more jobs and more investment into and across Scotland?

The Scottish Government, in partnership with our agencies Scottish Enterprise and Scottish Development International, continues to encourage domestic and international companies to make significant investment in our cities. Just last week, Gamesa announced that it plans to create 800 jobs in the city of Edinburgh, as it locates its new manufacturing plant for wind turbine blades in Leith. That is further to recent announcements by companies such as Global Energy in Nigg, Michelin in Dundee and Amazon in Dunfermline, which, together, will create thousands of new jobs across Scotland.

Today, the Scottish Enterprise plan and programme was announced, which has an ambition to create 35,000 jobs by 2015 through foreign direct investment. In contrast to the lack of a plan for coherent growth in Westminster—that is Vince Cable’s assessment of George Osborne’s strategy—regions in Scotland continue to lead the way. Last month’s fDi Magazine “European Cities and Regions of the Future 2012/13” report ranked Edinburgh and Glasgow as numbers 1 and 2 in the top 10 of European cities with a population of between 500,000 and 1 million. There is a great deal to welcome in the economic performance of Scotland’s cities and the wider benefits that that will bring to the Scottish community as a whole.

12:31 Meeting suspended.

14:15 On resuming—