Plenary, 07 Dec 2006

Meeting date: Thursday, December 7, 2006

Official Report 791KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues they will discuss. (S2F-2598)

I have no immediate plans to meet the Prime Minister.

I remind the First Minister that, in response to previous questions, he has refused to state his view on the replacement of Trident. On 23 November, he said that it was essential to have a debate first, and that it would be wrong to state a position at the start of that debate. Sure enough, at 11 o'clock on Monday morning, the day a three-month debate was formally kicked off, the First Minister's office duly confirmed that he still had an open mind. However, at 6 o'clock on Monday, the First Minister said:

"I agree with the decision of the UK government"

to replace Trident. What were the compelling arguments that turned him from don't know to gung-ho in seven hours?

It is easier to comment on a decision after it has been made than before it is made. Ms Sturgeon may find it easy to have a preconceived position regardless of the evidence, any analysis or any proper discussion, but I take a far more serious approach to my responsibilities and to the defence of the nation.

I believe that the decision announced by the United Kingdom Government on Monday, in the light of current international circumstances, was right for two reasons. First, I do not believe in any unilateral action to disarm either Scotland or the United Kingdom. Secondly, I believe that the UK Government was right to announce that the number of warheads should be reduced, that the number of submarines on operational duty—and perhaps even the number of submarines in existence—should be reduced and that, in the next UK Parliament, there will be a further decision to be made about the future of the warheads themselves. On all those bases, I believe that the decision was right for the moment, and that it allowed further opportunities for multilateral disarmament in the future. That is right for Britain and right for the world.

Can we get this clear? What happened on Monday was that the Prime Minister told the First Minister what his view was to be, and the First Minister complied. Now that the First Minister has got a position, I would like to explore his logic just a little bit more. He also said on Monday that he believes in disarmament, and he seems to have said that again today. However, does not the Government's white paper actually make nuclear proliferation more likely, not less likely? Tony Blair says that nuclear weapons are "the ultimate insurance" and a vital element of national security. He also says that he would be prepared to use them in a first-strike attack.

My question for the First Minister is this: what does he say to other countries that cite their national security and their need for an insurance policy as justification for developing nuclear weapons of their own?

Let me again make it perfectly clear that for seven and a half years we have allowed questions on reserved matters that have an impact on Scotland, and on areas for which the First Minister has executive responsibility or on which he has taken a position.

I make it clear, as I have done before, that I lead the Labour Party in this Parliament and that, unlike Ms Sturgeon, I do not take my orders from a leader in London.

I have consistently said in this chamber that I believe that it would be wrong to have a knee-jerk reaction, particularly in advance of a decision, to universally disarm our nuclear deterrent in Scotland or in the UK. I have also said that I believe that it would be wrong to take a decision, without even looking at the evidence, to maintain the full system that is currently in place. That is why I welcome a decision that protects Scotland's and Britain's national interests in an increasingly dangerous and uncertain world. At the same time, I welcome the fact that the UK Government has decided to reduce the number of warheads by 20 per cent; to reduce, if possible, the number of submarines by 25 per cent; and to allow, as stated in the white paper, a decision to be taken in the next Westminster Parliament as to whether or not the warheads are even renewed at all.

That is the right decision for multilateral disarmament worldwide; it is the right decision in an uncertain world; and it is a decision that the Scottish National Party could never take because it is not serious about government, not serious about the defence of the nation and certainly not serious about being in Britain.

Perhaps the First Minister should remember that just one nuclear warhead can wipe out entire populations. That is why they are morally wrong.

Is it not the case that the decision to replace Trident, publicly backed on Monday by the First Minister, represents the most appalling hypocrisy? It robs the UK of any moral authority in arguing the case for non-proliferation. Is it not also the case that he is out of touch not only with the majority of Scots on this issue but with those in his own party who say in a parliamentary motion lodged yesterday that there is

"a convincing … military, economic and political"

case to be made

"for the non-renewal of Trident".

If the First Minister really believes in disarmament, should he not have the courage and honesty to make the case against new weapons of mass destruction instead of meekly following Tony Blair's line?

Ms Sturgeon's position appears to be that the world would be safer, and that it would be morally right, for only other countries to have nuclear weapons and for those countries to find it easier to use them in an increasingly dangerous and uncertain world. I believe that she is wrong and that her party is wrong.

I believe, as I have said in this chamber consistently for at least six months now, that the only way to reduce the nuclear arsenal worldwide is through multilateral action and certainly not through weakness. I believe that it is essential that Britain continues on a path begun by the previous Conservative Government—I will give it some credit for that—but maintained and pursued by the current Labour Government to reduce Britain's nuclear arsenal by 70 per cent since the time of the cold war and by 30 per cent since the election of the Labour Government in 1997. To continue down that path, to reduce the number of warheads by a further 20 per cent, to reduce the number of submarines by a further 25 per cent and to ensure that in the next Parliament at Westminster there will be a further vote on whether or not to renew the warheads—those are the right decisions for multilateral disarmament, the right decisions for the security of our nation and the right decisions in an increasingly uncertain and dangerous world.

May I remind the First Minister that—

On a point of order. Presiding Officer, you have just made a ruling that questions may be put to the First Minister when the First Minister has made his position public in a public statement. That is fair enough. However, it is quite clear from the First Minister's responses now that he is speaking as the leader of the Labour Party and not as the First Minister of Scotland in this coalition. Would you make that quite clear please?

Those are matters for the coalition and, if you are patient, Mr Rumbles, you will find that the issue may be taken care of in just a minute.

I remind the First Minister that eight countries in the world have nuclear weapons, and 180 countries in the world do not have nuclear weapons. I want Scotland to be in the majority.

The real difference between the First Minister and the SNP is that he is happy for £25 billion to be wasted on nuclear bombs, whereas we want that money to be spent on better schools for our children, better pensions for our old folk and a better health service for all. He is for weapons of mass destruction; we stand for building a better Scotland for all. Is that not why more and more people now want an SNP Government?

If the SNP believed in better schools, better health care and improvements for our young people, it would not support the abolition of public-private partnerships, the ending of the school-building programme, the ending of the hospital-building programme and the many other improvements that we see in the fabric of our public services in Scotland; and it would support new school buildings, new hospitals, new health centres and—yes, Mr MacAskill—new prisons as well.

If the SNP believed that we needed resources in this country to spend on education, health, tackling crime and so on, it would not even support independence for Scotland, because it would not want the Scottish budget to be cut by billions of pounds as a result of the loss of the union dividend; it would not want Scotland's economy made weaker because the companies in Scotland that trade with the rest of the United Kingdom had more barriers in place for that trade; and it would not want the family ties that exist in the United Kingdom disaggregated by the creation of a foreign country on our borders. That would be inappropriate in the 21st century when interdependence should be the value that we hold dear.

Will the First Minister confirm that the answers on Trident that he has just given have been expressed by him as leader of the Labour Party in Scotland and that there is no collective agreement or collective responsibility among members of his Executive on the position on Trident that he has adopted? Will he also accept that many people—not just in my party—believe that the decision on Trident has been rushed and that no decision needs to be taken until 2014?

The First Minister said that we live in an "uncertain and dangerous world". Where does he think that our independent nuclear deterrent should be targeted?

As the Prime Minister made clear this week and as others have made clear, with much common sense, any indication of where and in what circumstances our nuclear deterrent would be targeted would be foolhardy. No Government has ever given such an indication and it would be wrong for Government to do so on this occasion.

I am very happy to confirm not only that I am speaking as leader of the Labour Party in the Parliament and that there is no collective responsibility among Labour and Liberal Democrat ministers on the issue, but that I regard the decision as one that is rightly made by the Westminster Parliament. It is a decision for the United Kingdom Government to take and it is for members of this Parliament on all sides and in all parties legitimately to express their view on the decision. I am happy to express my view, having taken some stick during the past six months for taking a considered approach to the issue and listening to the evidence, and for taking a view on the basis of the evidence and the actual decision that was made. I will defend my position on that basis.

I want to make it clear that I expect people in my own party as well as in the Executive to speak from their consciences and to speak their own minds. We live in a democracy, and I want people to do that.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

I apologise, Presiding Officer. I disagree fundamentally with what the First Minister said, but that is not why I got to my feet. The First Minister said that he was speaking as leader of the Labour Party. This is First Minister's question time, not Labour Party leader's question time.

As I said, the answers are not matters for me, although the questions are. That is a matter for the coalition.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-2599)

At next week's meeting the Cabinet will discuss issues that are not only important to Scotland but the responsibility of this Parliament.

Earlier this week, the Scottish Executive, or what passes for the remains of it, announced its national transport plans. I say, "plans", but the announcement amounted to yet another glossy brochure that said nothing at all. The Executive committed to delivering the existing programme—how bold is that?—taking forward another strategic review and publishing yet more plans. Can the First Minister tell me what specific new proposals—or proposal; one will do—he has?

There were significant new proposals, particularly in relation to buses, in the plans that were announced earlier this week, which will be welcomed by people the length and breadth of Scotland, who want improved bus services. I congratulate the Minister for Transport for negotiating those arrangements and for making sure that they are going to happen.

I want to make this absolutely clear. If Annabel Goldie does not believe that it is bold to build new trains and new railways, for example between Stirlingshire and Fife, the Borders and Edinburgh and Airdrie and Bathgate, or that it is bold to support a new tram system for Edinburgh, which will reduce congestion and make life easier and more convenient for everyone in the city, or that it is bold and important for us in the 21st century to have a rail link between our capital city and its airport—perhaps she shares the SNP's view on that—or that the many other actions that are being taken on roads, on increasing direct flights in and out of our airports, on improving bus services and on improving freight on our railways are bold measures, she has a funny view of transport strategy and transport policy.

Miss Goldie did not ask for a history lesson on proposals that are already in the public domain; Miss Goldie asked for a specific new proposal. Let me give the First Minister a true reflection of the Scottish Executive's transport record. The Executive froze the extensive Conservative programme and then reinstated bits of it—big deal. Scotland wants to know about the First Minister's stance on big issues such as a fast rail link between Edinburgh and Glasgow and, perhaps most important, the Forth road bridge. Will he tell us exactly what he plans to do about a new Forth crossing and when he plans to do it?

I have made it clear that those, from Fife and elsewhere, who use the Forth bridge will not be left without a crossing. I make it very clear indeed to Miss Goldie and others that the Executive's current plans to invest in new railways, roads, direct flights in and out of Scotland, improved bus services, freight transport by rail, trams in Edinburgh and, in particular, a railway from our capital city to its airport, are commitments that are looking forward, because they are not in place at present. Of course they are commitments for the future and they are all budgeted for and will all be put in place. Only by re-electing those who are at present responsible for that programme will Scotland move forward on transport, because it is clear that the Conservatives and the nationalists would not be committed to the same improvements in Scotland's transport system.

Rather than say every week that he has made his position clear, why does the First Minister not just actually make his position clear? After eight years, I would have thought that the Executive would be beyond publishing expensive brochures that promise only more expensive brochures. The 2002 transport delivery plan promised a car park and a roundabout and we thought that we were short-changed then, but the 2006 version does not even give us that. Ten years ago, the then Conservative Government had identified and secured ground for a crossing over the Forth. Is it not about time that the Executive stopped waffling and got on with the business at hand, including immediate work on a new crossing for the Forth?

As I said in the past in answer to a similar question, those who think that we can design a bridge without first carrying out a technical survey are losing the plot completely. Let there be absolutely no doubt that we will not leave the people of Fife or the east of Scotland—in particular, those of the north-east—without the ability to cross the Forth. Anybody with any common sense would be able to work that out.

The important point is the commitment in the transport strategy to the direction of travel—funnily enough, that might just be important in a transport strategy. We set out clear objectives to improve journey times and connections, to reduce emissions and to improve quality, accessibility and affordability. It is important to have those objectives at the core of our transport strategy, unlike the Conservative's so-called transport strategy back in 1997. It is precisely because of those objectives that we commit to spending 70 per cent of our investment in transport on public transport and commit not only to the new railways from Stirling to Fife, in the Borders and from Airdrie to Bathgate, but to the investment in trams, our airport rail links, new direct flights in and out of Scotland and new bus services. There is also the improvement in the quality of bus services to which we also committed this week. All those issues matter in Scotland, which is why our transport strategy is grounded in reality and practical action, not just in the warm words of the Tories from 10 years ago.

---

Volunteering (Children's and Young People's Activities)

To ask the First Minister what measures the Scottish Executive is taking to encourage people to volunteer to help with sport and other activities involving children and young people. (S2F-2611)

We are encouraging people to volunteer in sport and other activities through project Scotland, the active schools programme and other initiatives.

Is the First Minister aware that, at a recent meeting of the cross-party group on sport, which was attended by representatives of various sports bodies and voluntary organisations, concern was expressed that the Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Bill might deter many good people from volunteering to work with children and young people? I accept that the protection of children is paramount, but does the First Minister agree that children would be the losers if there were not sufficient volunteers? Will the Executive therefore consider whether the £100 million bureaucracy that will be created by the bill is the best way in which to protect children?

We have to have an appropriate balance in relation to the important role of volunteers in the community. We would all agree that, since the demise of school sports in the mid-1980s, fewer volunteers have been involved in sport in communities and it is imperative for the future of our country that we involve more and more people in that area. However, we need to strike a balance between that aim and protecting children. There have been examples, including in the area of sports, of young people being abused by people who were looking after them.

Getting that balance right is the objective of the legislation that is before Parliament. We want to reduce bureaucracy and make it easier for people to volunteer while reassuring parents that people who are volunteering in the community have been checked.

Ministers will, of course, listen to all representations that are made on the bill and will respond to those who make them. In addition, however, I urge members not to have an immediate response to some of the more frightening reactions to the initial proposals in the bill. It is important that we keep our eyes on the streamlining of the process and bear in mind the occasions when people slipped through the net because the procedures in the bill were not in place.

If we are going to have more volunteers in sport in the community, we will also need more facilities. In that regard, I warmly welcome the announcement by the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport that we will be providing £7 million for a new community stadium in Aberdeen. That is long overdue and will be good for that city and the whole of the north-east of Scotland.

I also welcome that announcement.

Is the First Minister aware that, if the Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Bill goes ahead in its present form, about 1 million people—that is, about a quarter of Scotland's adult population—will have to go through disclosure checks and that any criminal record that such people have might be disclosed, even if it is completely irrelevant to working with children and other vulnerable people?

In view of the limited legislative timetable that is available between now and the May election, will the First Minister consider shelving the bill until the full implications have been thought through and a better system of protecting children and other vulnerable people can be introduced at a later date?

If the bill were shelved unnecessarily and, six months or nine months later, an incident involving a youngster occurred that could have been avoided if the legislation had been in place, we would all regret that—all of us in this Parliament would, no matter what our views on the Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Bill.

The serious way in which to handle this issue is to listen to the representations, take them on board, answer the questions that require to be answered and make any adjustments that are required—all the while ensuring that, at the end of the day, Scotland's children are properly protected. Our objective is to create a proportionate, balanced system that puts the interests of the children first. When ministers respond to the discussions that are currently taking place in the committee, they will have in mind the fact that, while speed is important, it is not of the essence. What is essential is that we get the legislation right.

---

Disabled Access (Public Buildings)

To ask the First Minister what action can be taken to ensure that full and easy access to public buildings is available for disabled people. (S2F-2605)

The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 requires those who provide services to the public to make reasonable adjustments to the physical features of premises in order to allow access for disabled people. Scottish building standards include provisions to make new or renovated buildings accessible, and these will be strengthened further from May 2007.

I am sure that the First Minister is aware of the recent Sunday Mail investigation into disabled people's access to existing buildings. With the help of a team of wheelchair users, the Sunday Mail found that, in parts of Scotland, people cannot get into shops, post offices, railway stations, housing offices, libraries and town halls. In some cases, astonishingly, people cannot get into hospitals. However, in other parts of Scotland there is excellent access to many public facilities, including the Glasgow Royal Concert Hall, which was singled out for special mention.

Will the First Minister do what he can to encourage the best possible standards of access and ensure that they are the norm in buildings so that disabled people can truly access all areas?

There are two issues here. The first is personal behaviour, about which I will say two things. First, people who do not have disabled badges should not use disabled parking spaces and they are wrong to do so. I hope that people will take more personal responsibility for that choice throughout Scotland. Secondly, one of the reasons that some people give for doing that is their perception that the badges are misused, so those who have badges should ensure that they are used properly and consistently. In that way, we will have buy-in from all sections of the community to what is an important procedure and policy.

The second issue is the consistency of the application of byelaws and other measures throughout the country. Although we do not have a position yet on Jackie Baillie's proposed bill, I welcome the fact that she has initiated the debate. There is a debate to be had, but we need to think carefully about what the conclusions should be.

---

Flooding

To ask the First Minister what steps are being taken to ensure that the risk of flooding for communities is reduced. (S2F-2603)

We have increased resources for flood prevention in Scotland from £4 million in 1999-2000 to £42 million in 2007-08, so there has been a tenfold increase in resources since devolution. Funding is made available for flood prevention schemes submitted by local authorities that meet the Executive's criteria. Since 1999, 20 such schemes have been completed, and recently we increased the grant rate to meet 80 per cent of the eligible costs and encourage more local authorities to submit schemes.

The First Minister will be aware that the past week has been an anxious time for many communities that are at risk of flooding, given the number of flood warnings that are in place. He might also be aware that the number of severe flood warnings in 2005 exceeded the total number in the previous five years, since the warnings system was put in place.

Does the First Minister agree that it is now time to carry out a thorough review of flood prevention in Scotland with a view to expediting the process for getting schemes up and running and making sure that the appropriate funding is in place? Is he aware that in Moray, even with an 80 per cent contribution from the Government, the need to find the remaining 20 per cent from taxpayers' money is crippling the local authority, which has to divert money from other budgets? Does he agree that that is unacceptable and that the system puts an unfair burden on Moray, which has severe flooding problems?

We had a review and we now have a national flooding strategy, which is the right thing to have. It was important to put that in place. It is absolutely right that we have increased the budget tenfold in the past eight years, and it also right that spending on flood prevention at the local level is initiated by local authorities. They should be in touch with their communities and should make decisions democratically and locally before they come forward with appropriate technical proposals. The funding is split 80:20 to reflect the funding split for local authorities in general revenue, with 80 per cent coming from Government grants and 20 per cent being raised locally. That is the right split.

One of the worst things that could happen in the next few years for local authorities such as Moray Council would be for the local government budget in Scotland to be reduced by £1 billion, as Ms Sturgeon proposed recently, with a capped local income tax. That would reduce the resources that are available to Moray Council and others and it would probably lead to flooding schemes not going ahead.

---

Central Heating Programme (Scottish Gas)

To ask the First Minister what action it is taking to address the backlog of work that Scottish Gas inherited when it was awarded the contract for the central heating programme. (S2F-2600)

Officials in Communities Scotland have regular meetings with Scottish Gas to ensure that those who are eligible under the programme have the work carried out as quickly as possible. I understand that the targets will be met by 31 March. The communities ministers will meet Scottish Gas shortly to discuss progress with the programme.

Will the First Minister confirm that, of the 6,000 or so central heating systems due to be installed by Scottish Gas between 1 October and the end of March 2007 under the new contract—in other words, 1,000 systems per month—fewer than 100 gas central heating systems and almost no electrical central heating systems have been installed in the past two months? What is he going to do to speed up the delivery of the programme, particularly outside the central belt of Scotland, where virtually no systems have been installed?

As I said, Communities Scotland is having regular meetings with Scottish Gas to speed up delivery and ensure that there is progress with the programme. The communities ministers will meet Scottish Gas soon to discuss the progress that is being made on programme as we move towards the end of March and the end of the financial year. We have a commitment from Scottish Gas that all the central heating systems that can be installed by the end of March under the current budget will be installed. It is precisely because of the demand for the systems that we have increased the budget by £5 million to ensure that more people have central heating this winter than would otherwise have been the case. That is, of course, a decision that will be implemented.

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—