Plenary, 04 Mar 2004

Meeting date: Thursday, March 4, 2004

Official Report 638KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

Eight seconds early, we come to First Minister's question time.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-684)

The next meeting of the Cabinet will discuss our progress towards implementing the partnership agreement.

In January 2003, the Executive started to study the financial impact that the introduction of top-up fees in England would have on Scottish universities. Shortly afterwards, a formal review was announced. In June last year, the review was set up. From that day to this, we have been told that the review would have all the answers. Solutions would be provided and policy would be announced. Today the report tells us that it is a starting point. After 14 months of review, what new policy will be announced today and how much in the way of new resources will be provided for the university sector in Scotland?

We have explained in the chamber on a large number of occasions that the review was designed to provide the background evidence for our decisions on higher education funding. The involvement in that review of universities, colleges, students and other interests has given us a document that will be published this afternoon by the committee that agreed it, simultaneously with the Deputy First Minister. We will use the document to make the right decisions for the future of higher education. As Mr Swinney knows, the review was never designed to determine the decisions of Government that will need to be made over the next six months. However, it will provide us with extremely useful information to help us to ensure that those decisions are the right ones.

Will the First Minister do Parliament the decency of answering a couple of questions about the contents of the report that is to be published this afternoon but which the Deputy First Minister has been broadcasting for most of the morning? First, will the review endorse the Deputy First Minister's claim, made at last year's Universities Scotland conference, that the only way out of the funding crisis in Scotland's universities is for the universities to work a bit harder? Secondly, will it give a ringing endorsement of the First Minister's claim—often made—that Scottish universities enjoy a 20 per cent funding advantage over universities south of the border?

The document will be published this afternoon. We need to pay due respect to those who prepared and spent a lot of time on it—from universities, student organisations, colleges and other bodies. They have the right to publish the document this afternoon without my pre-empting that and quoting from it here.

Mr Swinney is aware that the level of funding of universities in Scotland is higher than that in England in the way that he described. We are extremely proud of the quality of the work that is being done in our universities—not just the teaching, studying and research but, increasingly, the commercialisation of that research and the contribution that it makes to the wider Scottish economy. The vital contribution that our universities make will drive us over the next few months to ensure that they have the right level of resources not just to compete in higher education but to help Scotland's economy compete at the same time.

The First Minister talks about paying due respect to the organisations that have produced the report—none of which has accepted that it endorses the policy positions set out in it—and will not give me a specific answer in Parliament. However, all morning the Deputy First Minister has been broadcasting the report to the world, showing no respect to the people who were involved in producing it and no respect to this parliamentary institution.

In addition, the First Minister has failed to give an answer to my question about a point that he has made often enough—that universities in Scotland are 20 per cent better funded than universities in England. I am reliably informed that that point is not endorsed by the report that is to be published this afternoon. After 14 months, there is no clarification on money and no clarification on policy. The First Minister's claim about funding has been proved to be false and the review has so enthused its participants that they have just set up a website to publish the information that the Executive would not publish in the first place. After 14 months of stalling, why will the First Minister not accept that it is time for the Executive to put its money where its mouth is and to support our universities as the engine of Scotland's economy?

Mr Swinney should not misrepresent the Deputy First Minister's position in that way. He misrepresents both what was said in November and what is being said today.

There is a wider issue to consider. Our approach to the proper consideration of important financial issues is different from Mr Swinney's. If he thinks that it would be right and proper to say today that we should take more than £100 million—in fact, some £400 million, if I take what I believe are the figures in the report—away from budgets that could be allocated to schools, hospitals, housing, the environment and tackling enterprise in this country and allocate it today, without due consideration, to Scotland's universities, he is not living in the real world.

Scotland's universities rightly have a competitive advantage over their counterparts in England and they compete with the best universities in the world. Our universities need to have further resources and we have committed to providing them with such resources at the end of the current spending review—something that we would never normally do in relation to a spending review. We will review spending properly; over the next few months, we will consider the different priorities of all the many organisations that make submissions to us for funding, not just Universities Scotland. When we make those decisions, we will make decisions that are right for the long-term future of Scotland, not those that are right for short-term headlines.

Briefly.

The impact of top-up fees will be felt in the next two years. The First Minister has had 14 months to come up with a starting point for the Government's consideration of the issue. Does he not understand the frustration that is felt throughout Scotland at his Government's prevarication? Why will it not take action to support a critical sector in Scotland's economy?

Because when we take action, we will take the right action. We will have considered the situation properly, we will have considered the implications for the other parts of public services in Scotland that deserve proper financial investment at the same time and we will ensure that all the implications are taken into account. It is precisely because of all those implications that we established the review in the first place.

The review is not just about one organisation—Universities Scotland—demanding £400 million for the university sector alone; it is also about the implications for Scottish students who might want to go and study in England and for English students who might want to come and study in Scotland. The review is about all the implications for the future of our higher education service. That is why the review was important and that is why it will be considered properly and timeously by ministers. We will make the right decisions for the long term and will ensure that our universities remain world class and can compete not just in the United Kingdom, but on the world stage.

---

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-691)

I met the Prime Minister last weekend. Mr McLetchie will not be surprised to hear that we held a number of discussions, which were very productive. I have no immediate plans to meet him in the next few weeks.

When the First Minister and the Prime Minister next meet, they might again discuss enterprise. I notice that in his speech to the Scottish Labour Party conference at the weekend, the First Minister claimed that he wanted his party to be the party of enterprise and economic growth throughout Scotland. Words are cheap. Is it not about time that the First Minister learned that talking a good game is not the same as doing the business on the pitch, which is what the business community in Scotland is crying out for? As he well knows, the litmus test for the business community is the issue of business rates in Scotland, and the litmus paper is still Labour red. Why is the business rate poundage in Scotland for next year going up to 48.8p in the pound when it is already significantly higher than the business rate poundage in England and Wales?

Mr McLetchie is aware that the decisions that we have taken both last year and this year have reduced the real-terms take of business rates in Scotland to below the take in England, on the basis of the revaluation that was carried out in the Parliament's early years.

Mr McLetchie mentioned the general issue of enterprise. The direct improvements that have taken place in Scotland since 1997 and, indeed, since 1999 are one reason why the parties in the coalition partnership now have a much better record on enterprise than Mr McLetchie's party has. We have the lowest unemployment and the highest levels of employment that have been seen in my adult life. Our universities are now doing a proper job of commercialising their research and turning it into products that can be sold at home and worldwide. We have a totally different economy than that over which Mr McLetchie's party presided and in which his leader was employment secretary. If Mr McLetchie wants to debate enterprise, I am happy to do so anywhere, anytime, so let us start here.

I am happy to accept the First Minister's challenge. He will of course reflect on the fact that, on the issue of business rates, we established a common rate poundage throughout the United Kingdom, which his Administration has destroyed. He talks about revenues from business rates. Will he confirm that the Scottish Executive has underestimated consistently the revenues that it derives from business rates? Last year, which was typical, the Scottish Executive set a rate poundage of 47.8p and based its budget on predicted revenues of £1,570 million. In fact, business rates last year brought in £1,710 million—an extra £140 million, which is equivalent to 4p in the pound. Given that, year on year, the Executive already raises more revenue from business rates than it budgets for, why do we need further to penalise our businesses by increasing the rate poundage yet again?

There is a very clear reason why. The income from business rates was higher than was predicted. Mr McLetchie will remember the many statements that he made over the past few years about what a miserable state the Scottish economy was in, what a disaster that was for business, how low growth was and how many problems there were. The take from business rates in Scotland was higher than predicted precisely because of the buoyancy and success of the Scottish economy over those years and because the Scottish economy had recovered from the Tory years, employment was at its highest level ever, unemployment was at its lowest level ever, new business was being created and we were having success. Mr McLetchie might not like that, but it is good news for Scotland that it happens.

The patterns of last year and the year before are exactly the same. The Executive is using business in Scotland as a milch-cow for its extravagant spending plans. Is it not the case that the surpluses over budget predictions would have been enough to reduce business rates in Scotland to the same level that our competitors in England and Wales have had over the past two years and that there is no need whatever to increase the rate poundage for the forthcoming year?

Mr McLetchie makes bold statements about taxation reduction, but of course he does not admit in his speeches that the way that he would finance that would be to reduce our enterprise budgets and all the other budgets that contribute to the success of the Scottish economy and to the quality of life in Scotland, which is helping us to ensure that the economy remains a success. The reality is that corporation tax and all other business taxes in the United Kingdom are lower than they were in all those Tory years—Michael Howard might want to bring them back, but we are going to try to ensure that he does not have that chance. There are now incentives for Scottish companies and universities to invest in research and development in a way that never existed in those Tory years. We now have a business climate in Scotland in which Scottish businesses can grow, supported by a tax system that gives them incentives to do so. That is something that we are all proud of and we are going to march on with it in the years to come. I am happy to debate that with Mr McLetchie on any occasion.

There are two urgent questions. I call Trish Godman.

Yesterday was both a good and a bad day for me. In the morning, Ferguson Shipbuilders was awarded an order for a Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency vessel. Two hours later, I was informed of the closure of the Automobile Association office in Erskine, with the possible loss of 230 jobs. As a local member, I know that the sudden decision of the AA to close the office comes as very bad news for its loyal and hardworking employees and is a serious blow to the local economy. I ask the First Minister and the Scottish Executive to support that fine work force by engaging in discussion with the company to persuade it to stay in Scotland and particularly in Erskine.

Trish Godman raises two issues. The Deputy First Minister and the Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning Department will of course engage with the AA, both before the decision is implemented—in the hope that the company might perhaps review its decision—and, if it is implemented, in the same positive way in which we have been able to assist people in the same situation into new employment and training in many other parts of Scotland.

With Trish Godman, I welcome the decision to allocate the work on the new fisheries protection vessel to the Ferguson yard in her constituency. I hope that not only will that vessel, when it is built, sail the seas with pride for Scotland, but that the yard will have a successful future in years to come.

What assessment has been made of the capacity of Scotland's already overcrowded jails to deal with the transfer of disruptive prisoners from Northern Ireland? Although it may be the case that Scotland should strive to accommodate such prisoners as a contribution to the peace process, does the First Minister agree that such a decision should be taken in this Parliament after very full consideration, rather than being railroaded through under the Sewel convention, which denies this Parliament the opportunity for proper scrutiny of what is a devolved matter?

Use of the Sewel convention is an entirely appropriate way to make the decision. The outcome of the measure—if the Parliament supports it—will be to institute a system whereby no prisoner will be transferred to a Scottish jail without the express permission of the Scottish Executive's Minister for Justice and her agreement to the decision.

I normally have more respect for Ms Sturgeon than I have for some members of her party, but I found yesterday's incitement on the issue absolutely despicable. The peace process in Northern Ireland is at a delicate stage, dealing with difficult issues including those relating to prisoners. If we in Scotland can help with those issues and play our part, we should do so, and do so willingly. For Ms Sturgeon to state that

"Scottish prisons are already heavily overcrowded"

and that ministers

"want the power to import some of the UK's worst terrorists into Scottish jails"

incites a reaction that I think makes her remarks so wrong from a democratic politician that she should withdraw them. She should take them back and take part in the Northern Ireland peace process. What she said was shocking.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what the top three priorities will be for the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-697)

The agenda for the next meeting of the Cabinet will be finalised tomorrow.

Can I respectfully suggest that the issue of low pay and women workers is shifted to the top of the agenda for the next Cabinet meeting? Thousands of women workers—nursery nurses—have been compelled this week to withdraw their labour in pursuit of a reasonable national pay agreement. Those women workers, who have not had their pay reviewed for 16 years, have been trying to negotiate with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities for the past two years, and are now compelled to take all-out strike action. Will the First Minister come off the fence on the issue? Will he back those essential workers, who deliver a national education and child care strategy and who therefore deserve a national pay agreement?

I want to make it clear, as I have done in the chamber on many previous occasions, that I believe that nursery nurses do not just a fabulous job, but a very important job throughout Scotland, whether they work in the private sector, the voluntary sector or the public sector. They assist with the delivery of services to the youngest children in our society, who need the best possible start before entering primary school.

The negotiations over wages between the employers and the nursery nurses are a matter for the local authorities and trade unions, which should be involved in negotiations. I do not seek to allocate blame to either side, but they should get round the table locally and, if necessary, nationally, to discuss the way out of the current situation. It is not satisfactory in the modern world for parents and young children to be disadvantaged by situations such as the present one. I strongly urge both COSLA and Unison to get round the table, to get the dispute resolved and to get our children back to enjoying once again the service that nurseries provide.

The First Minister has once again avoided the question. There is no need for and no point in nursery nurses getting back round the table with COSLA if COSLA rejects the very principle of a national pay agreement.

I have asked the First Minister several times—and ask him again today—whether he believes that a nursery nurse in one part of Scotland deserves the same salary as a nursery nurse in another part of Scotland. In other words, does he agree that there should be a national pay agreement? Some 81 per cent of the nursery nurses who were balloted voted for all-out strike action. I say to the First Minister that they voted with regret and with heavy hearts, but they were left with no alternative. The nursery nurses of Scotland and Unison believe in a national pay agreement. Will he say today that he agrees that there should be a national pay agreement?

I want the dispute to be resolved and nursery nurses to be properly rewarded for the job that they do, but whether there is a national agreement or a series of local agreements is a matter for the nursery nurses' employers and their trade union. I understand that the trade union at a local level reaching local agreements in a number of areas but not in others is a difficult situation for the union and the employers, but they have a duty and a responsibility to get round the table and to resolve the dispute. Again, I urge them to do so. It is right that they take that responsibility seriously and act on it.

---

Personal Communication (Interception)

To ask the First Minister whether the interception of personal communication in Scotland is limited and appropriate. (S2F-704)

Yes and yes. The authorisation of interception by Scottish ministers is strictly controlled and limited by law to the prevention or detection of serious crime. Independent oversight is provided by the interception of communications commissioner. The commissioner's most recent report makes it clear that Scottish ministers have issued warrants only where their use is absolutely justified and in accordance with the law.

The First Minister will be aware that there is concern about the increase in the number of requests to grant or modify warrants to intercept communications and the implications for the civil right to privacy. Does he agree that as much information about his decisions as possible should be in the public domain, without compromising the original reason for the warrant? More important, will he assure the Parliament that he will grant warrants only in accordance with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and that, critically, there will be no repeat of the decisions that were taken in the 1980s, when the communications of trade union leaders such as Joan Ruddock and Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament campaigners were intercepted simply because of their campaigns against the Government of the day?

I have the responsibility and the legal right to sign warrants for interception only if those warrants are associated with serious crime. Neither the First Minister nor any other Executive minister signs warrants on the ground of national security, which is a matter for ministers at Westminster, or for any matter other than one that relates to serious crime.

However, where we have an opportunity through signing an interception warrant to assist the police in tracking, catching or monitoring the activities of those who are involved in serious organised crime, I assure members that we sign such warrants, and will continue to do so, under the strictest conditions and in the interests of the population of Scotland, their safety and security and in the interests of tackling serious organised crime. Each time I sign such a warrant, I think of those who are affected by the crime, drugs, violence, threats and intimidation that happen in too many communities throughout Scotland. When we sign such warrants, we do so with the duty to look after the population that we represent uppermost in our minds.

Will the First Minister discuss with the Home Office and the Home Secretary the advantages and potential disadvantages that can result from the use of phone-tapping evidence in court, including protecting the sources of the conversations from exposure?

The position that has been adopted is that the information that is secured through interception warrants is not admissible as evidence. We will keep that position under review over the years. I am sure that members will understand that it is partly for that reason that we do not go into detail on individual cases or on the general use to which the warrants are put. I assure the Parliament that the information that is obtained through interception warrants is vital to the police forces in Scotland in the execution of their duties. It is used carefully but deliberately to ensure that we tackle serious organised crime.

---

Corporate Killing

I am sure that the First Minister will join me in welcoming to the public gallery a group from the Royal National Institute of the Blind from across Edinburgh.

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive has any specific plans to introduce a law on corporate killing. (S2F-695)

Ministers are currently considering the recent appeal court judgment in the Transco case, which decided that the charge of culpable homicide against Transco was irrelevant in law. If we conclude that the law in relation to corporate homicide needs to be changed, we will not hesitate to change it.

I welcome the positive approach that is being taken to this area of law. However, although traders can be prosecuted for selling contaminated meat, companies are rarely held to account for accidents that are entirely their responsibility. Will the Executive ensure that any proposed legislation will make clear the responsibilities that managers and directors have—that they will be found guilty of corporate killing if a tragedy occurs? Will the Executive also ensure that such legislation will allow for the prosecution of individual directors when they are genuinely at fault, that it will not simply lead to a bureaucratic paper-chase to find out who did, or did not, do what, and that lessons will be learned from such tragedies?

We have said before, in response to questions from Karen Gillon on the Transco case, that this is a complex area of law. We are considering exactly those kinds of issue to ensure that any new provisions that we might require are effective and properly targeted at those who are at fault.

In response to Mike Pringle's second point, I can say that we do not want to add to the bureaucracy. An important factor in dealing with any tragedy is trying to prevent it from happening again, and that will be uppermost in our minds when we make decisions on the matter.

Notwithstanding the complexities of the legal case, does the First Minister accept that there is a real desire in my constituency for there to be a change in the law because people do not believe that the current law adequately allows the Crown to hold companies accountable for their actions, or inactions, that result in the deaths of individuals? Will he undertake to ensure that ministers and law officers conclude their discussions as quickly as possible to ensure that this loophole in the law is closed, so that other families who—God forbid—find themselves in the same situation as the Findlay family are not left feeling that the deaths of their loved ones were in vain and that the legal system is not able adequately to address their concerns?

I am happy to give Karen Gillon that assurance. We are studying the matter and will reach conclusions on it as quickly as we can. We will do so in a responsible and reasonable way, taking account of all the implications of any decisions that we might reach. As soon as we have reached our conclusions, the Parliament will be the first to know.

---

National Waste Plan

To ask the First Minister what progress the Scottish Executive is making on the national waste plan in respect of reducing the amount of waste being produced and landfilled. (S2F-698)

Scotland produces too much waste, and Scottish local authorities send too much waste to landfill. It is a challenge for businesses and individuals alike not only to reduce the amount of waste that is landfilled, but—importantly—to minimise the amount of waste that we produce. The strategic waste fund is helping to fund waste minimisation initiatives, and levels of both recycling and composting are now increasing.

I recognise that there has been a welcome increase in recycling and composting. Nevertheless, the Executive has abandoned its 1999 target of a 1 per cent annual reduction in waste production. As well as having a major environmental impact, the ever-increasing amount of waste being produced and landfilled has a major social impact. The villages of Greengairs and Wattston in North Lanarkshire are home to Europe's biggest landfill site. The First Minister is well aware of the dire situation that the residents of those villages face, because he promised them environmental justice when he visited them in February 2002. It is not justice to give these villages another landfill site.

Question!

When will the First Minister recognise the need for an annual reduction in the amount of waste that is being produced in Scotland? Moreover, when will he return to Greengairs to explain to the people there why the Scottish Executive is minded—

Come on, Mr Ballard.

—to approve another landfill site?

It is precisely because of our concern for the community of Greengairs that we did not allow North Lanarkshire Council to agree the planning application in question when it wished to do so. Indeed, we called in the application to ensure that appropriate conditions were being imposed on any such application.

Mr Ballard will understand that, given the legal constraints that are on me, it is difficult for me to comment on the application. However, I will address the two issues that he has raised, the first of which is waste. We must first stabilise the level of waste that is being created in Scotland. Moreover, we have to realise that individuals and businesses throughout Scotland must play their part in achieving that aim, because it is not something that Government alone can do. We have to change the culture in Scotland with regard to the creation of waste. Furthermore, we must secure better ways of dealing with that waste not just through recycling and composting but by reducing landfill and other damaging ways in which waste leaves a bad legacy across our countryside.

We must also ensure that we learn lessons from past mistakes. It is precisely because of the conversations that I had with people in Greengairs two years ago that we now have a commitment to improve environmental information, to reform planning laws and to ensure that the national waste fund has more money and makes a bigger contribution than ever before. This Executive is committed to improving the environment and environmental justice for Scotland's communities over a range of issues.

That concludes First Minister's question time.