Plenary, 05 Feb 2004

Meeting date: Thursday, February 5, 2004

Official Report 753KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

I would prefer to take points of order at the end of First Minister's question time. Is the point absolutely essential?

No. In fact, the guidance that I sought was whether the point of order would be more convenient now or at the end.

It would be more convenient at the end.

---

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-599)

I expect to meet the Prime Minister later this month and I expect that we will have a lot to discuss.

I may add one other issue to the discussions. Given that people in Scotland have been hit by huge increases in their water bills, was it a wise decision by the Government to remove from Scottish Water's 2002 budget the sum of £100 million?

Some claims that have been made about the financial arrangements at Scottish Water have been rightly pointed out by the minister involved as being untrue. Fergus Ewing's extravagant claims about the accountancy at Scottish Water and the Scottish Executive have yet again been shown to be not just exaggerations but diversions from the important debate that we should have. It is important that we invest in water and sewerage services in Scotland to get them to the quality that they need to be at, not just because of European regulations but because it matters that we have clean water in Scotland. That is the reason not only for the investment that we put into Scottish Water but for this week's increases in charges, which are regrettable but necessary.

I am puzzled by the First Minister's answer because the source of my point about the removal of £100 million from Scottish Water's budget was not Fergus Ewing—reliable source that he happens to be—but the Minister for Finance and Public Services, Mr Kerr, who told Parliament on 26 June 2002:

"I have more good news to report."—[Official Report, 26 June 2002; c 13041.]

He said that he had removed £100 million from Scottish Water's budget.

Since 1999, water charges have risen by 89 per cent in the east of Scotland; by 79 per cent in the west; and by 63 per cent in the north. At the same time, the Government has removed significant sums of money from Scottish Water's budget. In the light of those enormous increases in water bills, how can the First Minister justify the removal of £100 million from Scottish Water's budget?

Scottish Water's investment programme is not affected in any way by that decision. The investment programme is vital, which is why charges for next year have been increased in parts of Scotland. Mr Swinney seems to live in an imaginary land where money grows on trees and people do not have to raise money from somewhere or make choices and priorities. In the past week we have heard claims about amounts of money, such as the £47 million for higher education; the £18 million that Fiona Hyslop's opposition to charges at the Scottish Qualifications Authority would cost; or, today, the £100 million for Scottish Water. Choices have to be made and the right choices are being made. We are spending money on education, health, tackling crime and, as was announced yesterday, housing and regeneration. Those are the real priorities.

More and more in the water industry, water and sewerage charges are paying for improvements in water services. That is a tough and difficult decision to make, but it is the right one and one that will result in improved water and sewerage services in Scotland in the years to come.

Again, I am puzzled by the First Minister's answer. At Tuesday's meeting of the Finance Committee, the former minister with responsibility for water, Wendy Alexander, said that "very little" of the income from the sharply rising charges since the establishment of Scottish Water "was spent on infrastructure". The First Minister had better get his story right about how the Government spends its money. Does he accept that there is growing anger about the massive increases in water charges; about the fact that, as we are beginning to see, money is not being invested; and about the £100 million that has been taken away from Scottish Water's budget to pay for Labour's election pledges last May? Would it not be better to use the £100 million to give much-needed relief to Scottish Water's customers rather than to squander it on the Labour Government's pet projects?

Mr Swinney might think that schools and hospitals are pet projects, but I have to take a slightly different approach.

I ask Mr Swinney to get his facts right. Wendy Alexander might well once have been offered the post of minister with responsibility for water, but I do not think that she became the minister with responsibility for water. Of course, she was influential in all our discussions then and remains so.

It is important to be consistent from week to week. Only last week, senior figures in the nationalist party—in particular, its finance spokesperson Fergus Ewing—called for reductions in business charges for water services in Scotland. This week, we announced an increase in business charges by less than the rate of inflation and we recently announced that the same will happen with business rates. The SNP cannot even welcome that and support something for two weeks in a row. A decent increase and a new tariff for low users are important for Scottish businesses.

There is a big but. There was an important decision for us to make, although it was not easy. There has been as much anger in Scotland about the quality of our water as there has been about increases in water charges. If we want to increase the quality of our water and sewerage services and deliver the investment that will ensure that we have the housing programmes and developments that we need throughout Scotland, investment must be made and paid for and charges must increase. That is regrettable but necessary and will be good for Scotland in the long term.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-609)

Next week, the Cabinet will again discuss our progress towards implementing the partnership agreement to build a better Scotland.

The Cabinet might also like to reflect on the Chancellor of the Exchequer's pre-budget statement in December, in which an additional £340 million—free of ring fencing—was allocated to councils in England. The Treasury calculated that that would lower the average band D council tax bill by £19. We received our Barnett share of the money that was allocated—some £47 million—which was enough to lower band D bills in Scotland by £25. As the council tax in Scotland has increased by 42 per cent since Labour came to power—which is double the rate of inflation in that time—I am sure that our hard-pressed council tax payers look forward to that money leading to a reduction in their bills. Will the First Minister advise us what is likely to happen to council tax bills in Scotland when they are set next week by our councils?

I am pleased that, since devolution, one result of the partnership Government in Scotland has been that council tax increases have been significantly less in Scotland than they have been in England over the same period. This year, they will again be significantly less in Scotland than in England—I believe that the figures are 3.9 per cent for Scotland and 12.9 per cent for England and I remind Mr McLetchie that that is largely the result of decisions that have been made by Tory councils. I believe that the figure for Wales is 9.8 per cent. Over the piece, not only have council tax increases in Scotland been less than in England, they have been significantly less than they were in the final years of the Conservative Government in the mid-1990s. The figures relating to increases in council tax that the Conservatives regularly quote usually take the whole 10-year period into account—they do not point out that increases in the past five years have been considerably less than in the previous five years.

We will carefully consider the money that the chancellor allocated to councils in England. However, money will be allocated to priorities in Scotland and will not be used as a one-off symbolic gesture, as Mr Swinney has proposed; it will not all be spent on higher education as a one-off payment that can never be repeated and that would not deal with higher education finance issues. Moreover, it will not simply be given to councils without any requirement relating to how it should be spent. We will base our decisions on priorities and spend money wisely to achieve best value.

Is it not extraordinary that, faced with any given opportunity to reduce the burden of tax on the people of Scotland, the Executive is certain to decline such an opportunity and adopt a course of action that will lead to tax increases instead? Is it the case that what unites the Executive parties—whether in relation to council tax, the favoured local income tax, business rates, water charges, the so-called graduate endowment or road tolls—is the instinct of both parties in the Administration to tax and charge people more? When will the First Minister and the Scottish Executive give the taxpayers of Scotland a break that they richly deserve?

As I said, council tax increases are substantially less in Scotland than they are in England. The money in England has been allocated largely because of the ridiculous decisions of Tory councils to escalate the council tax right across England. The chancellor has taken action, rightly, to try to ameliorate that situation. However, here in Scotland we have a sum of money available for one year, which we should spend wisely. I assure Mr McLetchie that when we introduce our proposals for spending that money, he will see that it will be spent to give real value for money for taxpayers and to serve the long-term interest of achieving efficiencies and a decent level of charging in our services. At that stage, I hope that he will be gracious enough to congratulate us on those decisions.

There are two urgent constituency questions from Scott Barrie and Bristow Muldoon.

The First Minister will be aware of the 90-day notices to 550 employees of Castleblair Ltd in Dunfermline and Glenrothes. Given that that is another result of the continuing cut-throat competition among high street retailers, can he assure me and, more important, the workers who are affected that he and the Scottish Cabinet will endeavour to do all that they can to preserve manufacturing and textile jobs in Scotland?

Clearly, we are doing all that we can not only to preserve existing jobs but, more important, to secure new jobs for Scotland in the longer term. We will do that by competing in new markets with high-value products, using the high levels of skills that exist in Scotland. We will do that more effectively by improving our transport and communication systems and by improving skill levels. That is why we continue to agree that it is better to invest in transport and skills, and communications infrastructures than to cut budgets in the way that the Opposition parties seem to want us to do.

Does the Cabinet intend to discuss the financial crisis that is being experienced by Scottish professional football, as witnessed this week by Livingston Football Club being moved into administration? Does the First Minister intend to ask the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport, Mr Frank McAveety, to convene meetings with the Scottish Premier League and other relevant bodies to discuss the way forward for our national sport?

Clearly, we are in regular conversation with football bodies about the future of the national game. The financial circumstances of individual clubs such as Dundee, Motherwell and Livingston—and even the situation facing Heart of Midlothian—are serious challenges and are regrettable, but they are the responsibility of the individual clubs. I hope that they will be able to solve their difficulties and remain successful clubs in the future.

It is more important for us to prepare for the future of the game in Scotland. We want to create the McCoists and Dalglishes of the future and ensure that youth football is more successful in the early years of the 21st century than it was in the latter years of the 20th century. That will be a big challenge. Mr McAveety is taking that forward in discussion with the Scottish Football Association and we hope to make an announcement soon.

---

Executive Priorities

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Executive's current highest priorities are. (S2F-621)

As stated in the partnership agreement, our top priority is to grow the Scottish economy more effectively than has been the case in the past. However, our immediate priority is to tackle crime and antisocial behaviour.

I suggest that honesty in politics, particularly in government, should be a high priority. I know that the First Minister has a problem with honest answers but, in light of the recent comments from David Kay of the Iraq survey group, Colin Powell and even George Bush, in relation to weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, will the First Minister now be honest and mature enough to admit that he was wrong in March last year when he told the Scottish Parliament that the invasion of Iraq was justified because Iraq was unwilling to give up its weapons of mass destruction? We now know that it was unwilling to give up something that it did not have. Will the First Minister apologise now for misleading the Parliament and recognise that the Iraq war had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction and everything to do with access to cheap oil for the United States of America?

The question refers to a matter that is not within the First Minister's responsibility. I will leave it to him as to what response he gives.

I am happy to state again what I have stated a number of times on the public record. I believed last year and still believe that Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi regime were evil and dangerous. I believe that the Iraqi people would have been unable to remove them by themselves and that they needed and rightly demanded international support to do that. I am proud that Britain was part of the international effort to achieve that end and believe that, as a result, Iraq is and will be a better country.

The problem with the First Minister's answer is that, as usual, he has avoided the question. In his statement to Parliament, he said that the invasion of Iraq was justified because Iraq was unwilling to give up its weapons of mass destruction. If he believes that we should invade all the world's tyrannical regimes, it would be worth while to suggest to him that we should not invite representatives of tyrannical regimes to sit in the Parliament, which is what we did last week with the Saudi Arabian ambassador. Will he apologise for misleading Parliament, or does he think that lying in Parliament is now an acceptable practice? He did so last week in relation to the Scottish Socialist Party drugs policy and again in trying to justify the illegal and unnecessary invasion of Iraq.

I again leave it to the First Minister to decide whether he wishes to respond.

I think that I have clearly stated my position on the war and note that Tommy Sheridan would be happier if Saddam Hussein were still in power. I am happy to leave the current inquiries in London to examine some of the other questions that he has raised. Indeed, I am prepared to accept the outcome of an inquiry, unlike some people over the course of the past week who had problems with doing so.

I want to pick up Tommy Sheridan's final point. In letters to my office over the past week, he has accused me twice of lying. He has accused me of doing so again today. I have to tell the chamber that I regret that I got one fact wrong in a comment that I made last week. I said that Rosie Kane, who does not hold a senior position in the SSP, had made a particular comment about the party's drugs policy. I regret that, because my point would have been more effective if I had known that the person who made the comment was Frances Curran, who is a much more senior figure in the party.

I have before me the article that I quoted last week and that Tommy Sheridan has accused me three times since then of lying about. His photograph is beside the article, which is written by Frances Curran, a senior international member of his party. The SSP's drugs policy is quite clear and is written down. As a result, I hope that Tommy Sheridan will withdraw his allegation that I lied to the Parliament.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

I would like to take any points of order at the end of First Minister's question time, if possible. I would like to move on.

That is fine, but I reserve the right to make a point of order at the end of First Minister's question time.

I will call you then, if that is correct. I think that we should move on.

---

Rosepark Nursing Home

To ask the First Minister what action is being considered in light of the fire at the Rosepark nursing home in Uddingston. (S2F-602)

As Cathy Jamieson said yesterday in the chamber, our thoughts are with the families and friends of those who died as a result of the fire at Rosepark last weekend. Her statement yesterday outlined the immediate action that we are taking. There will be an inquiry into these events, but the form that it will take will be decided later. Our decisions on future action should await the outcome of the current investigation and any inquiry.

The First Minister will be aware that, in response to my question following her statement to Parliament yesterday, Cathy Jamieson said:

"the care commission and the fire authorities will get together to examine the processes that are currently in place and to consider whether additional guidance is required"—[Official Report, 4 February 2004; c 5451.]

in relation to residential care home safety. Given that thousands of residents in the hundreds of residential homes across Scotland and their families require as much reassurance as possible in the wake of the Rosepark fire, will the First Minister advise the chamber of when he expects the two bodies concerned to come together and of the timescale that he envisages for any subsequent guidance to be produced?

We want the two bodies to come together as soon as possible. Ministers will treat the matter as a priority. Although we do not want to pre-empt the outcome of the current investigation or any future inquiry, we want action to be taken that reassures elderly residents and others throughout Scotland that the right concerns are being addressed and that the right bodies are talking about who has the right responsibility for this matter in future. Ministers will stay involved with that and will report regularly to Parliament on any progress.

I agree with the First Minister's policy of not rushing to judgment until we find out the real causes of the fire. However, at the right time, will he ask the care commission and the fire authorities to examine two other issues? First, in the guidelines that have been issued, is the minimum requirement for night cover in care homes still adequate? Secondly, as well as doing more to prevent fire, is there a need to do more during emergencies to evacuate residents who have limited mobility and who live on an upper floor?

As Cathy Jamieson said yesterday, the response times of the staff and the local fire brigade were, by any standard, remarkably speedy at the weekend. It may be that many more complex issues will have to be addressed. I am certain that issues to do with levels of staff cover, the response to fire alarms inside homes, and the response in getting to homes, will be covered not only by the current investigations as a matter of routine but by any inquiry that we initiate after the current investigations are complete and the procurator fiscal has made decisions.

I express great sympathy with the bereaved, but is it not the case that the building concerned was relatively modern, which could have implications for many residents in other comparably modern buildings? Will the First Minister discuss with the Lord Advocate the possibility of holding a fatal accident inquiry? That could point the way towards both prevention and best practice.

Clearly, a fatal accident inquiry will be one of the options available to us. We are determined that any inquiry would be held in public, would cover all the important facts of this case, and would be able to make recommendations for the future. As I am sure Lord James Douglas-Hamilton can imagine, there have been many discussions this week between the Minister for Justice and the Lord Advocate, and between me and both of them in the Cabinet yesterday. We continue to monitor the situation and will decide on the precise nature of the inquiry after the procurator fiscal has made the right decisions.

Does the First Minister have any plans to take action to increase public awareness of the importance of leaving a building quickly in response to a fire alarm? When a fire alarm went off in the early hours of this morning in the hotel in which I was staying, I was horrified at the length of time that some people took to leave the building. I understand that some people did not leave at all. Will the First Minister join me in commending the fire brigade for its quick response to the incident?

A number of important lessons can be learned from events over the past year in relation to the fire service in Scotland and throughout the United Kingdom. When strikes were taking place in the fire service this time last year, there was a considerable improvement in the behaviour of families and individuals and in the number of reported incidents. People took more care and did not just rely on the fire brigade to be available if something went wrong. I would urge everybody to take more care in their daily lives and would urge the fire service to become more involved in advising on precautions. When fire alarms go off, individuals must take them seriously. This weekend gave us a clear lesson that we do not need to wait for an investigation or an inquiry to know that smoke and fire spread quickly. When people lie in their beds and wonder whether a fire alarm is false or not, it can make the difference between surviving and dying. Everybody should take fire alarms seriously, whether they are in a hotel, a care home, or their own home.

---

Single Transferable Vote Working Group

To ask the First Minister when the Scottish Executive will publish the interim findings of the single transferable vote working group. (S2F-600)

The working group's interim report was published on 28 January. Copies have been made available in the Scottish Parliament information centre. They are available for all members.

I have my copy and, unlike the Scottish Executive, I have read it and come to a conclusion. The First Minister knows that the STV working group was set up by the Scottish Government. It recommended that there be between three and five councillors for most wards, as did Richard Kerley in his report of June 2000. All the evidence for stage 1 of the Local Governance (Scotland) Bill has now been taken, but the Scottish Government has yet to indicate whether it accepts any of the recommendations. Will the First Minister indicate today whether he supports ward sizes of three to five councillors? Will he guarantee that the Executive's response to the working party's interim report will be available to this Parliament before the stage 1 debate on the Local Governance (Scotland) Bill?

When ministers speak in stage 1 debates, they respond to many of the points that have arisen during the stage 1 discussions. As would be reasonable with any such report, ministers will consider the recommendations that the working group has made in its interim report and, in due course, will inform Parliament of our deliberations on the subject.

Through the Local Governance (Scotland) Bill, the partnership Government is implementing STV for local authorities. Would the First Minister be sympathetic to the use of the STV system for future elections to the Scottish Parliament, which would certainly solve the coterminosity of boundaries issue?

I know that Mr Rumbles shares my firm commitment to our partnership agreement and to our partnership Government; we are firmly united on that. It is perhaps fortunate that the partnership agreement did not even attempt to cover the subject of elections to this Parliament. The present system was outlined in 1997 when the referendum took place and it therefore currently has the consent of the people of Scotland. I hope that if there are to be any debates on the system for election to this Parliament in coming years, they will involve not just members of the Parliament but—much more important—those who vote for us.

Members should remember that the question is about local government.

Does the First Minister agree with the STV working group's interim report, which says that, rather than arbitrary numeric values, the priority for determining the size of STV wards should be

"focus and sustainability for natural communities, geography and parity"?

A number of important factors should be used to determine an electoral system and the way in which it is implemented. Having been a local councillor, I am acutely aware of the importance of natural boundaries in a local community, but I am equally aware of the importance in a local council of the link between individual members and their wards and electorates and of having groups of people representing areas who can provide a coherent input into the council. We must balance a number of different factors in addition to geography, sparsity or density of population, natural boundaries and the member-ward link.

I hope that, in the Parliament's deliberations over the next few months, we will design the principles of an electoral system and that, later in the year, we will see a system that in its practicalities will work well for the people of Scotland, who ultimately want to have councils that serve them in their local areas.

---

Off-licences

To ask the First Minister how the proposed reforms to the law on off-licences will address problems in or near off-licences such as intimidation and violence towards shop workers. (S2F-611)

There is no doubt that in some off-licences intimidation and violence are regularly displayed towards shop workers and customers and that the neighbourhoods surrounding those off-licences can be intimidating for other customers and members of the public, too. The measures that the Minister for Justice announced on Monday and the measures that are contained in the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill will create more responsible licensees and more police powers to deal with individual incidents and groups that are creating trouble.

Will the First Minister assure us that his Administration's excellent proposal to tackle under-age drinking will include real support and protection—both from the police and in other ways—for the people who have to give effect to the prevention of under-age drinking, who are liable to the intimidation that he has described? Will he assure us that they will have adequate support?

That is a very important issue. Sometimes such debates can focus on the impact of the off-licence outside the off-licence rather than on what takes place inside the premises, which can be highly disturbing for customers and very frightening—and sometimes dangerous—for members of staff. I did not see the presentation by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers during stage 1 consideration of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill, but I believe that it made a persuasive case on how important the issue is. I share those concerns and have discussed the matter with the union in the past.

It is important not only that we have better laws to regulate off-licences in the interests of local communities, better laws on under-age drinking and better laws on antisocial behaviour, but that the police force is available to be on hand before incidents get to the stage of intimidation. It is also important that the individuals concerned are properly prosecuted afterwards, which means not only reforming our laws on licensing and antisocial behaviour but, importantly, reforming our laws on the courts system, freeing up police time to do those important duties and ensuring that, after the police have arrested and charged somebody, that person is moved through the system efficiently and effectively.

That concludes First Minister's question time.