Plenary, 07 Oct 1999

Meeting date: Thursday, October 7, 1999

Official Report 845KB pdf

---

Open Question Time

---

SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

---

Scottish Assigned Budget

To ask the Scottish Executive what increases or decreases have been applied to the Scottish assigned budget since 1994 as a result of European structural funds allocated to Scotland. (S1O-430) The First Minister (Donald Dewar): None.

Can the First Minister confirm that if the payment to the structural fund grant increases or decreases from one year to the next, the resources available for other purposes change accordingly? Will he confirm that the Executive will adjust its other programmes, up or down, to reflect the expected call on the assigned budget from the structural funds payment in any one year? In other words, is it correct to say that structural funds are non-additional to Scotland's overall bottom-line position?

That is broadly correct. Budget provision is made for European structural funds within the Scottish assigned budget each year. That is based on the total for the funds agreed by the Commission for each seven-year programme—for example, the present one is 1994 to 1999—and the likely pattern of expenditure. Although it is true that there can be differences in the amount paid each year—it may fluctuate—the total funds committed over the seven-year programme do not change. Any increases or decreases, which occur for a variety of reasons each year, must be accommodated within the same total. We are conscious of the importance of the structural funds and there will shortly be announcements about objective 2. We look forward to a good settlement.

To clarify what the First Minister is saying, is he confirming that the much trumpeted, so-called special deal by Blair for the Highlands and Islands, and the soon to be announced structural funds, which I am sure will be trumpeted in the same way, will have no beneficial effect on overall spending levels in Scotland?

Those do not affect overall spending levels. I am surprised that that comes as a surprise to the SNP. They affect what is spent in the areas that have status of eligibility. The deal that was done for the Highlands and Islands, which secured the financial equivalent of objective 1, was important to the Highlands and Islands and was widely welcomed.

Does the Scottish Executive accept that its loss of objective 1 status for the Highlands and Islands, which was so hard fought for by previous Administrations, was somewhat careless? It will cost the region about £40 million over the next five years, despite the temporary alternative funding.

I do not recognise that figure. The fact that, through the influence of some hard arguing by the United Kingdom at Berlin, we got the financial equivalent of objective 1 status, was widely welcomed. The Highlands and Islands narrowly failed to qualify both in terms of gross domestic product per head and on the ground of sparsity. It was important to obtain support for them, and that was achieved.

It is interesting to note that if we examine the GDP comparisons for Scotland as against the rest of the United Kingdom, we are outscored by London and the south-east but if we consider the other nine areas of the United Kingdom, the Scottish GDP per head is above all the rest.

Will the First Minister confirm what he alluded to, which continued the point that Jack McConnell made to the European Committee: irrespective of any cut in objective 2 funding, there will be no reduction in overall expenditure in Scotland?

Can he also confirm, for our friends in the SNP, that that has always been the case with European funding and the block budget?

Yes. That has been the case for as long as I can remember. Those who have been involved in these matters appreciate that. If the SNP position is—I got a hint that it is from the facial expressions and the noises—that this is a new scandal, either SNP members have failed to understand the system or I am surprised that they campaigned so hard for eligibility status for the Highlands or Islands or other parts of Scotland.

Will the First Minister confirm that, since they began in 1974, 25 per cent of UK structural funds have been allocated to Scotland but that it has received the Barnett formula share of those funds—8.8 per cent? From the First Minister's answer to Mr Crawford today, it is clear that we have lost out on hundreds of millions of pounds of structural funds because of the London link.

I do not accept that for a moment. I should remind Mr Wilson that on the assisted areas map—an important parallel objective—Scotland has 49 per cent coverage compared with something like 26 per cent for England. That is a good settlement for Scotland, given the GDP figures that I have just mentioned. We will shortly have the objective 2 settlement.

At the moment, these are just plans that must be submitted to the European Commission. If they hold, we will lose coverage, but the same applies to every country in the European Union and every part of the United Kingdom. We ought to welcome and glory in our economic performance, rather than seeing it is a cause for sorrow. The fact that we have improved our comparative performance does not take away from the fact that we still do surprisingly well out of the final settlement.

---

Drugs

Sir David, my question refers to Mr Angus MacKay. With your permission, I wish to inform members that I believe Mr MacKay is getting married tomorrow. I am sure that the chamber will want to express its very good wishes for the future to him and his fiancée. To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S1W-101 by Angus MacKay on 30 June, what progress the ministerial group has made in tackling the drugs problem in Scotland. (S1O-420)

[Applause.]

Presiding Officer, I will have to resort to this ploy more often. Miss Goldie's remarks are a particularly fiendish Tory ploy to distract me from answering the question.

The ministerial committee on tackling drug misuse, which I chair, met for the first time on 17 August and agreed a programme of action to take forward the Executive's commitment to tackling the drugs problem in Scotland. That action included the adoption of "Tackling Drugs in Scotland: Action in Partnership" as a strategy document.

In addition, the committee agreed to carry out an audit of all drugs-related expenditure in Scotland, with a particular view to providing additional facilities for rehabilitation. It also considered adding alcohol abuse to its remit and noted the progress that is being made in setting up the new drugs enforcement agency.

I thank the minister for that full response. Conservative members welcome those initiatives, which represent a significant step towards addressing the problem of drug misuse.

Does the minister agree that it might send out a useful message to the audience beyond this chamber if the Executive considered appointing a minister with sole responsibility for dealing with drug abuse in Scotland? I make that suggestion in the belief that something rare might happen in this chamber. I suspect that there is total cross-party

consensus about the fact that we as a Parliament want to be seen to be tackling what is probably one of the greatest threats to society in Scotland. Will the minister offer a visible and demonstrable sign of the Executive's resolve to provide a global strategy for addressing the problem?

Miss Goldie may or may not be aware that I have responsibility for the Scottish Executive's drugs policy across all departments. I work in tandem with colleagues responsible for communities, health and education.

However, I would not want to intrude on the First Minister's responsibility for the number and remit of ministers in Scotland. I do not wish to be partisan, but some may find it rather unlikely that a Conservative member is suggesting that we appoint an additional minister.

We should recognise that the approach that is being taken at the moment is comprehensive and seeks to tackle the problem through the provision of adequate facilities for rehabilitation and proper preventive education for future generations of young Scots, as well as through effective enforcement.

The ministerial committee, which is a Cabinet sub-committee, has a broad remit and the agencies with which it is working are examining every issue that affects the drugs problem in Scotland.

In no way do I wish to diminish what the minister has said. I do not want to create additional ministers—good heavens, they are breeding like chickens as far as I can see. I want to make improvements in the ministerial structure.

Rabbits.

Rabbits. They are breeding like rabbits. Perhaps even foxes.

The ministerial structure is sensible—none of us doubts that. The minister's answer is significant. He said that he occupies a position that neither I nor, I suspect, the public were clear about. I suggest that, were that position to be more public, a positive message would be sent to the people of Scotland.

I think that Mr McLetchie's views are becoming infectious on that bench.

I will refrain from commenting on the breeding habits of my ministerial colleagues—foxes, chickens or otherwise— despite Miss Goldie's invitation.

I repeat that a genuinely cross-cutting approach is being taken, particularly in relation to the issue of drugs in Scotland. We are cutting across departmental lines in a way that has not happened before. We are also going out of our way to cut across agency lines in the public and private sectors to bring all the available resources to bear on the drugs problem: the Scottish advisory committee on drug misuse is meeting more frequently than it did previously; ministers are visiting all the drug action teams in Scotland to check up on the progress that is being made on implementing drug action strategies; and we are visiting agencies in the field.

Matters of profile can be addressed in the process of implementing policy, but it is for the First Minister to decide how ministerial portfolios are allocated.

---

Housing

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it intends to introduce proposals to allow local authorities to ring-fence housing stock suitable for older people from right-to-buy legislation. (S1O-444) The Minister for Communities (Ms Wendy Alexander): Under existing legislation, houses which have been specifically designed or adapted for the needs of elderly people may be exempted from the right to buy, but in the context of next year's housing bill I am willing to consider proposals for further legislation in this area.

Does the minister agree that a move towards greater flexibility for local authorities would add to their ability to ensure that elderly people can live independent lives in the community for longer? Does she agree with the Government's plans on community care in general?

I believe that specially adapted housing to meet all the needs of care in the community should remain in the socially rented sector and should be protected.

I would like to draw the minister's attention to the Greenbank proposal for a day care centre and supported housing for the elderly in Langholm in Dumfriesshire. As the project includes many partners, including Scottish Homes, will the minister encourage partnership working to produce a development that will support the strategy that she has set out many times for social inclusion and communities?

I hope that Mr Mundell will understand that, as one of the ministers who are responsible for local government, I am anxious not to encroach on that which is the responsibility of the local authority. I understand that Dumfries and Galloway Council are closely involved in examining the funding of the Greenbank project in collaboration with Scottish Homes.

When the right-to-buy legislation was dramatically changed this year, councils were notified on 21 March—10 days before the change.

Is 10 days sufficient time for councils to notify tenants of the huge losses of discount when buying council houses?

What Mary Scanlon is referring to is the change in the cost floor rules. There is a balance of interest to be struck between tenants' aspirations and returning investment to the community; the new cost floor rules do that.

Before we move to the statement, Dr Ewing wishes to make a point of order.

Will the Presiding Officer give this Parliament any protection when a minister—the Deputy Minister for Rural Affairs—makes a misstatement of fact that is easily verifiable by all of us—

No.

He cannot give us any protection? The median line has not settled the majority of water boundary cases.

Dr Ewing, ministerial answers are the responsibility of the minister, not the Presiding Officer. We come to the statement that is—

On a point of order.

Another point of order? I hope that it is a different one.

Is it in order for a minister or any member of the Parliament to cast aspersions on the democratic legitimacy of any of the members here? Twice in the past three weeks, the Deputy Minister for Rural Affairs has questioned the status of members elected from the lists rather than the constituencies.

I did not hear any such reference. I can say only that ministers, like every other member, are responsible for their own utterances. That is not a point of order for the chair.