Plenary, 06 Apr 2000

Meeting date: Thursday, April 6, 2000

Official Report 676KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he next plans to meet the Prime Minister and what issues are likely to be discussed. (S1F-260)

I notice that Mr Salmond can now repeat that question by heart and does not need a script.

I shall be meeting the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland in Cardiff, which is for me an unusual venue and one that I welcome, at the joint ministerial committee on health.

When the First Minister was asked last week how he would find the additional £90 million for the Holyrood project, he answered that that could be done comfortably out of end-year flexibility in budgets. If that is the case, why are local councils, including Liberal-run Aberdeenshire, cutting millions of pounds from education budgets? If there is end-year flexibility, why can those councils not gain access to it?

We allocate certain funds to local government. We allowed for an increase in grant-aided expenditure for next year of 3.5 per cent, an increase in aggregate external finance of 2.9 per cent and an increase in expenditure guidelines of 3.4 per cent. Mr Salmond will be aware that local authorities have had increases that are well above the rate of expenditure.

Mr Salmond asked specifically about Aberdeenshire, where GAE increased by 3 per cent and the expenditure guideline increased by 3.2 per cent. When he talks, as his colleagues always do, about vicious cuts in local government spending, what he says is not borne out by the figures. I do not deny that there are difficult choices to be made, but there is no doubt that the increase in the allocation to local government was above the rate of expenditure last year, as I expect it will be next year. We will be building to the point at which public service spending will be at its highest ever level in real terms.

When the First Minister was talking about my colleagues, he should have seen the faces of his colleagues, the Liberals who represent Aberdeenshire. That council and many Labour councils say that they have no alternative but to make millions of pounds of education cuts.

No, no.

That is what your colleagues say, sir.

Can the First Minister tell us whether it is correct that, of the £195 million for which he and his colleagues voted for the Holyrood project, no less than £60 million will go straight to Gordon Brown in VAT and other employment taxes? If that is the case, is it not true that, if this were an independent Parliament, and if this Parliament had fiscal autonomy, we would get that money back? Why is it only within the devolution straitjacket that Scottish services get the pain and Gordon Brown gets the gain?

Before I deal with Mr Salmond's second point, I repeat that I have sympathy with local authorities and know the hard choices that they have to make. However, GAE for Aberdeenshire Council, which was £239 million in 1999-2000, will be £246 million in 2000-01. We should have a sense of perspective on that.

Alex Salmond's second point is the economics of the kindergarten. I concede that there is an argument over whether there should be VAT on public procurement contracts, but if there is not, the market is distorted in a number of ways, so it is probably sensible to have it. One cannot avoid the need to collect taxation. From Scotland's point of view, it is extremely important that we collect taxation, because we do very well out of the distribution of identifiable public expenditure. [Interruption.] I hear a member say that that is nonsense. I know that that is easy to say, but perhaps it would be better to compare the per capita spending on the health service and education in Scotland to that in the rest of the country; the word nonsense might then die in the throat.

Given that the First Minister told us last year that oil would be at $10 a barrel for the foreseeable future and that a Scottish Parliament building would cost £109 million, is he really in a position to give the rest of us a lecture on economics? Did he hear the Presiding Officer say last night what a nonsense it would be to finance a long-term capital project out of short-term revenues? Is it not the case that, outside the United Kingdom, every other devolved Parliament in Europe has capital borrowing powers? Why is it only this Parliament that is put under the devolution straitjacket by the First Minister?

Because it is a devolved settlement, because we have very wide-ranging powers, particularly in the legislative field, and because we do extremely well out of public spending allocation. If Alex Salmond is urging on me some form of long-term public-private partnership or private finance initiative arrangement, I am surprised that he has spent the past two years telling me what a disgrace it is that we are undertaking PFIs.

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he last met the Secretary of State for Scotland—[Interruption.] Bless you, Sam—and what issues they discussed. (S1F-257)

I did not realise that Mr McLetchie was taking on himself clerical powers. His somewhat pawky manner occasionally suggests something from Trollope.

I met the Secretary of State for Scotland very recently and spoke to him on the telephone two days ago, I think. I refer Mr McLetchie to the answer I gave some moments ago. The secretary of state and I discussed a variety of subjects and, as I mentioned, I am looking forward to meeting him in Cardiff tomorrow.

In the First Minister's discussions with the secretary of state, I have no doubt that the subject of education comes up occasionally. Presumably even John Reid thinks that that is an area that it is competent for the Scottish Parliament to discuss. I understand that, following the chancellor's budget announcement and the subsequent statement made in this Parliament by the Minister for Children and Education, the extra money relating to schools will go directly to Scottish schools. Will the First Minister tell us how that is to be achieved in Scotland?

The intention is that the money should go directly to Scottish schools. In a sense, the decisions on how it is spent in those schools will lie with the schools. We are discussing with education authorities the best machinery for achieving that. The point is that the money will be an important addition to their funding. It will give them an element of flexibility that I believe will be widely welcomed. I hope that it will be welcomed by Mr McLetchie, although I look at him with a bit of doubt in my mind.

Of course, the direct funding of schools is welcomed on these benches. The very fact that the First Minister is contemplating that measure, in line with Gordon Brown's announcement, is a massive vote of no confidence in the management of schools by Labour local authorities. What he is in effect doing is introducing partial direct grant funding of schools in Scotland, similar to the manner in which St Mary's Episcopal Primary School in Dunblane and Jordanhill are currently fully funded. Why will the First Minister not go the whole hog and extend the benefits of full direct grant funding to all schools? Instead, he is perversely using the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Bill—if Mr Galbraith, who I see is now coughing, survives long enough to see it through—to force an excellent school—

Point of order, Presiding Officer. For members to make statements about other members' health in the chamber is totally out of order. You need to take charge of the chamber and Mr McLetchie's ungentlemanly conduct.

I do not need lectures on how to take charge of the chamber. I think that Mr McLetchie meant what he said as a light-hearted comment and not a serious one.

Indeed, Presiding Officer. That is the spirit in which my comment was extended to Mr Galbraith, who I hope will be in full health for our forthcoming debates on his education bill. I was asking the First Minister why, given his partial direct grant funding of schools as a result of the chancellor's announcement, he will not extend the benefit of full direct grant funding to all schools in Scotland, rather than using Mr Galbraith's education bill to force an excellent school such as St Mary's back under local authority control against the wishes of parents and teachers in that school.

That was a rather long and convoluted point, but it is, I think, of very little substance. I know of no demand, outside the rather strange, mysterious and certainly small world of the Conservative party, for that change. On this occasion, we made a specific gesture, finding sums of £30,000 and more for secondary schools, and £3,000 and more—depending on the size of the school—for primary schools. That was done to give them a boost—an element of flexibility—but it was not a vote of no confidence in the local education authorities or the administration of our schools. To suggest that it could be interpreted in that way is a pretty desperate stratagem, which suggests that Mr McLetchie is very short of ideas in this area.

In the interests of cross-party unity and consensus, now that it is time to move forward on Holyrood, and with respect to John Reid's role as Secretary of State for Scotland, does the First Minister consider that there might be an opportunity to pay for the Holyrood project by scrapping the role of Secretary of State for Scotland? Over 40 years, at £5 million a year, that would pay for the entire project a few times over. After all, the Liberals do not want John Reid in that position, nor do the Tories; the SNP certainly does not want him in that position, and Donald Dewar does not even like him. Given John Reid's activity level, we would save a fortune if he were simply paid a piece rate.

A question, please.

Will the First Minister consider that as a route forward for Holyrood?

Mr Andrew Wilson may have a justified reputation for being clever, but when he makes juvenile remarks of that kind, his question is not worth answering.

---

Rural Employment

To ask the First Minister what progress the Scottish Executive has made in tackling long-term unemployment in farming communities in rural areas. (S1F-258)

The farming industry continues to account for some 60,000 jobs in rural Scotland. Over the past year, the number of people in rural Scotland who were unemployed for more than six months fell by 1,500, or 12 per cent. We will continue that downward pressure, and I hope for further progress.

I thank the First Minister and welcome the extra £39 million that was negotiated for agriculture last week by the Executive. Will the First Minister ensure that support in rural areas is not only for agriculture, but for diversifying the rural economy and for taking advantage of new technologies? Does he agree that, when new companies move into rural areas and receive public funds, their work practices and treatment of employees should be monitored? Does he also agree that there should be strong encouragement from the enterprise boards for new companies to work in co-operation with an appropriate trade union?

I have much sympathy with what Maureen Macmillan is saying. Since last summer, £110 million has been allocated as additional support for the Scottish agricultural community and, as Maureen Macmillan said, £39 million came from the agriculture summit held on 30 March. I pay tribute to Ross Finnie, who worked extremely hard and played a full part in a very satisfactory outcome.

Maureen Macmillan is right to say that the rural economy is much broader than the agriculture industry alone, although that must be at the centre. The whole point of those additional payments, over and above the £0.5 billion in support payments that goes into Scottish agriculture every year through the European system, is to allow breathing space to consider with the industry the best way in which we can diversify and broaden the base of the rural community. It is important that everyone appreciates the importance of that process; I know that the National Farmers Union certainly does.

Does the First Minister support the bid by Highlands and Islands Enterprise to take over the responsibilities of the Crofters Commission, or does he feel that the Crofters Commission is best placed to represent the needs of rural areas? Alternatively, could it be that this is the first step of the quango review that he promised?

I am not sure that I can give a final answer, but a final answer is very near to appearing in the public place. I would not encourage Highlands and Islands Enterprise to expect anything in support of its proposal.

---

Local Government Finance

To ask the First Minister what assessment the Scottish Executive has made of any adverse effect on the services provided by voluntary and community groups in the light of any reduced local authority funding and what action it plans to take. (S1F-263)

My answer is something of a reprise of my exchanges a few minutes ago with Alex Salmond.

The local government settlement for 2000-01 allows for a 3.4 per cent increase in total local authority revenue expenditure compared with last year. Local authority support for voluntary and community groups is a matter for each council to determine in the light of local priorities and circumstances, but we encourage councils to be as flexible and generous as possible.

I am pleased to stress that the Scottish Executive's direct support for the voluntary sector now stands at record levels—some £29.5 million this year, which is an increase of 28 per cent. That is part of a larger sum of around £289 million that is given to the voluntary sector through other bodies in the public sector such as Scottish Homes.

That reply was rather disappointing. What advice would the First Minister offer to groups such as the Grampian Addiction Problem Services, Aberdeenshire Women's Aid, Home-Start, the Duke of Edinburgh's award scheme in Aberdeenshire and other groups elsewhere in Scotland that are under threat of reduced funding or closure because of local authority cuts?

I can recognise the accuracy of what Mr Adam says if, by local authority cuts, he means cuts made by the local authority because of decisions that it has made based on its budget priorities. I repeat that there has not, in real terms, been a cut, either in Aberdeenshire Council's budget or in the budgets of local authorities generally. I fear that I am holding a dialogue with the deaf. However, I urge people, including Mr Lochhead—

Mr Adam.

I am sorry—I meant Mr Adam. I see that Mr Lochhead is properly offended, and I can understand why.

We are aware of some of the problems that Mr Adam mentioned. Alex Salmond came to see me about GAPS the other day. We have in been in touch with bodies in Aberdeenshire, especially with the Aberdeenshire drugs action team. We have asked for a report for the Deputy Minister for Justice, which I hope will be forthcoming shortly. I understand that Aberdeenshire Council's finance committee meets on 17 April. We hope that it will consider matters carefully before taking any final decisions.

Does the First Minister agree that the compact with the voluntary sector in Scotland is a huge advance, which both demonstrates the commitment of this Executive to working in partnership with the voluntary sector and recognises the huge contribution of the voluntary sector to the social well-being of Scotland?

Yes, I agree with that—which seems to be a shock for the nationalists. I have been at a number of gatherings of voluntary sector bodies and personnel recently, including a conference that concentrated on volunteering. There is a strong feeling that there is now a better dialogue and that efforts are being made to achieve a better framework for relationships between central Government and the voluntary sector. Although the figures may be modest, a 28 per cent increase in direct support from this Administration for voluntary bodies is not something that I would have thought of as a sign of hostility or indifference.

The First Minister seems to lack credibility with the people of Aberdeenshire. Will he explain this statistic? Aberdeenshire Council has increased the proportion of its budget that it spends on education from 53 per cent to 55 per cent, but it is having to cut school budgets by 3 per cent. The figures do not match. The First Minister refuses to accept that Aberdeenshire Council has suffered a cut in real terms.

I am happy to talk to Mike Rumbles about this. I have said—and I will repeat—that I sympathise with local authorities because of some of the hard choices that they have to make. I am also aware that we have laid some new duties on them—for example, the duty to provide pre-school nursery accommodation for four-year-olds. We are trying to raise standards in a number of areas, and we are raising them. Mr Rumbles must know from his close alliance and contact with council officials that there has not been a real cut in the budget of Aberdeenshire Council. The council may argue that what it wants to do requires a greater sum of money than the budget that is allowed to it, but it is not—

It is not true that there has not been a cut.

It is true. The expenditure guidelines went up from £269 million in 1999-2000 to £278 million in 2001.

So can the First Minister explain why the figures do not match?

I should also explain to Mr Rumbles that the Aberdeenshire band D council tax is £777, compared to a Scottish average of £886. That is understandable and right in a rural authority, but to suggest that the council has suffered a real-terms cut in its budget is not true.

---

National Fisheries Institute

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive is aware of any plans to set up a national fisheries institute with a UK-wide remit and, if so, where it will be located. (S1F-254)

I am aware of the issue. As I am sure Richard Lochhead will know, the idea of a national fisheries institute arose from a recommendation of the House of Commons Select Committee on Agriculture. The project is in its early stages and no final decision has been made on how to proceed. I recognise that many people in Scotland are taking an interest in the possibility of locating such an institute in Scotland and are staking claims for particular locations. I am aware of the very strong claims that have been made on behalf of the North Atlantic Fisheries College in Scalloway. I visited Scalloway during the summer and I know that Jim Wallace and Tavish Scott have been promoting that claim with considerable energy.

I ask the First Minister to deliver for the Scottish fishing industry on that. Does he agree that it would be a scandal if the fisheries minister for England and Wales usurped Scotland by establishing a fisheries institute in Grimsby? Surely any fisheries institute should be located in Scotland, the home of 70 per cent of the UK fishing industry. We can build on the excellence developed at the North Atlantic Fisheries College in the Shetland isles and Banff and Buchan College of Further Education in the north-east of Scotland. Will the minister fight tooth and nail to ensure that any such institute is established in Scotland?

I would like Scottish sites to be considered sympathetically in the light of the statistics mentioned by Richard Lochhead. However, I am trying to warn members that the decision to found such an institute has not yet been taken; it is a proposition of the Agriculture Committee that is currently being considered. If it were to be founded as a UK body, I hope that Scotland would be a front runner for its location. We will do all that we can to promote that cause when we reach that point.

The First Minister will be aware that his colleagues John Home Robertson and Henry McLeish have already written letters of support for the North Atlantic Fisheries College in Scalloway. Having visited Scalloway, does the First Minister share my view that the fisheries college is a centre of excellence? It is linked to the University of the Highlands and Islands and brings together science, environmental concerns, local authorities and the variety of expertise that is needed for a national fisheries institute.

I am advised that all those things are true. I say that rather cautiously because I have not visited the college, although I have visited Scalloway. I make that clear because I would not want to be accused of misleading the Parliament—something that seems to happen rather a lot these days.

I recognise that good work is done at the college. I have no doubt that the claim will be considered at the appropriate time. Tavish Scott will be involved in discussions on the matter with ministers from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to take place shortly, so no one can doubt his enthusiasm or determination to make progress on the matter.