Plenary, 09 Feb 2006

Meeting date: Thursday, February 9, 2006

Official Report 682KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-2104)

The Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.

It is appropriate for everyone here to wish all the very best to our two curling teams from Scotland who are representing the United Kingdom and to all the other Scottish athletes who are taking part in the winter Olympics in Turin, which start tomorrow night. [Applause.]

I echo that—we wish all our competitors the best of luck.

Following the case of the 11-year-old heroin user in Glasgow, the First Minister said last week that he wanted more children of drug-abusing parents to be taken into care. Is he therefore concerned that Glasgow City Council today proposes a £2 million cut in its support services for children who need care?

It is hard to comment on Glasgow City Council's proposals before its council meeting. What I said last week was very clear. Everything that I have read since last Thursday in several detailed reports of individual cases reinforces my strong view that the current balance in the system is wrong and that the provisions that should guarantee the exchange of information between the health services, schools, police forces and local authority social work departments are inadequate and are not being competently administered consistently enough throughout the country.

I am absolutely determined that for vulnerable children—not just those of drug-addicted parents, although we think of them in particular at this time—we ensure that agencies work effectively together. We gave the agencies three years to get the system right and we will inspect them now to check whether they have done that. I am also determined that we should review the policy and, if necessary, the legislation to ensure that children always come first, regardless of other circumstances.

It is all very well for the First Minister to make policy on the hoof, but does he not also have a responsibility to ask whether local authorities can deliver on his policy, given the funding crisis that they face? Should he not be concerned about a proposed 15 per cent reduction in residential care places for vulnerable kids? Should he not also be concerned about the removal of teachers from nursery schools and the replacement of a daily meals-on-wheels service for the elderly with a delivery of frozen meals once a week? Is he aware that such cuts in Glasgow—many more are proposed today—are being replicated all over Scotland? In most council areas, such cuts are to be accompanied by inflation-busting council tax rises. Will he take the opportunity to apologise to the people of Scotland for breaking his promise that council taxes this year would rise by no more than 2.5 per cent?

I do not agree that policy was being made on the hoof last Thursday. We said just over three years ago that we would give local authorities and the other agencies that are involved three years to put their child protection services in order, after which we would inspect them to ensure that they had done so. I am certain that we will fulfil that commitment in the coming months.

Secondly, it has become increasingly clear in Scotland that when the provisions of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 are being implemented, they are being interpreted in a way that leaves vulnerable children in vulnerable situations rather than leading to their being put into other forms of care. That serious development has taken place over a long period. As I said, policy is not being made on the hoof. I absolutely assure members that I am even more determined than I was last Thursday to see things through.

I will not comment on council meetings in Scotland that have not even taken place. Local authorities must answer for their budgets. It is already clear that some local authorities in Scotland will manage to keep their council tax rises below 2.5 per cent while other local authorities' council tax rises will be above that figure. People throughout Scotland will ask why some councils can keep council tax rises below 2.5 per cent while others cannot, and those people deserve an answer.

Will not most councils in Scotland have council tax increases that are well above the rate of inflation? Whatever the First Minister might say, is it not the case that most people are facing service cuts and council tax rises? Could not such a double whammy have been avoided if the First Minister had listened to the Parliament's Finance Committee, which includes members from many parties, when it identified a funding shortfall? Has not Labour achieved nine in a row—nine inflation-busting council tax hikes—since it took office? That is a shameful record. Surely it is time for the First Minister to stop arguing about which branch of the Labour Party is to blame and to say sorry to folk throughout Scotland who will feel the pain of council tax hikes.

I do not recall Miss Sturgeon saying sorry to anybody last year when Falkirk Council and Angus Council had the highest council tax increases in the country. I am sure that we would welcome her apologising for those increases.

If we want to have a serious debate, we must have serious information that backs up what we say. There will be a 3.9 per cent increase in the local authority grant throughout Scotland and more than £400 million on top of the more than £7 billion Government grant that local authorities already receive. The reality is that some local authorities have managed to ensure that their council tax increases will be below 2.5 per cent, but the figures for other local authorities will be far higher than that, and those authorities must say why that is so. The people of Scotland will ask why those authorities cannot keep their council tax increases below 2.5 per cent, but others can.

I point out to the First Minister that Falkirk Council has the second-lowest council tax and Angus Council has the fourth-lowest council tax in mainland Scotland. Perhaps he should tell his Labour colleagues to consider what those councils are doing right.

Does not the First Minister realise that the council tax will have increased by 60 per cent since 1997? Does not he understand that such a tax is unfair and bears no relation to people's ability to pay and that, as a result, massive hikes hit pensioners and hard-pressed families hardest? When will he stop making excuses? He should wake up and do something.

We know about the considerable increases in local authorities' budgets as a result of central Government funding in the past few years. There have even been increases of more than 10 per cent in real terms. Such increases have made a huge difference to the provision of services throughout Scotland and are an additional reason why local authorities should be more responsible in setting their council tax rises for the coming year. This year, local authorities have again received an increase in the Government grant that is above the rate of inflation and have again received the largest share of the budget of the national Government in Scotland. They have a duty to behave responsibly when they set local budgets. If some local authorities in Scotland can keep council tax increases below 2.5 per cent, other local authorities must say why they cannot do likewise.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues they will discuss. (S2F-2105)

I expect to see the Prime Minister again soon. We will discuss issues that are important to Scotland.

While hundreds of thousands of households throughout Scotland have anxiously awaited confirmation of their council tax increases, they have watched a public squabble between the Executive and councils. The Executive says to councils that they receive enough money from the Executive and that they should use it better, and the councils argue that the Executive ring fences a significant chunk of what it gives them and that it makes them do more and more with what is left. The real concern for the public is the size of the bill. Does the First Minister accept any responsibility for those increases?

I pose the same question to local authorities and to Scotland that I just put to the chamber. There is a case to be answered. Those authorities that have not managed to keep their council tax increase below 2.5 per cent have to answer the question, "If others can do it, why can't you?" In that context, those councils that received above-average increases in Government grant and which today impose increases at double the rate of inflation must answer the question why some authorities in Scotland can receive below-average increases in Government grant and still stay below the 2.5 per cent increase in council tax. Those important questions must be answered locally, but there are questions that can be asked nationally, too.

It is precisely this sterile blame game that the public find so infuriating—while the squabble rages, the public pay. Surely we have to move the debate on.

Does the First Minister agree that after nearly seven years of devolution, a reappraisal of the role, function and accountability of local government is overdue?

That time might be fast approaching. However, it is also important to take a stand on the issues of today. If Miss Goldie agrees with Ms Sturgeon that we should simply back down in the face of cries from local government for more and more resources, without councils exerting any pressure on their own budgets, I do not agree with her.

We have a duty as the national Government to fund local services, particularly where we specify particular improvements. We have fully funded the agreed settlement on teachers' pay and conditions; additional teachers and other improvements in education; free personal care for the elderly; the concessionary fares scheme, with which local authorities have been involved recently; and a number of other areas.

We have taken our responsibilities seriously, but I take my responsibilities very seriously in saying to local authorities that following on from that funding, they have to keep their council tax rises low. I repeat the question: if there are authorities in Scotland that can stay below 2.5 per cent, even within the current system, why cannot the others?

With reference to accountability, about which the First Minister was remarkably taciturn, I suspect that it suits him and wasteful local councils to hide behind the smokescreen of confusion. As a first step towards dispelling that confusion and restoring local accountability, will he offer a radical review of how he applies ring fencing?

Given the years and years not just of ring fencing, but of capping, specifying budgets and introducing new rules that came from a Government that was actively supported by Miss Goldie and whose return is desired by Mr Fraser, I have to say that I am proud of the actions that we have taken in this Labour and Liberal Democrat partnership Government since devolution to free up the rules on local authority capital expenditure and on local authorities themselves so that they can make local decisions on finance to ensure that they take the lead with the strategic role that they play locally.

However, with those changes come responsibilities to the local electorate who pay the tax locally. Local authorities must ensure that their budgets are efficient, that they keep rises to a minimum and that resources are targeted at front-line services. That is the challenge to local authorities in that freed-up regime.

We will continue to make progress on relaxing the rules and on giving authorities more responsibility, but they need to respond positively and deliver the efficient budgets and low council tax rises that people demand.

We come to supplementary questions. I will use my discretion to allow questions on the Shirley McKie case, but I warn members that the case is still technically active.

Will the First Minister now order a comprehensive independent inquiry into the Shirley McKie case and all the issues surrounding it? Does he not agree that the case has thrown up some issues, not least those relating to justice, the now world-wide lack of confidence in the Scottish fingerprint service and the fact that the Executive has ended up losing £2 million that could have been saved if the case had been settled at the right time?

First of all, a number of important investigations into elements of this case and, indeed, into the fingerprint provisions in Scotland have proved that the fingerprint evidence used in this country is reliable; that we can ensure that it can be used in the Scottish justice system; and that the people involved deal with it honestly and accurately. In this case, it is quite clear—and this was accepted in the settlement that was announced on Tuesday—that an honest mistake was made by individuals. I believe that all concerned have accepted that.

I think that the substantial financial settlement that was reached was appropriate and that it is right to ensure that the family are compensated for what they have gone through. However, it is entirely wrong for politicians and parliamentarians in Scotland to use this situation to run down at home and abroad a justice system in which we can have confidence.

Is the First Minister aware of my concerns that, despite this week's settlement, only one side of this campaign has ever been given any publicity, and that four public servants—three are my constituents and one is represented by Des McNulty—have had their reputations blackened, their families hurt and their careers ruined by a campaign of manipulative misinformation? How does the First Minister think that it is in the public interest to award £750,000 to a policewoman who has been cleared of perjury while the lives of four individuals, who have done nothing other than serve the public interest, have had their lives turned upside down?

I am not going to comment on individuals on either side of the situation. However, I say clearly that a settlement that I believe is fair and right in the circumstances has been reached with the McKie family. It recognises that an honest mistake was made and that they deserve compensation. All sides have accepted that. I believe that we in Scotland need to ensure that we move on from this and that the quality of work in the Scottish fingerprint service and the changes that have already been made in its administration are built upon. At the same time, we must ensure that the integrity and quality of our justice system and our confidence both in it and in its fingerprint service are maintained at home and abroad. I hope that everyone in the chamber will want to help in that respect.

---

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-2118)

I meet the Secretary of State for Scotland regularly to discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.

Three years ago, almost to the day, the Executive parties voted down my Organic Farming Targets (Scotland) Bill. At that time, the Executive made a commitment to increase the area of organically farmed land in Scotland. However, we are now in 2006 and, instead of meeting my 20 per cent target, the area of organic farmed land in Scotland has decreased, not increased. That means more chemicals in the environment, poorer water quality, less wildlife and more pesticides in our food. What is the First Minister going to do to fulfil the commitment that his Executive made to the Parliament and the electorate in 2003?

I am not sure about the position with regard to acreage, and I am happy to ensure that Mr Harper receives a written statement on the matter. However, with the commitment that has been made by Ross Finnie and other ministers and with my own personal commitment, I am absolutely certain that provisions in Scotland, including the organic aid scheme, have been increased and improved over recent years. That commitment is important not only to the environment—although that is important in itself—but to the future of farming. Indeed, the quality and reputation of Scottish farming benefit from the natural produce that we in Scotland boast about at home and abroad.

Farmers who are lucky enough to get on the organic aid scheme might get a little bit more money, but the First Minister is missing the point. Organic farming delivers for the environment, clean water, wildlife and chemical-free soils, yet the Executive has slashed the overall budget for organic farming from £8.44 million last year to £2.6 million this year—the budget is a quarter of what it was. The Executive is reneging on its commitments. What will the First Minister say to all those farmers who will be denied financial help to farm land organically because of his dismal overall budget?

I am not completely up to date with all the details, but I know that no applicant has been denied access to the scheme and that the resources that are available to those who apply are increasing. The scheme is an opportunity to expand organic farming in Scotland, and we want to encourage more farmers and others in Scotland to exploit it. We want to encourage organic farming for the environmental reasons that Mr Harper raised but also because increasing support for and participation in organic farming can improve the reputation of Scottish farming at home and abroad. That is why we remain committed to it. I do not recognise the picture that Mr Harper paints, and I will be happy to ensure that the Minister for Environment and Rural Development sends him a detailed response.

---

Utility Charges

To ask the First Minister whether discussions have taken place between the Scottish Executive and Scottish Gas in respect of proposed utility charge increases. (S2F-2110)

Ministers maintain regular dialogue with a range of energy companies to discuss how to protect vulnerable customers.

I am sure that the First Minister shares my concern over the effect that fuel price rises of possibly up to 25 per cent will have on many residents in my Dumfries constituency. It will affect people on fixed incomes, such as pensioners, and those in low-income households. Will he encourage the utility companies to extend programmes such as the winter rebate and here to help, which assist vulnerable households? Will he ensure that those schemes are publicised as widely as possible? Further, does he agree that the current situation demonstrates the perils of overreliance on one source of energy and the need to develop a balanced and self-sustaining energy policy that should not exclude the possible contribution of nuclear energy?

I urge all the utility companies to become involved in the schemes that Elaine Murray mentions and to support and expand them. I also urge them, in advance of their making final decisions or of confirming those decisions publicly, to think again about the scale of the increases that were being suggested earlier this week.

The Executive remains committed to its energy efficiency and improvement programmes in Scotland. They have led the way in the United Kingdom and have ensured that central heating is available for more old-age pensioners in Scotland. The warm deal scheme has also ensured that many low-income families in Scotland have better-insulated, more energy-efficient homes, which has helped to lift them out of fuel poverty. Those schemes have been a big success, and we are building on them, with further announcements due from the minister soon. We will ensure that we remain committed to them.

Given that a gas company such as ScottishPower has just posted a 95 per cent rise in profits this quarter, does the First Minister agree that the proposed 25 per cent increase in the price of gas is unjustified? If so, will he intercede to ensure that there is an immediate price freeze? Will he also accept the case for providing Scotland's pensioners—who are at risk from hypothermia this winter—with free fuel?

Colin Fox started well, but he fell away towards the end. I absolutely agree with him that the utility companies need to think again about such proposed large increases. I do not pinpoint particular companies, because the figures are as yet just speculation. I hope that all the companies involved will think very hard about the scale of the increases that were suggested earlier this week. However, the answer is not for Governments to start running companies or setting utilities prices. Such a system would be entirely wrong, and it has failed in the past elsewhere. However much Colin Fox may want to urge such a system on Scotland, I doubt that the people of Scotland want it from him.

---

Life Expectancy

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive has made an assessment of the impact of life expectancy on economic performance. (S2F-2119)

The link between life expectancy—in particular, healthy life expectancy—and economic performance is complex and no single, quantified assessment has yet been carried out. However, I have no doubt that more Scots living longer, healthier and more active lives is good for our economy; more important, it is good for individuals, for families, for communities and for our society.

Does the First Minister agree that much improved health promotion will help to release Scotland's hidden talent and that population trends make that policy all the more important?

It is clear that our work on health improvement is essential both for the individuals concerned and for our economy. We are taking action to reduce the number of Scots who smoke—we hope that, over time, a dramatic reduction in that number will be achieved—to tackle alcohol abuse, to improve eating habits and to encourage more people to be involved in exercise. All those measures are about personal responsibility far more than they are about the responsibilities of the state. Such action can make a difference to individual families, to communities and—in the longer term—to our economy.

It is interesting that the report that was published earlier this week highlights life expectancy and health as areas in which Scotland still lags behind comparable nations, in spite of the improvements that have been made. If we take the chance to make a further step change on that, our economy will prosper as a result.

---

National Grid (Renewable Energy)

To ask the First Minister what progress is being made in connecting renewable energy generators to the national grid. (S2F-2114)

I apologise for the fact that my answer is long, but I thought that Mr Morgan might appreciate some detail.

Our Government is committed to meeting its ambitious renewables targets from a mixed portfolio of generation. That ambition will rely on effective management of applications for grid connection. The introduction of the British electricity trading and transmission arrangements included a deadline of the end of December 2004 for applications to be guaranteed grid connection by April 2006. That led to a rush to apply and the development of a long queue. We would certainly be concerned if advanced projects—those for which planning consent had been obtained and the construction of which was ready to begin—were to be delayed unnecessarily as a result. I can confirm to Mr Morgan that we have been in touch with the grid operator, with the regulator, the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets, and with others to ensure that such grid connections are dealt with sensibly, and that we will maintain our interest in the issue.

The First Minister alluded to the fact that some projects have been given dates for getting connected to the grid of as far away as 2013. If that rate of progress is maintained, the Executive's highly commendable renewables strategy will not succeed.

At the weekend, an Executive spokesman said:

"We hope that the grid queuing system can be revised".

If we are not to be subject to the price increases and the reliance on gas that Elaine Murray mentioned, does the Executive not need to do a bit more than just hope?

We have made suggestions to the bodies involved and have had a dialogue with them about how they could improve the system that they have put in place, especially for those projects that might get connected after 2006, some of which have been told, as Alasdair Morgan said, that it will take a number of years for them to get connected. It is right for us to give the bodies that are responsible a chance to respond and to say what they will do to improve the system. I believe that improvements can be made.

The main concentration of initial applications will almost certainly be to do with wind energy, but we want a proper balance to be achieved with biomass and with other forms of renewables. Ensuring a better mix of renewables technologies and sources will involve a rearranging of the queuing system. That is what we are seeking to achieve. The fact that we hope that we have made some progress with that is a good thing rather than a bad thing.

Given the difficulties that are being experienced with the national grid, if there was to be a massive investment of public money in energy in Scotland, does the First Minister agree that the project that would give the best return on that investment would be a sub-sea cable down the west coast, which would allow us to exploit our enormous marine energy resource?

Issues arise to do with how energy generated in the islands can be transmitted down the west coast, and issues arise to do with connection to the wider grid. All those issues are under detailed consideration; they are being discussed with the companies involved and with the United Kingdom Government. I would be very happy to ensure that the Deputy First Minister and Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning is able to inform Parliament—perhaps through a submission to the Scottish Parliament information centre—of the current position of those discussions. That would be helpful for everybody.

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—