Plenary, 01 Feb 2001

Meeting date: Thursday, February 1, 2001

Official Report 740KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he last met the Secretary of State for Scotland and what issues were discussed. (S1F-814)

I understand that Phil Gallie might not have wanted to extend a welcome to Sandra Osborne because of their political history. However, I think that the chamber should extend that welcome, as well as congratulate George Foulkes on his appointment as minister of state. [Applause.]

In answer to John Swinney, I speak regularly to the Secretary of State for Scotland and we have plans to meet in the next few days.

I thank the First Minister for his answer. On Monday, I was very pleased to hear the First Minister's crystal-clear commitment and cast-iron determination to pay for the personal care costs of all elderly people in Scotland. Will he now, in front of Parliament, provide a clear definition of what he means by personal care?

At least the issue raised by Mr Swinney this week comes as no surprise to me.

Let me be very concise: the Executive could not be clearer about its way forward. Everyone recognises the need for clarity. The development group's remit is explicit, and the group is the best place to consider all the complicated issues surrounding free personal care. It is sad that, despite endless coverage last week and the debate this morning, the SNP cannot accept that the Parliament has made a decision and will deliver the commitments made in last Thursday's discussions and decision.

One of the First Minister's difficulties is that he cannot provide clarity when asked to do so. On Monday, the First Minister said:

"We are embracing the principles of Sutherland in full."

The Sutherland commission contains a definition of personal care, which includes help with bathing and washing; help with eating and drinking; and managing incontinence, immobility and medication. I presume that, from his answer, the First Minister has welshed on that commitment by supporting a remit for the development group which includes the need to bring forward a clear definition of what is meant by personal care. Why does the First Minister not stick to his guns of Monday and stop being dragged around by the Minister for Health and Community Care?

The chamber should forgive my wry smile. This is an extraordinarily serious issue for the 940,000 older people in Scotland that this Parliament purports to serve.

John Swinney is fast becoming the Victor Meldrew of Scottish politics. The SNP supposedly campaigns on behalf of Scotland's older people, but when we deliver lock, stock and barrel, he says, "I can't believe it." Let us have a rehearsal for the 15th time. I am sure that some of our colleagues sitting in the press gallery will be saying, "Well, we've published a fair bit about this and if McLeish's position is unclear, it must only be so to the members on the SNP benches." I will simply say that the faces of the nationalists visibly drained last week when our announcement was made. We believe that what we—not the SNP—are doing is in the interests of the Scottish people.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. When will the First Minister realise that when he answers questions, he should do so to the chamber, not to his back benchers? We cannot hear what he is saying.

Well, the First Minister has two microphones, so he has a slight advantage over the rest of us. He is all right.

I am quite happy to waste some time repeating my answer and looking straight into the eyes of the member.

Last week, the SNP was very worried about a very historic and important announcement that we were going to make. This morning, the Conservatives muddied the waters. David McLetchie, who had clearly been speaking to William Hague, was at least honest enough to say that he quite liked the idea of free personal care for all, as long as he could go along to the financial services sector in Edinburgh to find out whether it would want to invest. The Tories' position is confused and the SNP is being as cynical as ever. However, the coalition's position is quite clear. We have set up the development group. Let it report, and let this Parliament take decisions about the welfare of older people in this country.

Well, the First Minister has triumphed today. He had two shots at the same question, and failed both times. Why does he not stick to what he told the country on Monday, which was that he would fully implement the Sutherland report, which contains a definition of personal care? When will he stop vacillating, extending the time scale and misleading the elderly people of Scotland and tell his development group to get on with the implementation of Sutherland's recommendations instead of talking about them even more? When will we get the commitment from the First Minister to live up to his expectations?

When I rise to the lectern and see that my colleagues are nodding, that suggests that the SNP—[Members: "Answer."] SNP members are saying, "Answer." John Swinney said, "You made it clear on Monday; make it clear again." The simple point is this: if John Swinney cannot acknowledge what we have said and what we have committed ourselves to, the SNP are playing naked politics with the welfare of older people.

I suggest to John Swinney that he speak to Alzheimer Scotland, Age Concern Scotland, Help the Aged and every group in the community that thinks that the Parliament has taken a courageous decision to progress sensibly and responsibly, considering all the costs and implications. It is clear that the Parliament is united. The only people who cannot stomach the decision are SNP members, who are simply being cynical.

I remind members that, when a question has been asked, it is courteous to listen to the answer.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when the Scottish Executive's Cabinet will next meet and what issues will be discussed. (S1F-813)

The Cabinet will next meet on Tuesday 6 February and will discuss issues of importance to the Executive and to the people of Scotland.

I thank the First Minister for that answer. No doubt, the Cabinet will consider the financial implications of some of the recent spending commitments that have been made by the First Minister. Before I address those, I suggest that, instead of trying to distort my remarks, it might help if, now and again, he clarified his own.

Over the new year, I noticed that the First Minister has become the patron of a pro-Europe campaign—a fact of which he is proud. Instead of squandering millions of pounds of taxpayers' money in attempting to abolish the pound, why does he not use that money to fund his apparent commitment to providing free personal care for our old people?

Forgive me for looking a bit agonised, Sir David, but when David McLetchie stands to speak I am often unsure which question to answer. Is this a question on Europe? Is it a question on prudent finances? Is it a question on Sutherland? Let me make a point that may cover all those. We are considering prudent finance—I am sure that David McLetchie would agree with that. We want to ensure that there were no empty promises to the teachers, to those requiring long-term care or to students over tuition fees.

If we say that we will move on an area, we will look sensibly for the resources to do so. That is why the Minister for Finance and Local Government has been charged with leading a budget review group that will ensure that, if we decide on new priorities in the context of a Scottish Government, we will deliver. That is sensible, serious politics. I am sure that Tory philosophy would agree with that.

Indeed, I do. That is why I have come up with a helpful suggestion to assist the First Minister in his search for savings. Instead of spending millions of pounds of public money at the levels of central and local government, trying to scrap our currency in favour of the euro, why does he not use that money to improve public services? Given that 70 per cent of the people in this country have today indicated their opposition to Britain's joining the euro, does he not think it a ridiculous waste of taxpayers' money to campaign and spend public money on scrapping the pound—money that could otherwise be spent on our schools, hospitals and older people?

At last we have flushed out the real issue—the Tories' extreme obsession with Europe. Whether one is for or against Europe, is it not in the interests of the Scottish community—especially the business community—to have a sensible debate, and for the Government in Scotland and Westminster to ensure that, if the people decide that the country should join the euro, there is preparation and planning to make that decision sensible?

When nearly 360,000 jobs in Scotland are dependent on the European dimension, even extremists such as the Conservatives must face up to the reality that Europe exists and that the currency debate will continue. All I ask of David McLetchie is that he conduct a balanced debate in Scotland. Every side should have a chance to put forward their views and we should not close down the debate. I utterly and totally reject the suggestion that the Government is wasting money.

On spending commitments, as the First Minister will be aware, I have been pursuing the issue of the allocation of the £10 million UK-wide textile rescue package. In yesterday's debate on textiles, I asked the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning:

"To clarify, will the minister tell me—in one word, please—the exact figure for the amount of that £10 million UK rescue package that has come to Scotland?"

The minister replied:

"The answer is £1.2 million."—[Official Report, 31 January 2001; Vol 10, c 798.]

First Minister, I have confirmed with the Department of Trade and Industry that the £1.2 million is being allocated over three years at £400,000 on a UK basis. The allocation will not be determinable until the three years are up. I believe that—

Order. We must have a question.

I believe that the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning misled the chamber yesterday, albeit unintentionally. Will the First Minister take this opportunity to put on record the correct position? That is my question.

My response will be briefer than the question. Suffice it to say that both the DTI and the enterprise and lifelong learning department have taken positive decisions to assist our textiles industry.

That is not the same as allocating £1.2 million.

Three million pounds is being invested in Scotland. Considering the budgets of the DTI and the enterprise and lifelong learning department, that is a formidable package. I wish that Christine Grahame would stop carping about a project around which we are all united and which helps the textiles industry. Talking Scotland down, as the SNP does, is not helpful.

---

Domestic Violence

To ask the First Minister what initiatives the Scottish Executive is promoting with the aim of eradicating domestic violence. (S1F-817)

The first ever national strategy to address domestic abuse in Scotland was published in November. On 29 November 2000, we announced our biggest ever funding package of £18.3 million to provide protection, prevention and provision for abused women. We will continue to fund the on-going publicity campaign to raise awareness of domestic abuse. We are also funding the Zero Tolerance Trust's "Respect" pilot in several schools and youth groups to educate young people about the issue.

I welcome the Executive's commitment on this issue, which is due in part to Labour's determination to have equal representation of men and women in the Scottish Parliament and thus deliver a Parliament that gives priority to issues such as violence against women rather than delivering the posturing about issues such as Europe that we witness from the Conservatives.

Does the First Minister recognise the crucial importance of tackling domestic abuse across all fronts? Will he assure me that the highest importance will be given to delivering joined-up government to ensure that some of our most vulnerable women and children are given the best possible service not only by the justice system but by the health, education, housing and social work services and that the attitudes that cause domestic abuse are tackled?

I thank Johann Lamont and the many members from all parties who are involved in this important issue. I assure her that I agree that part of the approach to the issue must be joined-up government. Domestic abuse is an issue for health, housing, justice and for many other aspects of Government policy. I also think that the fact that the electorate are delivering more women into the Scottish Parliament is helpful in ensuring that issues such as domestic abuse are always to the fore.

This is a male issue; it is about male violence against women. We should be sending a powerful message to every part of Scotland that we think that domestic abuse is abhorrent, that it will not be tolerated and that the Government in Scotland, working with our colleagues in Westminster, will make sure that everything possible is done to stamp it out.

I associate myself with the First Minister's comments about men's responsibility for domestic violence. Research shows that, on average, a woman is abused 35 times before making a complaint. Will the Executive consider the Canadian initiative of having domestic violence courts, with a view to setting them up in Scotland?

I am not sure that I know enough about the background of that initiative to make a positive response, but the Minister for Justice and his colleagues are, of course, listening. I welcome the member's positive comments. One of the difficulties that women face is having to decide whether to report—it often takes an enormous number of occasions before they do so.

Jackie Baillie and her colleagues, along with the Minister for Justice, are working to ensure that women have the confidence, the necessary access and the confidentiality to come forward. I urge all colleagues in the chamber, especially if they know of any particular circumstances, to alert women to the fact that there are ways to get in touch to get protection from what are horrendous situations not just for the mother or woman, but often for the children.

One of the main causes of domestic violence is misuse of alcohol. I have had indications from people high up in the police, the health service and social work that they would benefit from the Scottish Government giving them a steer: that alcohol problems should be high on their agendas. That would help reduce domestic violence among families. Will the First Minister assure us that the message that alcohol misuse is a very important issue will be transmitted to those public services?

I agree that alcohol misuse and abuse is a key issue for our society. That is why the coalition Executive is pursuing a strategy to deal with it. It is a contributory factor to domestic abuse, but people with more knowledge than me suggest that it may not be the most important. Whether drug abuse or alcohol abuse, it is about abuse, and the central message is that we in the Parliament find it abhorrent. We will certainly pursue joined-up government to ensure that alcohol is to the fore in our tackling the factors that contribute to domestic violence.

Question 4 is withdrawn.

---

Less Favoured Areas

To ask the First Minister what pledge or undertaking the Scottish Executive will make with regard to crofters and hill farmers in less favoured areas. (S1F-827)

I welcome this opportunity to confirm the Scottish Executive's total commitment to maintaining crofting and hill and upland farming throughout our less favoured areas.

Does the First Minister agree that, unless the rotten deal on the less favoured areas is materially altered, in three years' time, when crofters and small hill farmers lose 50 per cent of their income, they will face no future in crofting or farming? Does he agree that, as a consequence, the Executive will have succeeded where Patrick Sellar failed? Is the Executive proud of such a record? Does the Executive regard the dreadful deal that has been done as a betrayal of its principles and of the once honourable tradition of the Highland Liberals?

I think that Fergus Ewing has no sense of either history or proportion on this matter. It is important that people dramatise and articulate their concerns, but, putting that another way, Fergus Ewing's question was simply over the top and unhelpful to the people whom he thinks he represents and to a serious debate on the issue.

There have been changes in European funding in this area. Over the next six years, we will be able to review the issue and to fine-tune our policy on it. It should be made clear, however, that a 90 per cent safety net applies, and that further discussions are constantly taking place on the matter. The sum of money that is involved is still substantial—it is much enhanced compared to what it was in the 1990s.

It is also rich that, although everyone is desperate to move to allocate the resources, Fergus Ewing's motion to annul the instrument, which he has made to the Rural Development Committee, means that that is not going to happen. By dint of that motion—

Nonsense.

It is not nonsense. By dint of that motion disbursement is not going to happen. I urge Fergus Ewing to withdraw the motion to allow us to help people who are being hard pressed. That is the view of the industry and the view in the chamber. Let us work together to ensure that the scheme works for the maximum number of people.

I share the First Minister's disappointment about what Fergus Ewing's motion will do to the agricultural business development scheme. Does the First Minister agree that crofting is a successful way of enabling people to remain in rural communities? Will he ensure that this type of land tenure can be extended to other areas? Will he make a commitment to agree to review schemes such as the less favoured areas scheme to ensure that young people have an economically viable future in crofting?

My colleague understands the importance of those issues. We want everyone in every part of the Highlands and Islands to have a future. I have no doubt that Ross Finnie and his team will take on board the points that have been made. We are fully committed to maintaining crofting and hill and upland farming throughout less favoured areas. I hope that we can work with members from those areas to ensure that we provide the best deals.

I return to the matter of the ABDS. Many of my constituents were awaiting decisions on applications to that scheme. Because of the motion that was lodged by the SNP to stop the scheme going through the Rural Development Committee, they will now have to wait weeks if not months for vital decisions to be taken. Will the First Minister join me in condemning the SNP for blocking the scheme?

The easy part of my answer is to join in the condemnation. On the other hand, let us let common sense prevail. Let Fergus Ewing appreciate that it is the will of the chamber that people who need help should receive it. He should withdraw his motion and let the Rural Development Committee and the Minister for Rural Development ensure that help goes to where it is needed.

I do not usually jump to Fergus Ewing's defence, but his motion to annul at the Rural Development Committee concerned a miswording in the statutory instrument that made it impossible under the rules for anyone who had applied to the scheme to reapply. I believe that his motion is intended to clear up that matter rather than to stop farmers receiving grants.

I rest my case by quoting the words of the National Farmers Union of Scotland:

"The money available through ABDS for capital investments and diversification projects is a key lifeline to assist those farmers and crofters who wish to restructure their business. Any delay in approving and distributing grant aid further adds to their uncertainty and undermines their viability."

That is the view of the NFU. For goodness' sake, let us have the motion withdrawn.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

I hope that it is a real point of order.

It is. I gave the First Minister the opportunity to correct something that was on record in the Parliament, but he refused. I seek your guidance on how I should proceed to have that corrected.

Order. That is not a point of order. The content of questions cannot be a question of order. The member must find other ways of pursuing her concern.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. The leader of the Conservative group asked the First Minister a question on the transfer of money that is allegedly being used to convert to the euro. Should David McLetchie be allowed to misrepresent the fact that, according to a written answer from the former Minister for Finance, the money to which he referred is additional to the Scottish block? Indeed—

Order. I can only repeat what I said to Christine Grahame: the content of answers cannot be the subject of a point of order.