Cabinet (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-1784)
The Cabinet will meet again tomorrow. We will discuss the implementation of our legislative programme.
I warmly echo the praise that the First Minister gave in the chamber yesterday for the fantastic success of the Royal Bank of Scotland, which will open its global headquarters here in Edinburgh next week. Does he accept that the RBS would not even be a Scottish company today if, back in the 1980s, a foreign takeover bid had not been blocked? Will he also agree that any proposed takeover of Scottish Power must be resisted just as strongly and vocally?
I am sure that Scottish Power will be determined to come out of its recent changes stronger as a company. I certainly hope that it will remain not just headquartered here in Scotland but very much in control of its own affairs here. The energy industry is extremely challenging, so Scottish Power needs to be competitive on a global scale in order to succeed. It will have our full support in doing that. Later today, I will discuss with Scottish Power's chief executive the steps that he is taking to ensure that that happens.
That was not strong and vocal, but weak and barely audible. I remind the First Minister that, just last year, he said that the retention of Scottish corporate headquarters is fundamental to the Scottish economy. Does he realise that the loss of Scottish Power's HQ would be an inevitable consequence of a foreign takeover and that the jobs of the 2,500 people who work there would be on the line? Will he practise what he preaches by making it clear, at this early stage when we can still ward off the threat, that an overseas bid to acquire Scottish Power is simply not welcome? Is he prepared to be that explicit?
Had I stood on the table and shouted in my loudest possible teacher's voice, I suspect that Nicola Sturgeon would still have said that it was barely audible, because she wrote down her response before we came into the chamber. The purpose of the question session is that Ms Sturgeon should listen to the answer before responding, rather than read out some pre-prepared statement. It really is time that she started doing that at these weekly sessions.
I remind the First Minister that the purpose of First Minister's question time is for the First Minister to answer questions. I asked him to say explicitly that a foreign takeover bid for Scottish Power was not welcome. He failed to do so. I suggest to him that it is now time for some explicit economic patriotism and that we need that from him. Is he aware that Britain tops the league of countries in which domestic companies have been taken over by foreign competitors? That shows that the Department of Trade and Industry cannot be relied on to defend Scottish Power. If he is serious, as he says he is, about having major Scottish players in the global market, will he show some resolve—some explicit plain speaking resolve—and stand up for the Scottish national interest?
No. I am absolutely not going to get into the weak nationalist nonsense that we in Scotland should in some way close our borders and consider only what happens inside our own small economy. The most successful Scottish companies—including the Royal Bank of Scotland, which Nicola Sturgeon mentioned—are taking over companies in other countries. They are out there competing in the global marketplace and they are ensuring that they are competitive enough, ambitious enough and ultimately successful enough to compete in that global marketplace. We should not see our ambitions being limited to inside the borders of Scotland; we should be saying that our Scottish companies can compete elsewhere in the world, that they will have our full support and that, if they are ambitious, they can be successful.
I remind the First Minister that there is nothing inconsistent with wanting our national companies to grow internationally while being prepared to defend them when they are under threat of extinction. That is what grown-up national Governments do the world over, and it is about time that this one started doing it. I remind him that Scottish Power employs 6,000 people throughout this country. They will be dismayed that he has failed to stand up for that company here today.
There are a number of possible threats to the future of companies such as Scottish Power, including the international competition they face and the occasional threat of hostile takeover. However, there is also the threat that comes from those who want to close off Scotland's borders. For our energy companies, that threat is probably more acute than in most other sectors, perhaps excluding financial services. The threat to our energy companies is because the future for our energy companies is to expand their markets, to export energy out of Scotland and, as the Deputy First Minister said this morning in Aberdeen, to use the incredible natural resources that we have here. Their future is not just to create and generate more renewable energy for us here in Scotland, but to export that energy, to win new markets, to create new jobs and to create more successful Scottish companies. Those are the ambitions that we should have in Parliament: not the limits of the Scottish National Party, but a global perspective that will win for Scotland.
Prime Minister (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues will be discussed. (S2F-1785)
I met the Prime Minister in Easterhouse last Saturday and I would like to thank and congratulate all those whom we met there, who are doing such hard work in their community to regenerate that community and to ensure that their children have a better life than some of them have perhaps enjoyed. I expect to meet the Prime Minister again soon.
I wish to explore with the First Minister something that arose from his statement to Parliament yesterday, and to ask him to clarify the Scottish Executive's intentions in relation to school boards and parental involvement. I ask him to explain why the system is being changed at a time when 97 per cent of our secondary schools and 88 per cent of our primary schools already have school boards, which have proved to be one of the great success stories in Scottish education since they were established by the previous Conservative Government. Instead of this constant meddling, when will the First Minister and the Scottish Executive finally realise the common sense of the old adage: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"?
That question shows how out of touch Mr McLetchie and the Conservatives are with the reality of Scottish education. Everybody knows that, from the beginning, school boards in some schools have improved parental involvement and have worked successfully with head teachers, other parents who are not represented on them and others in the local community. However, everybody also knows that there are many schools with or without school boards throughout Scotland that desire a far better system of parental involvement and representation. That is what the bill that we will present to Parliament will deliver.
The Scottish Executive's proposals are designed to emasculate the powers of school boards and the involvement of parents. That was a classic example of Orwellian doublespeak from the First Minister that is worthy of a chapter in "Nineteen Eighty-Four".
I want to confirm and clarify a few things. A range of responses to the consultation have been received; we consult in the first place to obtain a range of responses. I know that "consultation" is a dirty word for the Conservatives, who in Parliament and elsewhere regularly criticise consultation, but we believe in consultation and we listen to the results of consultations. If an existing school board that is reformed under the new system wants to continue to call itself a school board and believes that that would be a strength in the school, it will be perfectly at liberty to do so.
There should be a brief third question from Mr McLetchie and a brief answer, please.
The deal will be a poor deal because school letting policy is all about a wider policy of community involvement in our schools, which the First Minister should support.
They will have different powers, but they will be better powers.
Now that we know that the cost to the City of Edinburgh Council of acting as Scotland's capital and hosting G8-associated events will be almost £3 million, will the First Minister say whether he is going to pay for that, rather than leave it to the council tax payers in Edinburgh?
As we said in advance, we are committed to reimbursing appropriate costs, both for local authorities and for the other public bodies that helped us to prepare for and implement a successful G8 summit. The City of Edinburgh Council was one of the bodies that came under considerable pressure in advance of and during the summit. It will need to submit to us—I do not believe that it has yet done so—its detailed figures and justify them, because there is no blank cheque, and the justifiable costs that it identifies will be reimbursed.
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-1789)
I speak with the secretary of state regularly and we discuss all kinds of issues.
Over the past six years, a quarter of Scottish dairy farmers have gone out of business. The major supermarkets sell their milk for 55p a litre, but some Scottish farmers receive as little as 18p for a litre of milk and it costs about 19p a litre to produce. Does the First Minister agree that it is wrong that Scottish dairy farmers are paid less than the cost of production?
As I said recently on a visit to a farm in the north-east, and at an agricultural show at the beginning of August at which I spoke to farmers about that very subject, I believe that although farmers obviously participate in a market for that produce, the supermarkets must regard the situation with a great deal of seriousness. They must realise that if they cut off those who supply them with milk by squeezing the price in that way, they will find ultimately that they have a problem with the supply that is coming through. The supermarkets need to take account of the report that has been published today by the Milk Development Council. They must also ensure not only that the price that they are paying allows them to profit from the milk that they sell, but that it allows farmers profitably to produce the milk that the supermarkets sell. There is a need to ensure that and the issue is raised regularly with supermarkets—Ross Finnie meets supermarket representatives regularly and we raise the matter with them. The supermarkets need to take seriously the long-term sustainability of that market. If they do so, the farmers will get a far better deal.
The First Minister seems to be saying that the matter has nothing much to do with him and that it is up to the supermarkets. Does not he appreciate the seriousness of the crisis that the dairy farmers face? He is presiding over a vital industry in which the price that is paid for its product is below the cost of production. We are having a debate this afternoon about prosperity for all. Is he prepared to accept the destruction of dairying in Scotland, or will he stand up for the Scottish dairy farmers, go down to Westminster—if that is what it takes—and get the issue resolved?
We are in danger of having a repeat version of previously prepared questions being read out regardless of the answer. The answer, as I said, is that we raise those matters with the supermarkets, that we take the issue very seriously indeed and that there is a serious issue at the heart of the debate. The solution, however, is not to create a situation in which the state fixes prices for supermarkets to buy from producers. The objective must be to get the supermarkets to realise that, if they do not take more seriously the price that they are paying for their milk, they will not be able to get that milk in the future. That is how the market will operate. The dairy farmers deserve better from the supermarkets. They have our full support in trying to secure that deal from the supermarkets, but ultimately the supermarkets themselves must make that decision.
Terrorism
To ask the First Minister what procedures have been put in place by the Scottish Executive to respond to any heightened risks following the recent terrorist attacks in London. (S2F-1790)
We are working very closely with the Home Office, the police and other agencies. Furthermore, we continue to consider and develop national policies to ensure that Scotland is well prepared for major emergencies, including terrorist incidents. For example, the Scottish emergencies co-ordinating committee includes chief officers from the main responder organisations and provides co-ordinated strategic direction for emergency planning in Scotland, and a ministerial group on civil contingencies has kept under review the Executive's policy for managing the consequences of major terrorist or other disruptive emergencies.
I thank the First Minister for his response and reassurance. As far as the latter part of his response is concerned, does he accept that, although the bombs have left people in our country feeling anxious and vulnerable, few feel more so than the members of our Asian communities, particularly Muslims? Is he aware that, in order to address that anxiety, I organised an event in my constituency in East Renfrewshire for Muslim residents and others, which concluded that we could take a number of positive steps, the most important of which was to have greater dialogue? Will he reassure me that the most important response that he can give is to continue to take the lead in supporting multiculturalism in our schools and elsewhere; in promoting greater understanding between our different communities; and in supporting and encouraging an attitude of tolerance and respect in our one Scotland with its many cultures?
Many people in our minority ethnic communities and the different minority faiths in Scotland are not immigrants; they were born here and are very proud of their national roots. I am very pleased today by figures that show that Scotland's incoming population is growing and is of a quality that not only allows us to reverse population decline but will help us to grow a dynamic economy in the future.
Single-status Agreement
To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive has any concerns regarding local authorities not implementing the 1999 single-status agreement. (S2F-1797)
That is a local authority matter. The Executive had no involvement in the negotiations between local authorities and the trade unions that resulted in the single-status pay agreement of 1999. It is therefore for local authorities to implement the agreement.
The First Minister is no doubt aware that Aberdeen City Council and Moray Council have been forced to withdraw their proposals. I am sure that he will join me in welcoming the fact that the threat of industrial action has been lifted. Will he confirm that similar public sector workers who deal with equality issues are getting deals such as the national health service agenda for change arrangements, which are fully funded by the Executive? Moreover, does he think that all staff who work in the public sector deserve to receive the same support for equality issues from the Executive?
The difference between agenda for change and the new local authority arrangements is that, in national negotiations, the United Kingdom Government and the devolved Administrations secured the agenda for change arrangements in the health service to meet a number of important objectives, such as the modernisation of staffing in the NHS to ensure more flexibility, and to introduce real reforms that would improve patient care throughout the country. As a result, the significant funding that we are providing not only meets those staffing objectives but ensures that health boards can manage the change. When local authorities decided in 1999 to establish the new single-status agreement, the decision was made by them and the trade unions. At that time, they should have decided how it would be implemented. It is their responsibility to implement and fund it.
Does the First Minister agree that thorough and adequate negotiations with trade unions are essential to securing single-status agreements? Will he urge councils to act in such a way, unlike the Lib Dem-Tory administration in Aberdeen, whose actions have greatly distressed the workforce?
Negotiations between public bodies and trade unions are notoriously difficult. All I will say is that I am pleased that an immediate impact has not been felt on services for the people of Aberdeen. It is important to have further dialogue and to ensure that council administrations and trade unions in different parts of the country discuss the matter seriously and, I hope, reasonably, with local people's interests always to the fore.
Scottish Parliament (Powers)
To ask the First Minister how Scotland could benefit from enhanced powers for the Scottish Parliament. (S2F-1798)
Devolution is delivering a more democratic and more accountable system of government. It is durable, but it is not immutable and it is a process, not an event. We have made important adjustments and there will be more—not because of a fixation on constitutional abstracts, but to enhance the Government's ability to deliver for the Scottish people.
Does the First Minister recall that the constitutional convention—a body in which the Scottish National Party and the Conservatives refused to participate—has suggested that it might reconvene to review Parliament's powers and functions? Does he support that, in the hope that it will allow a constructive and consensual way to move towards more powers for the Parliament? In the meantime, I immodestly suggest a pamphlet called "Fiscal Federalism", which concerns the levers of economic powers of Parliament and argues for radical but realistic policies, rather than the black-hole economics of fiscal autonomy that the SNP may propose.
If the pamphlet has a price on it, I hope that Jeremy Purvis will declare a financial interest in promoting it in the chamber.
In the light of what the First Minister said, given the wide-ranging views throughout Parliament on the need for additional powers and in the spirit of the Parliament's founding principles, does he agree that rather than conduct an internal review in the Executive, it is time to consider establishing a special committee of the Parliament, perhaps convened by the Presiding Officer, to examine additional powers and to take evidence from civic Scotland and others on the additional powers that Parliament now requires? Does he acknowledge that although there is disagreement about independence, agreement may well be wide on the next step forward?
I make it clear that no review on the matter is taking place inside the Executive, for a good reason. That is why I oppose the suggestion that Alex Neil just made.
The First Minister has, in the past, claimed that the European constitution would give greater voice and more powers to the Scottish Parliament. Does he now acknowledge that current analysis of the constitution shows that not to be true and that, in fact, the constitution would drain Parliament of further powers? On that basis, will he take the message to the Prime Minister, in his European presidency, that the Scottish Parliament wants him to kill off the constitution once and for all?
We could be back in the mid-1980s with Alex Neil and Phil Gallie's contributions to the debate—but it is still fun. The reality is that the proposed European constitution—which, I recognise, is now opposed in several European countries—would give new rights and opportunities to Parliament and to devolved Governments the length and breadth of the European Union. It will be a pity if we do not secure those rights but, as the debate goes on, we have an opportunity to influence the way in which not just the British presidency, but the next responds to the votes that have taken place and what steps are taken about the future constitutional arrangements in Europe. We have an opportunity to put our case.
Meeting suspended until 14:15.
On resuming—
Previous
Question TimeNext
Question Time