Plenary,

Meeting date: Thursday, May 4, 2000

Official Report 681KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

---

Scottish Executive Priorities

To ask the First Minister what are the Scottish Executive's current main priorities. (S1F-284)

The Executive's priorities were set out clearly in "Making it work together: a programme for government", which was published last September. That document explained what we are committed to achieving in government and turned our priorities into a programme for action, on which we are now delivering. If Alex Salmond looks round Scotland, he will see evidence in plenty that that is so.

I have been looking at the newly released labour market statistics for Scotland. I do not know whether the First Minister has yet been shown those statistics by his officials, but within the detail is the fact that not only has manufacturing employment fallen by 25,000 in Scotland since Labour came to office, for the first time ever it has fallen below 300,000. Is the First Minister aware of that? Is he concerned? Does he acknowledge the difficulties that are faced by the textile, engineering and food processing industries? Above all, what will he do about it?

I, too, look at the statistics quite carefully. I notice, for example, that output in the manufacturing sector in Scotland increased by 1.4 per cent in the four quarters to the end of the third quarter of 1999, compared with a decrease of 0.7 per cent for the United Kingdom as a whole. That is not always a reverse pattern, and of course we welcome it.

Alex Salmond will know that Scottish manufacturing exports increased by 7.8 per cent in real terms, again in the year to the end of the third quarter of 1999. In addition, he will be aware—because I tell him every time I get the opportunity and I know that, ultimately, it does settle in—that we have the lowest unemployment claimant count for 24 years.

I am well aware of the fact that we also have a very high level of employment—as distinct from low unemployment—in Scotland. There is no doubt at all that in financial services, biotechnology and electronics, we are building a modern and strong Scottish economy.

To be fair to Alex Salmond, I know that he will welcome in particular the very significant and remarkable investment that is coming from Motorola, one of the leading-edge firms in the electronics industry, which is pinning its colours firmly to the Scottish mast and investing £1.3 billion in Fife.

I think it is going well. I want to see that continue.

Let us see how well it is going—or not. I saw the release on Scottish manufacturing exports. Does not the First Minister think that that release should mention somewhere the fact that manufacturing exports are still 3 per cent less in Scotland than when Labour came to power? That might explain why manufacturing employment has fallen below 300,000 for the first time since the industrial revolution.

Does the First Minister recall that right through the 18 Tory years, he dispensed with the argument—as did his colleagues—that the claimant count was an accurate reflection of unemployment? Throughout that time, he argued that the International Labour Organisation definition was the correct measure of unemployment. Is the First Minister aware that, according to the ILO definition, unemployment in Scotland is 7.5 per cent? That is not just well above the UK average, but 3 per cent higher than it was this time last year.

Why does the First Minister disparage the claimant count measure of unemployment when he is in opposition, but refuse to acknowledge the true measure of unemployment when he is in government?

I fear that we are getting a deplorably selective view of the picture from Alex Salmond, which does not come as a total surprise to me. I remind him that the ILO figure for unemployment in Scotland—of 7.5 per cent, as he correctly said—is well below the European average of 8.8 per cent. Total employment rose by 23,000 in the year to December 1999 and through to February 2000.

Employment in Scotland is at around its highest level since 1966. I know that Alex Salmond goes round Scottish industry, as I do, and talks to people in many different areas. I know, too, that he will have been told that in areas such as financial services there is very genuine and very real growth, and that in the areas where we can trade, as we do successfully, on our remarkable record in higher education and our skills in research and development, we are attracting industry and attracting support.

Perhaps Mr Salmond would like to look at the latest Bank of Scotland quarterly survey, which recorded a substantial rise in manufacturing output and service output, which was sustained, in both cases, for well over the past year.

Nothing is perfect; we can always do better. However, it is rather unworthy of Mr Salmond to whinge and complain in the present atmosphere and situation.

I have a copy of the previous issue of the "Scottish Engineering Quarterly Review", in which the chief executive says that hard times are continuing for the manufacturing sector. Is he whingeing or complaining, or is he simply reporting what his members are saying?

Does the First Minister recall that, in their years of opposition, he and his colleagues described the claimant count of unemployment as meaningless and bogus? Has he seen the real figures for employees in employment, which show that for full-time workers—not part-time workers or people in Government schemes—there are fewer employees in employment in Scotland than there were in 1993, when John Major was Prime Minister and Ian Lang was Secretary of State for Scotland? If the First Minister does not recall praising those people when they were in power, why is he pleased with a record that is worse than theirs?

Will the First Minister stop patting Henry McLeish and himself on the back and realise that manufacturing jobs are down; that, since he came to power, exports are down; and that unemployment is up? He should stop the mutual self-congratulation and do something about the real crisis in the Scottish economy.

I very often have to deal with bogus points, and very often in these exchanges.

I should tell Alex Salmond—in a low-key way—that no one is likely to recognise his picture of the Scottish economy. Our current record of employment is good and there is genuine growth in the manufacturing export sector and in the modern—and some of the older—industries. For example, the Executive is entitled to claim some credit for the brokering of a deal that saved the jobs at Longannet only a year ago; indeed, it has continued to give help to that particular plant.

There are problems in some of our older industries, and we are doing everything we can to preserve jobs there. There is no doubt that the fight that was put up for Govan is being continued and that efforts are being made to find solutions to difficult problems. However, it does not help when Mr Salmond and his colleagues manufacture stories of doom and gloom.

---

Cabinet Reshuffle

To ask the First Minister whether he has any plans to reshuffle his Cabinet. (S1F-292)

No.

A predictable, if regrettable, answer.

On the subject of ministerial portfolios, it is unfortunate that the First Minister appears to be unwilling to spare even one of his many ministers to take responsibility for the Holyrood project by participating in the progressing group. According to one newspaper, they are allegedly too busy. After all, compared with the situation three years ago, we now have four times as many ministers and a building that is costing five times the initial estimate. Will the First Minister finally get a grip on the project by ensuring that there is direct ministerial responsibility within the group for building the new Parliament on time and within the revised budget?

Although I do not want to trouble the chamber with a history lesson—or a constitutional lesson—I am genuinely astonished at Mr McLetchie's comments. He has constantly said that there should be a rebalancing of power and responsibility between the Executive and the legislature, and has always held himself up as being particularly proud of Parliament's rights. He must recognise that the building has by law been passed to Parliament and away from the Executive, and is now a matter for the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body and the progressing committee to which the SPCB wishes to delegate some activities. If I were to insist or suggest that the committee should include ministers from the Executive, we would be invading the space dedicated to the Parliament in a way for which various MSPs heavily criticised us when the suggestion was first made a few months ago.

I want the progressing committee to be set up. However, I am well aware that, despite great efforts by our representatives, it seems almost impossible to get agreement on the committee's composition. Instead of sniping and hopelessly confusing the roles of the Executive and the legislature, Mr McLetchie should concentrate on helping to get the committee up and running; by doing so, he would be doing more for the dignity of Parliament and the effective policing of the project than he has so far achieved.

If the First Minister had acknowledged that there was an interest in how £200 million of public money would be spent, the whole project might have been better handled from the outset.

It would be much easier to judge whether the First Minister's Cabinet was as busy as it is claimed if we knew what it was doing half the time. Will the First Minister follow the example of his Labour counterpart in Wales, the First Secretary Mr Rhodri Morgan, and publish the minutes of Cabinet meetings, or will he leave that to his acting deputy to introduce, when he is in what I hope will be very temporary charge of proceedings?

What a very pleasant end to that question. The answer to the main point is that we have no such plans, but I confess that I, too, have been reading the questions that are advanced in the press. I notice that in referring to Jim Wallace, Mr McLetchie described him as a wee, pretending First Minister. It looks as if Mr McLetchie is determined to get back to the nursery and to march forward bravely to his second childhood.

---

Scottish Parliamentary Elections (Anniversary)

To ask the First Minister what plans the Scottish Executive has to mark the anniversary of the first Scottish parliamentary elections. (S1F-296)

If I could find the page, it would help me to answer the question. The important point is not to have specific celebrations—although I believe that there is a genuine and important record of achievement to be celebrated—but to continue the good work that has been done over the past year. It is interesting to note that of the total of 159 commitments in the programme for government, 37 were due to be completed by May 2000 and that—I think I am right in saying this—only one of those is not now in hand. It is that kind of positive progress—the sensible allocation of public funding, the effective government of Scotland and the creation of opportunities for those who have not had opportunity in the past—that is likely to be the mark of the past year and the next year. That is what people in Scotland want.

I take it that the First Minister is giving me firm assurances that we will see further Executive action. I want in particular to highlight the efforts made this year to increase student support and spending on the national health service. Are those the kind of things that we can expect in the forthcoming year?

Yes. I remember well the proposition that the partnership would founder on the rock of student finance. We have put in place a scheme that will increase support for students in higher education in Scotland by around £50 million year on year and, most important of all, will give a heavy weighting to wider access for students from families with a limited financial background.

It is important that we examine that and the many other things that have been done with a special Scottish face. I think, for example, of the Drugs Enforcement Agency, of Jim Wallace's consultation paper, with its radical plans to make appointments to the higher judiciary transparent, and of—here I must pay tribute where it is due—the support and help that we have had from colleagues at Westminster, which, for example, has allowed Susan Deacon to have a substantial boost to health spending this year. The increase amounts not to £300 million as was planned, but to about £470 million, which, I hope, will have a real impact on the efforts of the hard-working staff in the NHS.

Does the First Minister agree that one of the best ways in which to celebrate the anniversary of the Parliament would be to transfer substantially more of the reserved powers from Westminster to this Parliament, which would make a real difference to the people of Scotland and would give the Parliament, in particular, fiscal independence and guaranteed representation in Europe?

It is nice to hear the voice of one of the factions within the SNP—the very distinctive voice of Alex Neil. I really welcome it. I remind him, because I know that he will want to consider this point, that as his own financial spokesman, Sir Andrew Wilson—[Members: "It is not Sir Andrew."] I am sorry. I hasten to reassure John Swinney that he is not someone whom one can totally forget on all occasions. It was Andrew Wilson who was acting—or perhaps deputising—as financial spokesman, who accepted that there would be a fiscal deficit in an independent Scotland. Therefore, financial independence becomes a fiscal deficit and a fiscal deficit can be closed by cutting public spending either in education or in the health service, or by higher taxation. If Alex Neil wants to campaign on those platforms, he is entirely entitled to do so.

---

Water Charges

To ask the First Minister, further to the answer to question S1W-4291 by Sarah Boyack on 26 April 2000, what assistance the Scottish Executive is considering making available to pensioners and low-income households to assist them in paying their water bills. (S1F-289)

We are keeping a careful eye on the situation and we recognise the relevance of that point and the problem that we face. To put the matter into something of a context, however, the average water charge in England and Wales in this financial year is £219; it is £189 in Scotland. However we organise the industry, the one inalienable, inescapable fact is that we will have to spend around £1.6 billion over the next three years.

As Richard Lochhead well knows, there is a relationship to ability to pay—the charges are geared to the council tax band. A household paying the band A charge will be paying half the sum paid under band H, and two thirds of the sum under band D. There is a gearing in the payment mechanism, which I hope will at least do something to help.

Is the First Minister aware that pensioner and low-income households—indeed all households—were appalled last month to receive through their letterboxes water bills showing rises ranging from 18 per cent in some parts of the country to a massive 43 per cent in the north and north-east, and that, since Labour came to power, some people's water bills have increased by 300 per cent?

Can the First Minister tell us why the Scottish Executive has abandoned Scotland's water industry and its water consumers, who have been left to foot the whole £1.6 billion bill, which the First Minister referred to, for upgrading the infrastructure? All that comes on top of rising council tax and people in Scotland being asked to pay the highest price in the whole of Europe for petrol.

Does the First Minister accept that his responsibility is to help the people of Scotland out of poverty and to live affordable lives, as opposed to plunging them into further poverty and bleeding them dry?

I perhaps regret giving those figures in my initial answer instead of waiting for the second shot, but I have the advantage of being able to repeat them.

Self-evidently, someone in the lowest council tax band will be paying half the charge paid by those at the upper end of the banding scale, so there is a substantial differential. By and large, better-off people live in high-band housing and the poorest-off live in low-band housing. It is also important to remember that 27 per cent of properties in Scotland are in band A. I repeat that charges in Scotland are below the average charges in other parts of the country.

I do not like the fact that we are having to pay for the difficulties of the past and are having to find a heavy investment in the water industry over a very short period. However, we are not abandoning, but remembering, the water industry in the interests of those who consume its product. The one thing that we must not do is breach our obligations in law and with regard to European Union directives. We would then no longer be able to say with a degree of honesty that we are proud of our water supply in Scotland. It demands investment, and that investment will take place.

Can the First Minister confirm that the Scottish Executive is not giving one penny of the Scottish block towards assisting pensioners and low-income households with their water bills, which have risen by up to 43 per cent?

I have already explained to Richard Lochhead that we have a graded system of charging. I can also point him to a large number of things that we are doing, at both the Westminster and Scottish Executive level, to help people at the bottom end of the income scale. Indeed, this cannot be taken in isolation, and I could cite a whole range of measures, including the £150 heating allowance for pensioners, the working families tax credit, the new 10p band in income tax or the weighting that I referred to in connection with water charges.

There are no escapes: it is the privilege, I suppose, of opposition, but it is the Opposition's ultimate responsibility that it takes every issue in isolation and demands the ultimate help in every case. It should start adding up the sums, and see who is fit to govern this country.

---

Flooding

To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Executive plans to take to tackle the effects of the flooding in the north and east of Scotland last week. (S1F-288)

I take this opportunity to say that I have every sympathy with those affected by the recent flooding. Scottish ministers continue to give a high priority to flood prevention. I acknowledge the role that councils and the emergency services played in helping those worst affected by the extreme weather over recent times. Reinstatement of damaged property and other losses incurred are matters for the owners concerned and their insurers. The Bellwin scheme is a discretionary scheme that exists to meet councils' revenue costs in alleviating the immediate effects of flooding. No representations have yet been received from councils for the Bellwin scheme to be triggered following the recent flooding.

Does the First Minister accept that, although the fact of global warming has been recognised by taxing the causes, we have lagged behind in providing funding to deal with the effects, such as the recent flooding, that local authority funding should be augmented to allow the necessary preventive measures to be taken to deal with flooding and that a national strategy could pull together best practice and co-ordinate effort across Scotland?

I have sympathy with the need for proper planning. I will, however, say that we were dealing with quite extraordinary circumstances, even if only over a short period. Kinloss experienced 67 hours of continuous rain. That must be some sort of unenviable world record. Clearly, Kinloss was crying about something—I look for further information to its representative in Parliament. The rain gauge in Haddington recorded 133 mm of rain. I am told that the mysteries of statistics suggest that a rain event of that sort happens only once every 650 years.

I remind Nora Radcliffe that we have helped with substantial schemes. The Perth flood prevention scheme, which will be completed in 2001, cost £18 million. We have given £4 million in recent years for preparation work for flood prevention and another £4 million last year.

I accept that more could be done. If circumstances allow us, we will look to do what we can.

The First Minister will know of the unprecedented problems in my constituency and the rest of Edinburgh last week and the considerable consequential cost. In view of that, will the Executive take a sympathetic view of the council's imminent application for assistance under the Bellwin scheme?

Funnily enough, the provost of Edinburgh did not mention that imminent event when we had dinner last night.

Obviously, we will apply the relevant rules and consider any application that comes to us fairly, equitably and with sympathy. However, the rules will be the rules.