Plenary, 04 Nov 2004

Meeting date: Thursday, November 4, 2004

Official Report 777KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

Before questions to the First Minister members will want to join me in welcoming William Cusano and colleagues from the National Assembly of Quebec. [Applause.]

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

I begin by warmly congratulating Duncan McNeil on the birth of his latest grandchild—although on this morning's evidence I think that wee Charlie is already writing his granddad's speeches.

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-1164)

At next week's Cabinet we will discuss matters of importance to the people of Scotland. In particular, we will discuss and announce to Parliament later that day the policy position that we intend to adopt in relation to smoking in public places in Scotland.

I look forward to that announcement.

I start by telling the First Minister how disgraceful I think it is that the Scottish Executive refused to take part in this morning's debate on pensions. The First Minister said in the chamber earlier this year that it was important for older people to claim the benefits to which they are entitled. As he knows, the Scottish Executive provides funding to promote benefit take-up. In light of that, does he share my concern that more than one third of Scottish pensioners who are entitled to the means-tested top-up to their state pension do not get it, either because they think that the system is too complicated or because they quite rightly resent, or feel embarrassed about, having to go cap in hand for money that should be theirs as of right?

Nicola Sturgeon is absolutely right: we provide funding and support for local authorities and other bodies to encourage people, including our older citizens in Scotland, to take up their benefits. I agree absolutely that it is disappointing that not all Scottish pensioners claim everything to which they are entitled and I strongly urge and encourage them to do so. I also strongly urge and encourage members of the Parliament to encourage pensioners to do so, rather than telling them that the system under which they can claim is worthless, as the SNP has done this week. This morning's debate was, of course, on a reserved matter and therefore the Executive did not have a position on it, although the two Executive parties have clear positions on the matter, which is why they won the debate against the SNP's ridiculous proposals. I hope that the debate has not sent out a signal to pensioners in Scotland that they should not claim their pension credit, which is of direct benefit to them, and I hope that they will do so in the months ahead.

Is the First Minister aware that the Government's target for take-up of the pension credit is only 73 per cent? Even if it met that target, that would still leave an awful lot of Scottish pensioners not getting the money to which they are entitled. The fact is that one in five pensioners in Scotland still lives in poverty because of the means test. Yes, pension policy is a reserved issue, but tackling pensioner poverty is a responsibility of the Executive. Surely if means testing is causing that poverty—which it does—the First Minister of all people should have something to say about it. Will he, in the interests of tackling pensioner poverty, make the case to his colleagues in London to get rid of means testing and introduce a citizens pension that will pay all pensioners in Scotland a decent pension as of right?

What the vast majority of us in the Parliament have done, not just in the past two months in this new chamber but in the past five and a half years, is deliver real new services and real improvements to the lives of Scottish pensioners—real improvements that have helped to lift Scottish pensioners out of poverty. The central heating programme, which is admired elsewhere in the United Kingdom, has lifted Scottish pensioners out of fuel poverty. The provision of free local bus travel, which is soon to be extended the length and breadth of our country, has given Scottish pensioners an opportunity that they did not have before to enjoy the time at their disposal. Those and other real improvements to the lives of Scottish pensioners are far more important than is using this chamber for party-political posturing in advance of a general election, as the SNP has tried to do this morning.

I am not knocking anything that the Scottish Executive is doing for pensioners; I am saying that as long as one in five pensioners in Scotland lives in poverty the Scottish Executive is simply not doing enough. That is the issue that the Executive must address.

I suggest to the First Minister that he is missing a golden opportunity to stand up and be counted for Scotland's pensioners. Pension reform is on the horizon. Even the Minister of State for Pensions in London said this week that the system of means testing had a "take up problem" and that he had "an open mind" on the subject of a citizens pension. Does the First Minister see that now is the time to try to influence that open mind and to persuade the Government in London at long last to deliver real fairness for Scotland's pensioners? Will he join me and his coalition partners in demanding from his colleagues in London an end to means testing, the introduction of a citizens pension and the restoration of the link with earnings that was so disgracefully broken by the Tories 20 years ago?

I hope that my Liberal Democrat colleagues will allow me a little licence to respond both as First Minister and on behalf of the achievements of the Labour Government at Westminster.

I will speak first about the work of the devolved Government. Working with our colleagues in London, we have contributed to reducing the proportion of pensioners in Scotland in both absolute and relative poverty from 29 per cent to 21 per cent—as the member indicated—during our years in government. There is much more still to do, but a significant difference has already been made to the lives of 60,000 Scottish pensioners. Through the Parliament, we have ensured that there is free local bus travel, free personal care and free central heating. We have also done other things to protect the lives of Scottish pensioners. We have introduced antisocial behaviour legislation that SNP members did so much to oppose last winter and during the spring.

Our policy is absolutely clear. The people who deserve most from the Government are the poorest pensioners in our society. Those are the pensioners who benefit from the chancellor's policies. This week the SNP said that it would take away the pension credit and the minimum income guarantee that exists for pensioners between the ages of 60 and 65. When it says that, it has a lot to answer for. Let us be very clear: the Government's policy is to defend and to improve the lives of the poorest pensioners—the very people whom Nicola Sturgeon says she wants to help but against whom her policies work directly.

The SNP would give every pensioner in Scotland the pension credit amount as of right. The oldest and most vulnerable pensioners do not get it because of Labour's means testing. It is all very well for the First Minister to boast about what he is doing for pensioners, but one in five pensioners in Scotland still lives in poverty. Will he accept that the Government is not doing enough and that it is time for him to do more and better?

With your permission, Presiding Officer, I will address that very specific point. It is simply disingenuous for Nicola Sturgeon to claim that a Scottish National Party policy that takes money away from the poorest pensioners and gives it to better-off pensioners is designed to help to deal with pensioner poverty in this country. That is done by giving money to the poorest pensioners. The SNP would take that money away and give it to someone else.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues will be discussed. (S2F-1162)

I have no immediate plans to meet the Prime Minister.

I am disappointed to hear that. Perhaps they could discuss another matter that was announced today: Mr Chisholm's letter to the power companies about the price of gas and electricity, over which, thankfully, Mr Chisholm has no control. Will the First Minister instruct Mr Chisholm to write letters not to the power companies but to council leaders, to ask them to cut the burden of council tax, which has risen by nearly 50 per cent since 1997 and is the burden that is resented most bitterly by our pensioners? As the First Minister is aware, councils have already told him that the Executive's sums do not add up and that higher council tax bills are on the way again next year. Will he consider adopting a policy that does add up: the direct funding of our schools by the Scottish Executive, which would enable our councils to cut council tax bills across the board by 30 per cent?

Yesterday we heard yet again the specific plans that the Conservatives have in Scotland, not to cut council tax bills, but—let us get this right—to cut education expenditure, which means expenditure on our schools in Scotland. I remind Mr McLetchie that in every single year since a devolved Parliament was established in Scotland, council tax rises have been lower than in every single one of the last five years of the previous Conservative Government. The record of this Parliament in keeping down council tax rises and in ensuring that people get value for money for their council tax in Scotland is far better than the record of the Conservative Government and it will be even better over the next three years.

That is not what the pensioners of Scotland recognise when council tax bills land on their doorstep. I suggest that the First Minister gets a reality check on how welcome his council tax rises are to Scotland's pensioners.

Does the First Minister acknowledge that the plan that Mr Chisholm announced today is simply an extension of the means testing that we have been talking about today, as it is dependent on eligibility for pension credit? The plan is little short of an insulting political stunt.

Instead of getting Mr Chisholm to write to the power companies, why does the First Minister not get Mr Chisholm to write, or indeed write himself, to the man who is really responsible for pensioner poverty in our country—the chancellor, Gordon Brown? Why does he not tell Gordon Brown to end the means-tested pension credit, which even the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions admits is a huge disincentive to saving? While he is at it, why does he not tell Gordon Brown to reverse his pensions tax, which is robbing pensioners in Britain of £5 billion a year? Why does he not tell Gordon Brown to adopt Conservative plans to increase the state pension and give people real incentives, which are conspicuously absent today, to save for retirement? That, rather than Mr Chisholm writing nonsense letters, is the way to deal with pensioner poverty.

Scottish pensioners are perfectly well aware of the Conservatives' record on the basic state pension, which was increased above inflation in only one year during the whole term of the previous Conservative Government, and of their record of driving more and more pensioners into poverty. Not only are more and more pensioners coming out of poverty in Britain and in Scotland today, but all those pensioners in Scotland are enjoying the benefits of free local bus travel, free personal care for the elderly and the other services and initiatives that we have introduced, such as free central heating. We work with important pensioner organisations to represent pensioners in Scotland today.

The letter that Mr Chisholm sent today is not a silly stunt; it should not be ignored by the energy companies, nor should it be ignored by the Parliament. The letter has been welcomed by pensioner organisations and by those who care genuinely about fuel poverty. If Mr McLetchie had an ounce of decency, he would also welcome the letter and support Mr Chisholm's call.

Would the First Minister care to acknowledge that Mr Chisholm's stunt will require pensioners to disclose their income to power companies and their homes to be inspected to ensure that they meet a so-called quality standard? Does he acknowledge that one of the greatest contributions to the reduction of poverty, or fuel poverty, if he likes, in this country, was the privatisation of our electricity industry, which has seen prices fall by 20 per cent in real terms over the past 15 years? That was an achievement of the Conservative Government that was opposed by Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National Party but which has made the difference on pensioner poverty and on fuel poverty in particular.

If Scottish pensioners had been given a choice back in the 1980s of a decent rise in their pension or privatisation of the electricity companies, I know which they would have chosen.

It is important to point out the differences in policies that exist in the Parliament. Mr McLetchie is clearly opposed to the suggestion that energy companies should reduce their prices for those who are on the pension credit. If he is opposed to that, what on earth is he in favour of? Surely it is right to say that there should be relief for pensioners who are on the pension credit and who therefore need assistance with their bills. Surely that is a good thing to support. I am astonished that even the Conservatives would oppose that move. I am sure that MSPs of all parties support it.

I will take one constituency question.

I draw the First Minister's attention to real and continuing problems with road safety on the A82. This weekend saw another tragic death—in this case, that of a young man aged 19. The A82 is a notorious accident black spot. The route is critical, not just for the local community but for tourism. I acknowledge that the Executive has taken action through a route accident reduction plan, but accidents and deaths continue to happen and it is clear that more needs to be done. Will the First Minister review the plan and take further action to reduce accidents and prevent unnecessary deaths?

I think that all members will want to express their condolences to the family of the young man who was killed last weekend.

The situation in relation to the A82 provides a dramatic example of why it is important that we take a reasonable, responsible and considered approach to road improvements throughout Scotland. There are sometimes far too many calls in the Parliament for the upgrading of other roads in Scotland that do not have the same accident record as the A82 or the key function in their area that the A82 has in the west of Scotland. It is therefore important that we continue our work towards the next stage of significant road improvements in Scotland. The A82 will be one of the roads considered as part of the review and I am sure that the Minister for Transport will be happy to meet Jackie Baillie to discuss the matter.

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland and what issues he intends to discuss. (S2F-1174)

I have no immediate plans for a formal meeting with the Secretary of State for Scotland, but I expect to meet him informally tomorrow.

Given that nuclear power stations could be imposed on Scotland by a decision of the Westminster Government, the First Minister would be well advised to discuss the issue with the Secretary of State for Scotland. The First Minister will be well aware that 81,000m3 of land are contaminated at Hunterston and that that information has only just been placed in the public domain. Does he agree that that situation does little to commend nuclear power to the people of Scotland and that many people believe that nuclear power is unsafe? Does he agree that nuclear power is uneconomic and unwanted in Scotland?

Members have strong views on all sides of the argument about nuclear power. It is important to restate the position of the devolved Government in Scotland. We have powers in relation to the matter: we have planning powers that we can use. We have said clearly that we will not use those planning powers to grant permission for new nuclear power stations in Scotland as long as the issue of nuclear waste is still outstanding and requires to be solved. We adopted that important position and we have held it consistently for the past five years.

The situation at Hunterston received publicity earlier in the week. I too am concerned that there were two estimated figures. I think that the figure from 2001 was 10,000m3, whereas the more recent estimate is 81,000m3. It is important that we establish the facts of the situation as quickly as possible. The new nuclear decommissioning authority takes seriously its responsibilities to reassure the public and ensure that the necessary actions are put in place so that if decontamination is to take place it is dealt with as part of the decommissioning process.

Does the First Minister agree that it is appalling that British Nuclear Fuels plc said that the company is unaware of the full extent of the contamination? Does he also agree that it is almost certain that the contamination extends beyond the boundaries of the Hunterston complex? Has he contacted the Scottish Environment Protection Agency to ask it to carry out a survey of the land outside the complex? If he has done so, when will SEPA report to the First Minister with an answer to the problem?

SEPA undertakes regular monitoring of radioactivity levels around nuclear sites. If information that is not already available comes to light over the next period and can be put into the public domain, I will ensure that that happens. It is important that we support the new authority, which will come into operation next year and be tasked with the responsibility of dealing with the situation. It is also important that we ensure that SEPA plays its part fully in ensuring that the public in Scotland can be sure that they are safe.

We will return to the issue under question 5.

---

“ambitious, excellent schools”

To ask the First Minister how the proposed changes to the Scottish schools curriculum set out in "ambitious, excellent schools" will benefit pupils and teachers. (S2F-1166)

The proposed changes to the curriculum will create flexibility for teachers and head teachers and create new options, including vocational choices and, importantly, more stretching courses for the most able, ensuring that all pupils reach their full potential.

I too am enthusiastic about the agenda that the Executive has set out, particularly its emphasis on choice within school, rather than between schools, and reducing clutter in the curriculum. However, many people remain concerned that the review of the higher and advanced higher courses that the Scottish Qualifications Authority has announced will reduce the choices that are offered to pupils. Will the First Minister reassure the Parliament that the SQA will not scrap exams if to do so would compromise opportunities for our young people?

I am certain that those at the SQA who are responsible for that work will take their responsibilities seriously and will not reduce opportunities for young people in Scotland as a result of their current review. However, they are right to review the range of subjects that are available several years on from the introduction of the new national qualifications. There has never been a student studying or being examined in some subjects that were put in place at the start of those qualifications, and it is right and proper at this stage to have a review that allows the resources and activities of our qualifications agency and our teachers to be focused on the courses that young students in Scotland want to study.

I am interested in the First Minister's response to Dr Murray, which offers some reassurance to those who are seriously concerned about the cuts in highers and the attack on so many higher subjects. Is he aware that one of the concerns that people have is the consequences that those cuts would have for universities in particular? On modern languages, does he acknowledge not only that we need a flexible, modern curriculum, but that we must ensure that we equip our young people to contribute to the world of work and trade in the years ahead and that modern languages in particular must be protected?

I do not agree that modern languages in our schools should be protected; they should be enhanced and improved, because they are important. That is precisely why this devolved Government introduced a new policy on modern languages for schools that removed the ridiculous, inflexible system for the upper ages of secondary schools and introduced more opportunities for modern languages in our primary schools, so that young people can start to learn a language and get enthused about it at primary school and develop their talent and skill through secondary school and into the rest of their lives. Far from simply protecting modern languages in our schools, we need to improve the system, ensure that more young people are enthusiastic about and engaged in modern languages and encourage them and their teachers to ensure that they take that forward and use the language for the rest of their lives.

Does the First Minister accept that it is only by allowing funds to follow the pupil that we will be able to introduce adequate choice and flexibility into our educational system in such a way as to deliberately drive up standards?

James Douglas-Hamilton is a reasonable man, but he promotes an utterly unreasonable and ridiculous policy that was torn to shreds by my colleagues in yesterday afternoon's debate, and deservedly so. As I have said previously in this parliamentary session, there is a fundamental divide in the Parliament. There are those of us who believe in a flexible, modern, comprehensive system of education in Scotland that serves the many, not the few, and which ensures both that children throughout Scotland can reach their full potential and go on to be ambitious, confident adults and that our teachers and head teachers are properly supported to do the job that they signed up to do. Then there are those who want to cause utter chaos in the system by ensuring that the schools cannot even plan for the future and put the right courses in place because they do not know how many pupils they will have from one year to the next.

The Conservatives' proposal is ridiculous and it is backed up by huge cuts in education expenditure that would destroy many of the improvements that have been made in our schools in recent years. Instead, the package that Peter Peacock and Euan Robson outlined yesterday is with the grain of the Scottish system, is challenging for teachers and head teachers and will improve the lives of young Scots for many years to come. That package is to be commended to the Parliament and beyond, and it will help to transform Scotland.

Does the First Minister agree that one of the biggest challenges for policy makers is young people who are turned off school, particularly in the later years of secondary school? Is he aware of research carried out by Careers Scotland showing the link between young people having motivation and direction and higher achievement? If that were followed through with vocational opportunities it would go a long way towards providing a solution to the problem. Will he ensure that vocational opportunities for young people in school are given a high priority by the Scottish Executive?

I genuinely believe, and have believed ever since my later years as a teacher, that the mistakes made in the 1980s, when a strict curriculum of academic subjects for everybody in secondary schools was created, are mistakes for which we have since paid a heavy price. We have paid that price in relation to the motivation and the learning of young people; however, we have also paid a price in relation to discipline in our schools, and the indiscipline that resulted from demotivation and from young people—boys in particular—being turned off the curriculum. The package that has been announced this week will create new vocational opportunities for young people and will ensure that there is more flexibility, especially in secondary 1 and secondary 2, when young boys in particular move, for some inexplicable reason, from being enthusiastic and interested in learning in primary school to being demotivated and disinterested. That package of changes will benefit not only learning, the curriculum, teachers, head teachers, parents and pupils but discipline in our schools. For that reason, it will take us much further forward.

---

Nuclear Power Plants (Contaminated Land)

To ask the First Minister what steps are being taken to ensure that communities neighbouring nuclear power plants are not adversely affected by contaminated land. (S2F-1169)

Sites are strictly regulated by the nuclear installations inspectorate and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. SEPA undertakes regular monitoring of radioactivity levels around nuclear sites. Both the NII and SEPA can require an operator to take appropriate action, including requiring it to stop activities, if they believe that the public are being adversely affected.

A growing number of Scots believe that the best way to protect their local communities is to say an unequivocal no to any more nuclear power plants in Scotland. Reference has been made to the situation at Hunterston A and the confusion over the level of contaminated land there. Does the First Minister share the alarm felt by the SNP when a British Nuclear Fuels plc spokesman said:

"We don't know the extent of the contamination"?

Given that confusion and the fact that the Parliament has its own health, communities and environment ministers, will the First Minister order his officials to carry out an urgent investigation into how the information on contamination is collected, measured and publicised? Will he order that investigation and make a report available as soon as possible?

On very sensitive, safety-related matters such as this, clarity of responsibility is particularly important. That is why the Executive and, in fact, the Parliament have supported the creation of the new nuclear decommissioning authority. It will be the NDA's responsibility to ensure that such matters are tackled properly and that the estimates, including the estimate that has been revised in preparation for the work of the NDA, are turned into hard facts and real action, so that communities throughout Scotland can be sure that they are to be protected.

---

European Region of the Future

To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Executive will exploit Scotland's position as European region of the future. (S2F-1175)

That award and the individual city award won by Dundee are good news for Scotland the nation. The skills of our people, our record investment in transport and electronic infrastructure, the excellence of Scotland's schools, colleges and universities and our quality of life have all helped to persuade independent experts that Scotland is a great place in which to live, study, work and do business. We will capitalise on that endorsement, and the Deputy First Minister has already charged Scottish Development International with preparing a plan to maximise the impact of the award, particularly in our target international markets. It will work with other agencies and ministers, and we will ensure that those messages are built into the wider international promotion of a modern Scotland.

I am sure that the First Minister will agree that this accolade shows that the policies of the Liberal-Labour coalition are working to ensure that Scotland is seen as an excellent destination for overseas companies to invest in and for young people to come and live in, and to confound the doom-mongers among us who constantly talk Scotland down.

Absolutely. I could not agree more. Not only does this country have a great Government, but it is a great country. Anybody who opens their eyes and looks around Scotland today can see that we have a growing economy and successful international businesses. This is a good country in which to work and do business. It is also a good country in which to study, and that is why thousands of students come here from all over the world. When they come here, they want to stay here and we are going to give them the opportunity to do so. Scotland is a good country to live in, with an excellent quality of life, both in our attractive, modern cities and in our countryside, which is famed and admired the world over. Scotland is the best small country in the world and these independent experts know it.

What will the First Minister's efforts do to improve Scotland's competitiveness and how will he measure that incremental improvement?

One of the things that I will do to improve the competitiveness of Scottish businesses is to encourage them and praise them for their successes. I am not going to get involved in the sort of language that we have heard from Jim Mather during his short time in the Parliament. He talks about recessions and runs down Scottish businesses and their performance at home and abroad. We in the Parliament need to talk up Scotland's businesses and economy and let the world know what a great country this is, and Jim Mather should join us sometime in doing that.

Meeting suspended until 14:00.

On resuming—