We now move to open question time. I stress that supplementary questions should refer to the same topic.
On a point of order. I ask clarification from you, Presiding Officer, on why members who asked questions in the question time that we have just had were allowed little time to develop their question when other members were allowed to ask two supplementary questions and more.
At the beginning I read out the standing order. I am bound by that standing order as much as anyone else. It says that questions should be brief.
The order for business surely allows for one supplementary question. Today members have asked more than one supplementary question.
Being generous, I allow second supplementary questions when I think that a member has something further to ask a minister. We are taking up valuable time. I call Mr Alex Salmond to ask the first question.
SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE
Transport
To ask the Scottish Executive what are the details of its transport policy. (S1O-194) The First Minister (Donald Dewar): I confess, Sir David, that that sounds like an invitation to a long answer. You will be glad to hear that I will resist that temptation.
Let us focus on the Executive document on toll taxes and charges that I was reading over the summer. I cannot describe it as a medal-winning document, by any means. The document seems to suggest that the Executive will be minded to put the administration of the toll taxes into the hands of private companies. If that is the case, how does that square with the Executive's commitment to ring-fence those charges so that they will all be used for transport infrastructure? Alternatively, will the First Minister rule out the use of private companies in the collection of his toll tax?
I think that for me to accept that invitation would be a sign of arrogance, as we are in the middle of a consultation process. I hope that Alex Salmond, along with his colleagues, will think of joining the consultation rather than riding around the country spreading doom and despair, and running scare stories at every possible opportunity.
It is open question time, but I can help the First Minister by saying that our opposition to his toll tax proposals has been well ventilated in recent months, otherwise he would not be so concerned about the campaign.
No, it does not mean that the sky is the limit and, as Mr Salmond well knows, the aim of the consultation is to gather opinions and to decide what is practical and right and what will tackle the problems of urban congestion and gridlock. If any scheme goes forward, it will be on the basis that it is appropriate and that there has been proper local consultation, and with the approval of the Administration. I say again very seriously that this is a very big area and while I accept that there is a great deal of room for political mischief making, if there is any truth at all in what is said by the nationalist party about its wish to see improvement in Scotland—
Get the name right.
—and real problems being tackled, then he should come out and start discussing his own plans and start commenting constructively on ours. He falls very far short of that at the moment.
I would have thought, after the Skye bridge fiasco, that the First Minister would be anxious to rule out private companies administering the toll tax. Can I put to him the extent of the charge that might be entailed by his toll tax plans? If the tax is 5p a mile, it means that someone commuting from Glasgow to Edinburgh, or, for that matter, from Hamilton to Edinburgh—
A question.
—might be involved in a charge of £900 a year. Will the First Minister confirm that figure, or would he care to put a ceiling on Dewar's toll tax?
The gentleman is working very hard today. Of course, the references to Hamilton would not for one moment suggest to me that we are thinking about a by-election. We are thinking about long-term policy—
£900?
—for the good governance of Scotland and decent transport in Scotland. That kind of calculation is an insult to the argument; it is not the basis on which any calculation would be made. If Mr Salmond joined the debate, he might get a little more information about how these things work, which would certainly help. He seems to think there is no support for this, but, for example, the chief executive of the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce says that if motorway tolls are a way of getting vital arteries open, then the chamber would support it, providing that revenues raised went directly into transport infrastructure projects.
£900?
There is a genuine debate here—come and join it.
Governance of Scotland
To ask the Scottish Executive how its guidelines on collective decision making will improve the governance of Scotland. (S1O-236) The First Minister (Donald Dewar): I take the view that the whole devolution scheme improves the governance of Scotland and, although I think that the views of David McLetchie and his colleagues are occasionally ambiguous, I would like to think that he would join me in that. Collective responsibility is a widely accepted mark of cabinet government. It contributes to and encourages stable, responsive government fully
I welcome the First Minister's answer and ask him to confirm that he has no plans, following the publication of the report of the Cubie committee and the decision of the cabinet that may follow from that report, to change the principles of collective responsibility set out in the guide to decision making published by the Executive last month. In particular, will he disown the suggestions by his Deputy First Minister at the weekend that somehow or other the concept of ring-fencing may be introduced as a permanent feature of government?
The word ring-fencing is used in many contexts, but this is not one in which I would use it. Our colleagues in the Liberal Democrats have very strong views, as does everyone in this chamber, on higher education finance. We have made it very clear that the Cubie committee will be asked to look in depth at the matter, as was requested by a whole range of higher education institutions who rejected the pellmell rush to judgment that the Conservatives were in favour of. The conclusions will be examined by the cabinet and we will look for ways to proceed. I know that the opposition parties look with hope at that process. I look on it with hope as well, but for rather different reasons.
We note that the First Minister distinctly failed to answer the question. It was not about tuition fees, but about whether the principles of collective responsibility set out in his own document were being undermined by his Deputy First Minister.
Mr McLetchie should go and have a look at what was said on that occasion, which was that, of course, we would be examining all options. That is the position. We have had some good discussions about this. We will be in touch with the National Farmers Union. The record of this Government in helping agriculture is a remarkably good one. Almost £60 million over and above the European support payments was found last year, and we are well aware of the problems that are currently faced by the agriculture sector. At least we have a track record of genuine concern and of action. I commend it to Mr McLetchie.
Does the Scottish Executive agree that in the interests of the better governance of Scotland, the Department of Social Security and the benefits system in Scotland should be the responsibility not of Westminster, but of this Scottish Parliament?
No, I do not, but that is one of the differences between the nationalists and ourselves. I entirely accept that Dorothy-Grace Elder has a very individual, sometimes even idiosyncratic, point of view about the governance of Scotland.
So we cannot afford it in Scotland? Is that what the minister is saying? We manage to spend £1.5 billion a year running Trident, and that is being cut from British benefits.
Order. I did not call you for another supplementary.
Scottish Civic Forum
To ask the Scottish Executive what action it proposes to take in relation to funding the Scottish Civic Forum. (S1O-200) The Minister for Finance (Mr Jack McConnell): The partnership agreement confirms the Executive's commitment to encouraging the development of the Scottish Civic Forum. I will meet representatives of the civic forum shortly to discuss the possibilities for support.
Given that we have made radical commitments to involve outside people and bodies in the work of this Parliament, and given that the civic forum is a crucial umbrella organisation for that purpose, I welcome the fact that the minister is holding meetings with the forum's representatives. Can he confirm that no legislative action is required prior to funding the forum, and will he ensure that support is given to the forum as soon as possible?
As colleagues in the chamber are already aware as a result of the debate that took place in June, there is a difficulty in identifying a statutory responsibility that allows us to provide core funding for the forum. That is why we are meeting representatives of the forum to examine the issues of funding and the other ways in which we can support their organisation, and to examine the overall issue of civic engagement with this Parliament and with the Executive in the months and years ahead.
Will the minister ensure that civic bodies in our rural areas outside the central belt are consulted with regard to the funding of the civic forum?
Yes, I will raise that issue with the representatives of the forum. It is important that whatever arrangements we establish with them and with other bodies, we ensure that the whole of Scotland is represented in the consultations and the engagements that take place over the coming four years.
On a point of order. Is it in order for the First Minister to refer to my party by the wrong name, which he has a bad habit of doing? If it is in order, we could all play this game and a wrong name for his party springs to mind—the ex- socialist party.
Ministers are responsible for their own answers.
On a point of order. With all respect, that is not a proper answer. We are in parties in this chamber and the parties have names. We could start playing funny games with this if you do not rule that it is out of order for the wrong name to be given to a party.
I cannot rule it out of order because there is nothing in the standing orders that says that parties should be called by their proper names, but I would have thought that it is obvious that they should be.
Previous
Question Time